$120k for living next to a criminal

IT is definitely no garden variety divorce and even the judge labelled it "bitterly fought".

The marriage of two childhood sweethearts unravelled when they had the "misfortune" of living next door to one of Australia's most notorious criminals.

The identity of the criminal involved was not revealed in the recent Federal Circuit Court property judgment where he was known as "Mr J".

But Judge Philip Burchardt said "stress and anxiety" over having "Mr J" as a neighbour in 2002 was enough to earn the couple a $120,000 compensation payout.

"The family home was used for surveillance by the police which became known to 'Mr J' who then made death threats," Judge Burchardt said.

"In the ultimate in 2004 the parties received $120,000 as a result of an action brought by them against the Victorian Government based on these events.

"Scarcely surprisingly, they had to move from the home."

Following the payout, the couple's troubled marriage broke up, and the wife lapsed into alcohol abuse while looking after their three school-age children.

"The husband asserted that the wife's difficulties became significant in 1999 whereas the wife said that she fell into difficulties in 2002, not least because of stress associated with 'Mr J' and the death of one of her parents," Judge Burchardt said.

"This is a bitterly fought property dispute.

"That agreement has not been reached is not surprising when you consider the positions of the parties."

Judge Burchardt ruled in favour of giving the wife a 62.5/27.5 split of their property after hearing of her stints in rehab.

She spent 28 days in rehab for alcohol abuse in 2002, with her most recent stay this year.

"Absent the wife's alcohol related difficulties this would be a classic 50/50 case," he said.

"The parties co-mingled their finances it would appear from their late teens at the latest and were in a relationship for 30 years.

"Their fortunes waxed and waned as people's do. The husband certainly worked very hard and he, for many years, undertook a second job.

"He has plainly committed himself in the most commendable way to his family's future.

"Likewise, the wife, as the family consultant recorded, looked after the home, brought up the children and worked as best she was able throughout."

View the original article here

A-G backs revealing past criminal acts

SUPPORT: Attorney-General Jarrod Bleijie. Picture: Peter Wallis Source: The Courier-Mail

QUEENSLAND could be the first state in Australia to hear the past convictions of defendants after the Attorney-General opened the door to the radical reform.

Chief Justice Paul de Jersey yesterday used a speech to argue for the overhaul, sparking criticism from some legal sectors but praise from Attorney-General Jarrod Bleijie.

Mr Bleijie was among few voices to lend support to the Supreme Court judge, and within hours of his speech Mr Bleijie said he would consider the proposal.

"I am encouraged by the Chief Justice's willingness to express his views on legislative reform in the public arena," Mr Bleijie told The Courier-Mail.

"He brings a unique perspective as a representative of neither the prosecution nor the defence, and I look forward to the community debate on these issues.

"There is no doubt that these contemporary, and some may say controversial reforms, would require a large mind shift of those practising in criminal law in Queensland.

Allowing for criminal histories to be made available to juries, allowing judges to explain the concept of reasonable doubt and requiring defence counsel to disclose their case prior to the commencement of a trial, some could argue, would allow for greater transparency in criminal trials."

REFORM: Queensland Chief Justice Paul de Jersey.

However, Australian Council for Civil Liberties president Terry O'Gorman said he was concerned and surprised by the Chief Justice's speech, which was exclusively revealed by The Courier-Mail.

"In my 35 years I have never seen it. The Chief Justice has effectively climbed down from the bench and started a political debate about law and order," Mr O'Gorman said.

"The Chief Justice is to stay above the fray of controversy and political debate, not start it." Several criminal lawyers also voiced concerns.

The legal community and victims groups yesterday lined up to have their say on the issue, with some claiming a change could send innocent people to jail.

Chris Nyst, spokesman for Griffith University's Innocence Project, which rallies against wrongful convictions, warned against any moves to undo the centuries-old convention.

"I cannot think of a single reason to admit prior convictions other than to . . . prejudice and stigmatise the accused by introducing information that has no relevance to the issues the jury is required to determine," adjunct Professor Nyst said.

Queensland Bar Association president Roger Traves said he was cautious about the proposal.

Bravehearts criminologist Carol Ronken said it was "100 per cent behind Chief Justice de Jersey".

The Queensland Police Union said it appreciated the Chief Justice raising the issue "as it is certainly worthy of debate and has many facets and consequences, both intended and unintended, that we as a community can explore further".

View the original article here