Friday, June 20, 2008

Sickening development in the Sydney Rapists (an appeal)

Two Sydney brothers serving lengthy jail terms for rape are appealing against their convictions and sentences on the grounds of excessive publicity.
*Bilal Skaf's lawyer has told the Court of Criminal Appeal his client did not get a fair trial because of excessive publicity surrounding the case. (*Wiki link)

He said the publicity was expressed in racial and religious terms, and it etched Bilal Skaf in infamy as a gang-rape leader.

The court has heard some of the publicity was around at the time of the Cronulla riots.

The court was told the publicity was so damaging, no direction by a judge would have stopped prejudice against Bilal Skaf.

His defence lawyer also argued that one of his victims did not suffer any actual physical injury so his crime in that case is not in the worst category.

These two are rapists. Common criminals. Convicted, and well proven to have carried out the crime they were charged with. I'm probably not allowed to call a lawyer gutter crawling scum.

Skaf appealing because victim didn't suffer 'physical injury'

Rapist Bilal Skaf pleads 'unfair' treatment

3 comments:

splice said...

A gang-rape leader gets etched in infamy as a gang-rape leader!

How could this happen?

We can only conclude that nothing will improve until justice is etched in history as just!

[/truism]

Wand said...

An interesting case with a spurious argument. And some theatre at tax payer’s expense!

So who is his counsel, Andrew Haesler SC? Why he’s the Deputy Public Defender ! Check out his background from some of the links from the Google search.

And some theatre perhaps? From the story in the Telegraph. “Dressed in prison greens and under an escort of half a dozen guards, Skaf sat quietly in the dock, rising once to confer with his solicitor.”

How often does a defendant appear in prison greens? So what’s this? A poor victim of the court system?

I have no sympathy for him, and neither apparently do his fellow inmates, but I do wonder if something else is going on. Here we have the taxpayer funded Deputy Public Defender mounting a second appeal against the severity of the sentence on spurious grounds. Has a deal been done with a particular group in our society? Or is a particular group in our society attempting to abuse our legal system through constant appeals (in this case)? (Shades of Canada) Was a position taken some time back to revisit the matter after the publicity had died down?

Now it could be that the Public Defender is obliged to defend, but surely not if the case did not have sufficient merit. And of course the court would have to agree to hear the case.

The wikipedia entry reminded me of the shenanigans of this man and his family which don’t fit with the current appeal.

Hmmm.

Boy on a bike said...

"no physical injury".

Presumably because he has a very small cock.

A micro-penis perhaps?