Prev
Next

Offender gets four years while victim gets life

Cathy Kezelman

by Cathy Kezelman

01 Sep 05:55am

Must Reads

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project - this is a caption

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project

76

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics - this is a caption

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

66

Please enter your password - this is a caption

Please enter your password

41

Filed under: Justice, Paedophilia, Sentencing, Sexual Offenders

75 comments

For a person whose innocence is stolen as a child and whose life has been irrevocably damaged, what constitutes justice?

Malcolm Fox with wife Mem yesterday. Photo: Greg Higgs

Last month, Malcolm Fox was convicted of four counts of unlawful sexual intercourse. These crimes were perpetrated by him – a drama teacher - against a student who trusted and admired him. Today, a four-year sentence with a two year non-parole period was handed down.  Fox is to appeal this decision. 

The victim’s sentence is life. But for the perpetrator, it’s four years.

The victim’s impact statement, which was read in court, revealed a 43-year-old man who has spent most of his life battling depression, multiple suicide attempts and hospitalisations. He has struggled with addictive behaviours including drug use, alcohol and gambling. As with other victims one would assume these addictions have been acquired in an attempt to numb the pain and horror of his teacher’s sexual abuse.

It raises the question, on what basis can a sentence of four years be entirely suspended?

The court has heard that the victim had trusted Fox with his darkest secret, confiding that he had been previously sexually assaulted at the hands of another perpetrator. Fox did not report that prior abuse, nor inform the victim’s parents. Instead, he used that information to his own ends, grooming the already traumatised and confused adolescent and exploiting his victim’s vulnerability for his own sexual gratification. 

No child is ever responsible for being abused. Malcolm Fox was in a position of authority, trust and power and he betrayed that position.

Judge Gordon Barrett said Fox’s offense against the 17-year-old in the 1980s was a serious breach of trust. However, he said Fox deserved mercy in sentencing.

The judge pointed to Fox’s poor psychological and physical health, long and distinguished career of public service, adding that he had ‘‘suffered’’ significant media attention during his trial.

Those factors, Judge Barrett said, warranted the suspension of Fox’s four-year prison term.

The victim in his impact statement further highlighted the impact of the abuse he suffered – his inability to complete his education, to reach his full career potential, and his relationship struggles with family and friends. 

“It’s always felt unfair his life has continued normally while I was left with the legacy of his betrayal,” the victim stated.

Fox has claimed that the victim had ‘stolen his reputation’, but Fox did that to himself when he committed his crimes and engaged in unlawful sexual intercourse with an adolescent. Don’t we need to focus on the real victim in this case? So what degree of accountability has been demanded by our justice system for the perpetrator?

“Carrying this secret for so long has been exhausting and I always felt it was unfair that his life continued normally while I was left with the legacy of his betrayal,” the victim said.

“It has taken me years to overcome the legacy of betrayal that Malcolm Arthur Fox caused.”

The judge found that incarceration would mean that Fox’s mental health would suffer. It has reportedly been alleged that Fox has been suffering depression since the charges were laid.  Given he has been found guilty of those charges Fox’s depression would appear to have been precipitated as a result of his own actions.

One would assume that consideration in sentencing should be given to the impact of the crime including the years of depression and multiple suicide attempts the innocent victim suffered.

I believe the fact this ‘high profile’ case has attracted media attention should be irrelevant. Crimes have been committed regardless of who perpetrated them, who was victimised and what has been reported.

The judge found that imprisonment would be ‘more difficult’ for Fox than for others. It seems however that the victim’s lifetime struggle and the difficulty he has had daily living the life he deserved has counted for little.

In my opinion, the fact that Fox had been alleged to have performed a service to the public and had a number of character references should also be irrelevant to the fact that a crime was committed.

History is full of perpetrators of crime whose friends and work colleagues have attested to their good name.

As a society we minimise the impacts on victims. Child sexual assault offends our sensibilities and so we would rather deny its existence and its often devastating repercussions. The story this victim tells is horrific but it is one mirrored by innumerable victims around the world.

It takes enormous courage for a victim of child sexual assault to overcome their own feelings of shame and self-blame. To have the courage and intestinal fortitude to deal with their issues sufficiently to lay charges. To speak out about their abuse and reveal their public shame in a court for all to hear. To undergo the protracted legal processes of delay and further delay; to have their testimony scrutinized and the very core of their betrayal questioned. And face invalidation and humiliation. To face up to the very person who stole their childhood and their innocence.

Pieta Thornton, a colleague and founder of Victims and Witnesses of Crime Court Support has shared her dismay and shock at this sentence. She has stated that this outcome has made her question ever recommending that any victim reports their crime of child sexual assault to the police. This is not to say that the police won’t conduct a thorough investigation and treat the victim with the utmost respect - they do.  It is about what happens to the victim once the matter gets to court.

How can one, in all conscience, recommend that a victim open themselves up to a system and a process in which victims are re-traumatised and which may result in a suspended sentence. She and her fellow workers support victims of crime every day in their work. However she like us in ASCA must question the process in our courts which can result in such an outcome.

We appreciate only too well the effects of not reporting these crimes. Sexual offenders characteristically have multiple victims and child sexual assault often has devastating effects on victims, families and communities.

As it is a small percentage of these crimes are reported. The process is simply too harrowing. Further non-reporting undoubtedly will mean more victims will be left struggling and fewer perpetrators will be held to real account.

If perpetrators are not sentenced to jail time for crimes for which they have been found guilty why would any victim subject themselves to such a punishing process? It is time to take a long hard look at these systems and institute changes which will see that victims are vindicated.

For support for adult survivors of child abuse call Adults Surviving Child Abuse on 1300 657 380 Mon-Fri, 9-5, or visit their website.

Most commented

431Australia, you have nothing to fear but fear itself
390There's no one Thomson won't burn to save his skin
336Animal experiments won't cure me from cancer
313Thomson didn't answer the question everyone is asking
266Who murdered the Arts degree?
246A big day for Thomson, who thus far is guilty of nothing...
231South Australia. It's the middle bottom bit.
231Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia...

75 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Lostie says:

      06:25am | 01/09/11

      I wont point to the obvious problems will determining “truth” on the say so of 12 disinterested, under paid individuals. This is a presumption that one must accept in the modern legal system. In the absence of an alternative, it is a presumption that must be maintained.

      This does not mean that “they said therefore maximum penalty” is a reasonable response either - it screams revenge, punish, hurt. Nothing that is actually going to change the suffering that the first person suffered, only satisfy their blood lust for to hurt someone in return. Personally, I am thankful that the days of judicial vengence are long behind us.

      That is not to say that conviction and sentencing should not reflect the harm caused. They should. However consideration needs to be given to the rehabilitative and deterrent consequences as well as the consequences on other innocent parties (such as family of the accused).

      There is no suggestion that rehabilitation is at issue here, the deterrent comes from the risk of getting caught (reports on inmates in the USA suggest that the risk of getting caught is generally a greater deterrent than the actual penalty that is incurred - in short, individuals commit crime because they don’t expect to get caught, not because the penalty is “worth it”). So the simple point of incarceration in this case is revenge. There is no suggestion that the person will reoffend, so the public need not be protected from the individual. It all hinges on revenge, punishment, vengence. If those are the thoughts of the victim, the victim needs counselling - they certainly do not need to be taught that “revenge is my right as a victim”.

      I will admit that I know nothing about the case at hand - I tend to ignore articles on such things insofar as they are composed only to titillate a bored public and increase revenue. Nothing is actually gained by the public knowing this case as distinct from any other - but by throwing in the name of a person with whom some Australians may be familiar a story is sold. 

      I would also turn to the “it is a small percentage of these crimes that are reported [to police]” - this is a claim that is often wheeled out but is almost impossible to support and equally difficult to refute. It assumes that claims of sexual assault are true (therefore assumes the guilt of a perpetrator) without any evidence required to support the claims. I don’t doubt that some genuine assault victims do not report the fact of their assault to police, however evidence suggests (both in the acquittal rate and in the number of claims that are reported but proceedings are not commenced) that a significant number of claims are simply unsupported by evidence. It requires an unjustified leap of faith (and the dismissal of the presumption to which I referred earlier) to conclude that the number of claims made in any way reflects the number of assaults that actually occur.

      Reply

    • Sceptic says:

      07:19am | 01/09/11

      So wrong on so many levels.

    • Mahhrat says:

      07:37am | 01/09/11

      You don’t know anything, yet you wrote 505 words on it.

      Shit mate you must be a parliamentary speech writer.

    • Di Pearton says:

      07:40am | 01/09/11

      Not “revenge is my right as a victim” but justice is my right as a victim- the very basis of civilisation.

    • stephen says:

      08:03am | 01/09/11

      Your assertion that those who commit crimes do not expect to get caught is wrong.
      They do, and the smart ones conjur up false alibis and ameliorating circumstances even before the act is committed.
      Every smart crim knows deep down that they will get done. It’s only a matter of time, and the length and severity of the sentence is proportionate to the skill of a good lawyer.
      (The best criminals have a pool of lawyers whom they can trust.)
      Revenge is not the only motive, (though up to a point, it’s good enough.)
      Serious crimes like this one, and murder, take away civilizing moments.
      We read about the circumstances and every sane person would feel less human because of it.
      Severe punishment then is for not only the victim but for everybody.
      We demand justice.
      It is our right.

    • Fiddler says:

      08:07am | 01/09/11

      the sad fact of the matter is that an unknown number of sexual assaults are unreported. Sadly most of the (adult) ones reported to the police are false or doubtful

    • Phil says:

      08:18am | 01/09/11

      Dont know where to start on how wrong you are really.

      Maybe its just an epic trolling effort as I cant fathom anyone could be this stupid or believe anything you’ve posted Lostie.

      You are everything that is wrong with society which lets scum get away with these things.

    • Kika says:

      08:58am | 01/09/11

      Lostie - so what? What are you trying to say? That child abusers SHOULDNT be incarcerated??  But it’s ok to lock away armed robbers, drug dealers and others from the ranks of society’s filth? But because the offenders in your case are white collared people with money behind them to fund appropriate appeals and defences? Get real. You sicken me.

    • Tubesteak says:

      09:01am | 01/09/11

      Lostie

      This is the usual philosophy of the criminal justice system It’s not there for revenge, but for justice. It seems many people responding to you have confused these terms.

      If this guy does spend any time in gaol then he will be a target and he will cop the same abuse many times over.

      Moreover, his life is now over. His friends will disown him. His family will do the same. His earning capacity is shot.

      No sentence will ever undo the crime or repatriate the victim.

    • MarkS says:

      09:11am | 01/09/11

      @ Lostie
      I agree

      To the others who objected, why is it that the worst the crime the readier people are to assume guilt, indeed to assume crimes when none have been reported?

      On the other hand the sentence on the infomation provided does seem too lax. Justice does not appear to have been seen to be done. But Lostie did not say otherwise.

    • Lostie says:

      09:24am | 01/09/11

      @Di Pearton - What is this justice of which you speak. We can’t even agree on what is a just outcome. Because it is meaningless tripe dished up without thought it translates into “I am not happy therefore it is unjust”. Or like our jury above, is it simply if the majority say that something is “just” then it is?

      It’s all well and good to wheel out the phrase “justice”, but you give it no meaning - how is imprisonment giving justice? What does that mean to you? What frame of reference sets a number of years of imprisonment against the crime? How do you balance the reality that the sentence would have been more serious had he been convicted closer to the time of the alleged offence where the social trend against homosexuality was much stronger - is that “fair”? Since being caught in a more liberal environment will undoubtedly have influenced the penalty imposed.

      I sincerely doubt that you will consider your definition of justice, it’s far easier to go on saying “I know what justice is, Lostie is just some nutter on the internet that doesn’t know anything about anything.”. Of course, If you conclude that a victim should have a right to revenge, I disagree. But at least I would respect your courage in making a clear statement of what you actually mean when you say “justice”.

      @Stephen: You may well be right. Personally I have no connection (so far as I know) with persons who would plan criminal endeavours with the expectation of getting caught. Instead, rather than anecdotal evidence, I based my conclusion on studies conducted on convicted persons. far an away there was no ‘planning’, it was a crime of opportunity (and this is true of most physical crimes, less so for other crimes such as fraud). As such there was no ‘planning’, nor ‘anticipation’ of getting caught. They saw a chance to do what they wanted to do and did it. Their only thought being “I now have a chance to do [act] and no one can see me do it”.

      But I would be intrigued to read research that supports your claim.

    • TChong says:

      09:45am | 01/09/11

      I think Lotsies final paragraph is correct about accusations in general.
      In our society, it appears that an accusation is almost considered proof in itself.
      I ‘m sure we can all recall some particularly infamous events where hi profile sportsmen have been accussed, and treated as criminal, despite little , or no evidence.
      Would anyone like to be in a situation where an accussers word is all thats needed to convict ?
      The rights of the victim have to be seen in conjunction with the right to presumed innocence , of the accused, until PROVEN otherwise.

    • Kika says:

      10:41am | 01/09/11

      TChong - because with assault how often do you GET evidence. It’s just two people usually, no witnesses, one word against the other and often the crime is reported well after the fact after all DNA evidence is lost.  Of course there will always be false accusations, but because our justice system, particularly the criminal justice system, is based on the Crown being able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty - if there is no ‘proof’, there is no guilt.

    • Lostie says:

      10:46am | 01/09/11

      @Kika - I didn’t say that persons who commit these crimes should not be incarcerated. But I do think that there is a point at which the incarceration becomes pointless for pretty much the reasons that Tubesteak points out below.

      Instead of making this person become a drain on the public coffers, detained at the pleasure of her majesty, leave him to suffer the consequences of his behaviour - lost friends, lost future. This man is in his later years - based on average life expectancy he has less than 10 years to go. What benefit (beyond revenge) is served?

      Had he been caught closer to the time, or at a younger age, I would perhaps agree.

      The injustice is that he was not caught for all this time. The injustice cannot be resolved by imposing a penalty now that would have been imposed if he had been caught at the time.

      My point is that the punitive nature of imprisonment must have proximity to the alleged offence to have any relevance. When you dishing out a penalty so far in the future (20 plus years) one must accept that justice is gone. It becomes a focus on punishment and revenge.

      Everything that this man has is gone, everything that a person of his age values is gone - he will lose friends, family the respect of his peers. He will lose money (in employing his lawyers). Taking anything further, at this late stage, is without benefit.

      I would also suggest that the matter would have been different if the victim had made the complaint at the time rather than some 20 years later. By electing to remain silent, one forgoes that right to ‘justice’, one awards their attacker their liberty. Whatever their motive for remaining silent, they deny themselves access to the opportunity to see justice as being done.

    • Leto says:

      12:40pm | 01/09/11

      My comment went up, and then magically disappeared!

      Let’s try again. Firstly, I do not view 17 year olds as children. There is no supernatural transition from a 17 year old ‘child’ to an 18 year old ‘adult’.

      Why must we continue to treat our teenagers as simpletons who need to be shielded from anything and everything is beyond me. We end up with what we have now, a generation of adult children.

      This teacher abused his position of power, and that is what was unlawful about this sex. Paedophilia/child sex is not what this is about.

      Live in fear parents, there are PAEDOPHILES everywhere! (according to news.com.au)

    • Slothy says:

      01:51pm | 01/09/11

      “By electing to remain silent, one forgoes that right to ‘justice’, one awards their attacker their liberty.”

      It is incredibly difficult to prove these things and it can take a long time for someone to feel like they’re in a place to be able to deal with the stress and trauma of a trial.

      I spoke out to my family, not even to the police, so that what happened to me wouldn’t happen to my newly born cousin. Nobody from my father’s side of the family (except thankfully my ridiculously supportive father) has spoken to me in nearly a decade. Speaking out is is not without some pretty massive consequences. Given that it is near impossible in many cases to get a conviction, you should be careful about appearing to blame victims for ‘giving’ their assulters liberty.

    • Baal says:

      02:09pm | 01/09/11

      @ Lostie and Tubesteak.
      Our tradition of Justice includes something called ‘Retribution.’
      Retribution is not the same as revenge (emotional thing revenge is). Retribution is a cold and measured process we leave in the hands of the courts. The courts have and still do exact retribution in balance with the other aspects of Justice you and tubesteak covered.
      The victims suffering does and should be part of the inputs used to decide what retribution should be measured out.
      I do not know enough about this case but maybe the guilty part deserves more punishment but retribution must be served.

    • Tim says:

      02:49pm | 01/09/11

      Baal,
      what would be the outcome if this case had been taken immediately to trial in this day rather than waiting 25 years to go to court?
      Assuming that the victim’s entire life’s suffering is a direct result of this crime is a massive one.

    • Melissa Mitchell says:

      03:52pm | 01/09/11

      Well you were right about one thing, at least. You DID know nothing about this case. It wasn’t even a jury trial. It was a judge only trial. At least do your research before you weigh in to something *this* sensititve.

    • stephen says:

      04:11pm | 01/09/11

      Lostie, I was referring to serious criminals and not to the opportunists who may, by the way, have no sense of getting caught at all ; they do the act like, say, we might do a u-turn at the lights or try our first under-age cigarette ; we do it because it’s there and it is convenient.
      I think most light crimes are similarly done.
      Punishments should be severe, much more than a suspended sentence.
      And I do not do research on this topic, nor have I read any.

    • chungo mung says:

      07:48pm | 01/09/11

      i like your way of thinking lostie, I may not agree completely with all you say but i can gain by listening to your reasoning and ideas.

    • Nathan says:

      06:30am | 01/09/11

      because he was embarrassed publicly he doesn’t get Jail. Long distinguished career he has probably done it to someone else. This is a disgrace and the victim should be disappointing and more likely outraged. He groomed him and is a calculating predator. If we want people to come forward and have these people convicted how about these judges get a reality check and do the right thing.

      I am not one of these people who think the answer is “just lock them all up” but for a person like this how can you not and for a serious amount of time to go with it.

      A long and distinguished career of public service means nothing we owe him no favors.  The legal system has shown how unjust it can be at times and it aggravates me to see it

      Reply

    • Tina says:

      06:36am | 01/09/11

      I am afraid no treatment or sentence of the perpetrator would be bring peace or justice for the victim. It is a difficult task to “measure” the damage done to the victim in years in jail for the perpetrator. What happened to this man was terrible. So maybe the term “justice” creates the wrong impression when sentencing the perpetrator as no sentence would be just.

      Reply

    • Tina says:

      07:35am | 01/09/11

      Sure a good jail term would be nice. But I think you should not imply that that would give justice to the victim.

    • Michael N says:

      09:40am | 01/09/11

      Tina - a terrible crime was committed (if we are to accept the court’s verdict). There should be serious penalties for committing terrible crimes. When these penalties are not applied, both the victim and wider society are robbed of justice. And then you run the risk of people taking justice into their own hands.

      “Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.” (Apologies to whomever I’ve plagiarised that from but I lack the means to look it up without losing this post!)

    • Mahhrat says:

      06:44am | 01/09/11

      When punishment ceases to be a deterrent, there ceases to be a deterrent.

      If you get two years for the most heinous of crimes, you can’t be punished anywhere near as much for lesser, pettier crimes, like theft or even common assault.

      And you wonder why the police struggle to keep peace on the street.

      Reply

    • Kika says:

      09:24am | 01/09/11

      Crimes against property will always be punished more severely than assault. It stems back from when the law first began in feudal England… if you steal from the Lord you will be hung… but please go ahead to beat the c&rap; out of each other lowly peasants…

    • Jennifer Wilson says:

      08:12am | 01/09/11

      Dr Kezelman is quite right to be outraged at the outcome of this case.
      While commensurate justice may not be possible in situations such as this, that the offender escapes with nothing more than inconvenience, embarrassment (some of which is apparently due to having a famous wife) and depression as a consequence of his own actions is not acceptable when compared to the damage he inflicted.
      We need mandatory custodial sentences for convicted child abusers. Letting them off lightly because they’re suffering sends a very negative message to victims, such as the perpetrator’s suffering is a lot more important than the victim’s.
      It isn’t being vengeful to demand that an offender pay appropriately for the crime. We don’t call it that in any other circumstances. It’s called justice, and it hasn’t been done in this case.

      Reply

    • Kate says:

      08:57am | 01/09/11

      Great points Cathy. I am not a victim of child abuse but I am deeply concerned by the way the courts sympathise with the predators. Talk to any police officer, prison psycologist or legal aid officer (and I have friends in all those roles) and they will tell you pedophiles and predators of teens are arrogant, expert liars and have no sympathy for their victims yet we are supposed to have sympathy for them? If I won Lotto I would love to commission an academic work on the true cost to society of our lax attitude to child protection - the police time, the social service time, the loss of productive members of society shattered by abuse, the medical & health services paid with public money, the assisted living and pensions. Maybe then people might sit up and take notice. Victim suffering is sadly not enough. As for @Lostie…I have to wonder about you.

      Reply

    • Govt@FauxCitizen says:

      09:12am | 01/09/11

      Thre are many crimes perpetrated that no amount of punishment will cure criminals or deter others from with evil and disgusting thoughts from doing the same or worse.
      Only a denial to life and philanthropic rights and perhaps the victim/s and their immediate family should have a say in these matters as well after all it is about the victim/s too, isn’t it ?
      A case in point is a freind of mine whom is a prison guard and has the dubious duty of watching over some very evil inmates, one of whom was a paedophile who regulary masturbated over photos of children torn out of womens magazines and then ejaculated apon them and once reported my mate for interrupting him and invading his privacy when my mate told him to stop, for wich he was scolded and reprimanded.
      This degenerate was released in 2009 and now lives among us apparently rehabilitated ?????
      The softly softly approach and “feelgood dogooders” have failed us miserably, and evidence of this is the “riots’ in London recently where certain individuals are complaining about the harsh penalties being dished out in comparison to the past.
      Maybe the Poms have finally had enough of “kissing arse”.

      Reply

    • aaaahhhh says:

      08:35pm | 01/09/11

      oh god, please tell me your mate dosent work at long bay correctional complex? I start work there on Mon…...am not looking forward to guarding the CUBIT offenders

    • Malleeringneck says:

      09:52am | 01/09/11

      Again and again it amazes me how many people who comment on this site support the perpertrators of crimes.
      In this case the guy was found guilty.
      A suspended sentence means you just about got off scot free.

      Reply

    • D. Lunt says:

      08:37am | 02/09/11

      It is amazing! The kid was just 17yrs old and had been abuse before. Did he then choose to have an ‘affair’ with his married teacher?! Some of the comments on here are beyond ignorant.

    • malohi says:

      09:43am | 02/09/11

      Until I worked in the court I thought the same about suspended sentences; It made me so angry.
      However the other day a very senior magistrate in Brisbane changed my opinion. He said something to the crook like “You are filth, I would send you to jail but it costs society far more to keep you in there than keeping you on benefits at home; and you would likely come out even worse off.”
      Take from that what you will.

      But on another note it is indeed a strawman to say ” agreement that prison is not optimum is the same as supporting criminals.”

    • KC says:

      09:57am | 01/09/11

      The problem is that our legal system is too soft!  A week ago, there was an article out saying that our prisons were at 95% capacity!  The amount of people being let off with probation for serious crimes is an absolute joke!  An Italian tourist drives on the wrong side of the road and kills someone, gets a 10 year licence suspension and no gaol time.  Now a sex offender gets found guilty and avoids gaol.  It’s surprising that the Snowtown Killers didn’t get weekend release…

      Reply

    • Tchom says:

      10:08am | 01/09/11

      Forgive my ignorance, but I thought 17 was the legal age of consent. Is the issue that he was a teacher or is it something to do with the age disparity? Or am I just out-right wrong about the legal age of consent?

      Reply

    • Zaf says:

      10:45am | 01/09/11

      17 is the age of consent, but that rises to 18 when the ‘partner’ (?) is in a position of authority. (eg a teacher.)

      I feel sorry for the young man, but:

      “As with other victims one would assume these addictions have been acquired in an attempt to numb the pain and horror of his teacher’s sexual abuse. “

      Seems like a big assumption.

    • Tchom says:

      11:11am | 01/09/11

      Thanks for clearing that up.

    • Tim says:

      11:44am | 01/09/11

      I agree with Zaf.
      Sure this sounds bad but none of us were in the court and heard all the evidence that the Judge did.
      This crime happened over 25 years ago and to assume that all the victim’s problems occured because of this crime is one very big assumption.

    • Alicia says:

      12:58pm | 01/09/11

      In most states, it’s illegal for a person to have sexual interactions with a person aged 16 or 17 if they are under “special care”, so this would include teachers, medical practioners, religious official etc.

    • Tezza says:

      01:12pm | 01/09/11

      You’re right.
      If they had met at the pub there would have been no crime.
      Also, it makes it a bit of a grey area doesn’t it? And maybe part of the reason why, despite the “conviction” the court has released the “offender”.
      There are too many would be legal experts who think they know better than the judge and, on the basis of a newspaper report are happy to declare that the court got it wrong.

    • Matt says:

      10:41pm | 01/09/11

      I’m completely with Zaf with regards to the ‘age of consent’ question. This issue isn’t one of paedophilia or child abuse, it’s about abuse of power. The 17 year old was found to be a willing participant in whatever went on. I don’t know about you, but when I was 17, I knew exactly what I was doing. This isn’t about rape or attack - no one forced himself upon anyone. I think given his public profile and the fact that his name has been splashed across every newspaper and TV screen in the country, he’s hardly going to be able to return to some rosy life in the suburbs. The assumption that he’s going back to his “celebrity wife” and “seaside house” (as one of the articles mentioned) to enjoy his retirement is ridiculous. While he’s managed to escape a jail term, after what’s happened he’ll never be able to leave the house again without copping verbal or physical abuse from the public, so I certainly don’t see him escaping scot free.

    • TheRealDave says:

      10:13am | 01/09/11

      Moral of the story - do some community service, marry a childrens author and you can get away with raping a child…..because gaol might be tough on you and getting sprung for your crime has mad eyou feel ‘depressed’.

      I don’t know about you guys but I am sick to bloody death of this ‘the judge has taken into account the criminals remorse at committing the crime’ absolute crap! Screw their remorse! Their remorseful because they got bloody caught! Not because they comitted the bloody crime! Why do we reward these arseholes for getting their lawyers to state they are remorseful?!?!

      This case is an absolute disgrace and the judge should be ashamed of themselves…but its not surprising is it?

      Reply

    • Jackie says:

      03:27pm | 01/09/11

      Real Dave, you forgot to mention : have a daughter who is a state labor MP, or mabye we are not allowed to mention that…

    • Jan says:

      09:12am | 02/09/11

      Agree RealDave. It appears the legal system is designed to benefit the powerful and privileged at the expense of victims.

      Also, 17 may be the age of consent but the law punishes those who abuse their power for a reason. What an appalling thing that a young kid confides sexual abuse to someone that he trusts and that person responds to this vulnerable person by taking the opportunity to ‘have sex’ with him. It’s a grossly unethical abuse of power and trust that causes serious long term harm, which is why it’s illegal.

      I wish the victim all the best. At least with this verdict, inadequate as it is, he may feel that justice has been served. This is the first step to healing.

    • mick says:

      10:24am | 01/09/11

      This is a difficult issue as it cuts at the nature of human emotion.  When a crime is committed the victim and/or the victim’s family always want blood and life imprisonment and this in someway makes the victim feel as if justice has been done.  Unfortunately there needs to be a system of tempering the pain caused to victim and the ability of a perpetrator to reform and rejoin society.  I guess the happy medium, if indeed there is one, is for the courts to take a balanced and fair view.  Of course this rarely satisfies either party.
      In terms of the court process victims should present evidence.  If it were a matter of a written statement then all manner of accusations could be levelled against people.  It could be a witch hunt.  But I do not agree with the manner in which counsel can try to discredit a victim as this can could cause more pain than the crime itself and should be banned in its current unrestrained form.
      I do not envy the judges caught in the middle.  What a job!!

      Reply

    • Gerry W says:

      10:40am | 01/09/11

      How many rich career criminals get little or no punishment??
      If you kill someone with your car because u are drunk or drugged then it is not treated as manslaughter but just an accident. Taking someones life should be a min of 25 years per offence. Steal 1 million dollars and get 18 mths in jail, the law many times is an ass. Wake up Legal System.

      Reply

    • CynicalGoatWA says:

      10:53am | 01/09/11

      Suspended sentences are a crock. What the “judge” has basically said is that in his opinion, the crime wasn’t serious enough to jail the offender, but if he is in strife again, then the sentence can get added on to whatever the next penalty is.
      Talk about telling the victim to go and get stuffed. Poor bloke…

      Reply

    • Dr Roger Dunphy says:

      12:54pm | 01/09/11

      A few points:

      The reason the judge is giving for being lenient in sentencing is the very reason he should not be lenient.  The issue that he was a reputable and trusted member of the community and then used this reputation and trust to abuse and avoid being caught is a reason to demonstrate to the community that positions of power and trust must not be used to abuse others and cannot be used to hide.  The fact that high profile abuse cases attract attention should be irrelevant, otherwise the law is providing safety to those in positions of power.

      Good behaviour bonds should perhaps not be given in CSA cases for the very reason that CSA always occurs in private and in secret using coercion and manipulation to achieve secrecy.  The people around him at the time of the abuse would all have thought that he was behaving well, so how can anyone who has abused in secret and in private demonstrate good behaviour?

      Mental health issues triggered in response to being found guilty of a crime should be treated appropriately by mental health professionals and the criminal justice system.  In cases in which the guilty party deny their guilt and show no remorse, the suffering via mental health should not be taken into consideration in sentencing because the suffering is not and will not contribute to the guilty party’s rehabilitation.  To be lenient due to the suicidality of an unremorseful guilty party is to be manipulated and ignorant of the common experiene of victims (which commonly involves suicidality).  When the offender admits guilt and shows remorse, that may be a slightly different story.

      Reply

    • Craig of North Brisbane says:

      12:54pm | 01/09/11

      “As with other victims one would assume these addictions have been acquired in an attempt to numb the pain and horror of his teacher’s sexual abuse. “

      Your whole argument more or less rests on this assumption.  It’s impossible to know if this person would have had a wonderful life if it weren’t for the abuse, but there’s also a very real chance that it would have been just the same.  There is no way that you can conclusively link the depression and drugs to the abuse. 

      I also think a lot of the reason that sexual abuse is so damaging to a lot of people is the insistence by well meaning but misguided advocates (such as the author of this column) that they are “marked for life” as a result of it.  I’m sure that a lot of people would be able to put what is essentially an unpleasant experience behind them and get on with their lives if we didn’t have people constantly bringing up what a wreck of a victim they should be.

      Lastly, as has been pointed out in previous columns on The Punch far more eloquently than I could, unless you were in the courtroom and are privy to all the information that the sentencing judge had at hand, it’s a bit rich to say that the sentence is “too light”.  We are not in possession of all the facts, and one can only conclude that the judge has his reasons for passing the sentence that he did, and they don’t include him getting off on letting people off lightly just because he can.

      Reply

    • Wanda says:

      04:03pm | 01/09/11

      “put what is essentially an unpleasant experience behind them”
      Yes, Well leaving aside the obvious Freudian overtones to that statement how about you volunteer for sexual abuse, purely as an experiment mind, and report back here on how easily forgettable it is.

      I’ll be only too happy, in a spirit of clinical research of course, to test your reaction to various “not so bad” assaults.

    • Lorraine says:

      04:16pm | 01/09/11

      No Craig, it is not an” unpleasant experience”, it is a complete and utter breach of a child’s trust.
      Sure we do have to “put it behind us” but   some of us were blamed for the actions of the perpetrator. The legal system is our only chance of righting the wrong. If the system lets us down where do we go from there?.
      Ask me how I know!

    • Tim says:

      12:57pm | 01/09/11

      The thread of the disappearing comments.
      What’s doing Punch?

      Reply

    • Sceptic says:

      01:16pm | 01/09/11

      It’s called ‘Free Speech’.

    • Tory Shepherd

      Tory Shepherd says:

      01:22pm | 01/09/11

      Hey folks, this is a dodgy legal area so we’re deleting/removing a lot of comments. Don’t bother posting anything claiming ‘insider information’ on the case… or trying to accuse people of things they were not convicted for.

      To be sure your comment gets through, keep it general, talk about the issues, not the specifics of this case.

      And if you want to talk specifically about this case, stick to the facts as they are outlined within Dr. Kezelman’s column.

      Thank you!

      Reply

    • Tanya says:

      02:42pm | 01/09/11

      Hi Tory,

      It is unfortunate that the media is vulnerable to legal action in this instance when members of the public feel strongly about such an issue and want their voices heard. But ultimately, all Australians should consider themselves fortunate that the legal system enables us to protect our reputations even in the wake of a criminal conviction.

    • Chris says:

      04:57pm | 02/09/11

      No Tory my comment was not in the dodgy legal area but you deleted it anyway - pity because people really sould be aware of the way an individual’s behaviour can affect their family.

    • AdamC says:

      01:49pm | 01/09/11

      I am genuinely accused of having a ‘tough on crime’ philosophy and, in general, would regard an offence such as Malcolm Fox’s as warranting some sort of actual jail time. Having said that, I think the judge’s reasons for not incarcerating Fox in this case are more compelling than usual.

      I get the sense that, for too long having been too easily prepared to dismiss child abuse, society is now going too far in the opposite direction.

      Reply

    • Lorraine says:

      03:30pm | 01/09/11

      Fox was found Guilty. Let’s not forget that.
      The court has upheld the claim that he is a sex offender.
      His nervous disposition should not be an excuse for him not serving the gaol term that a less public figure would have served. At the very least he should be on home detention
      . As a teacher he was in “loco parentos” .What message does this send to other perpetrators of violence against children?

      Reply

    • Manis Lamond says:

      04:58pm | 01/09/11

      Good ‘ol Adelaide - where you can get-off for dragging cyclists under your 4x4 and flee the scene, and now this….....Gee it would be good to have a “name” in this city - above justice and all… We call ourselves the “Festival State” - I think its time we call ourselves what we really are, but I cant write that here.

      Reply

    • Interloper says:

      05:26pm | 01/09/11

      I understand that sentences are given based on a range of factors which are fully explored in the court. Unless one has heard the evidence, it is impossible to assess whether the sentence expressed is accurate. As I learned from a recent Media Watch episode, impartial hearers of the evidence (juries) overwhelmingly think that their judges get it about right.
      I think there’s a difference between inappropriate sexual dealings between a person-in-power and a subordinate; and child sexual abuse. They’re both wrong, but one is significantly worse than the other. And arbitrary age definitions don’t turn one into the other, in my view.

      Reply

    • Carolyn Cordon says:

      05:45pm | 01/09/11

      My heart aches for this poor person. Has Fox denied doing what he was found guilty of doing? The victim at the very least needs to know Fox is sorry he did a terrible thing to someone already suffering.
      And to anyone who thinks victims of abuse should ‘get over it’, go away and learn a bit about trauma.

      Reply

    • survivorofpastabuse says:

      06:29pm | 01/09/11

      We as a community cannot sit on our hands Mr Fox has been found guilty of taking advantage of this then teen boy that this breach of trust is worse in my veiw than the original incident of sexual abuse .  This once inocent boy/teen/man ,deserves to see the same justice. What makes Mr fox’s offending alll the more abhorrent is the abuse of the position of trust in which he was held,knowing of the prior sexual abuse and then grooming this teen to his advantage.This young man will will no doubt have trust issues for life and you really cant blame him.. Mr Fox was charactorised by referee’s whom all sung his prasies, but a man as good as they say would never behavedi n this way , The attorney general should step in here and reviist Mr Fox’s sentence as a matter of urgency . I have no doubt there are many people who would agree

      Reply

    • Seacliff Dad says:

      02:10pm | 02/09/11

      My kids love Mem Fox stories, we just wouldn’t let her husband read tto them.

      Reply

    • dr deen says:

      02:53pm | 02/09/11

      id hit that with a bat

      Reply

    • Glen says:

      05:01pm | 02/09/11

      I am all for suspended sentences. They give a second change to a good bloke who found himself in a fight in a bar and hit someone too hard because he’s hasn’t hit someone since he wore shorts to school. All without the court having to believe dodgy character references concerning if the person is usually a saint or a sinner after a drink or two. They are a neat device for the court to reserve it’s opinion about the person’s character and the person’s likelihood of reoffending.

      The problem is, this isn’t one of those scenarios. We’re not talking suspending three months for biffing someone, we’re talking four years, which is a hefty penalty. There would have to be some extraordinary reason for that. And there wasn’t. Bad publicity, well that’s just another way of saying that ordinary people are disgusted by the crime. Depression, well that’s expected prior to the arrive of a day of judgement. In short, it was a list that anyone facing a four year stint could quote.

      In any case, there was no need for the court to reserve it’s opinion about the person’s character, this crime alone says all the court needs to know.

      Reply

    • Fred Ward says:

      05:44pm | 02/09/11

      The problem is, and always has been, the courts. The justice system is a game, the whole system is broken. Judges get lifetime appointments and are not investigated or accountable for stupid decisions.  Sentences are out of touch with community standards. Evidence is withheld from juries for being too prejudicial, even though it is relevant. There is no search for the truth, and the rich get better results because they can afford better lawyers. Overall, the whole court system is a game. This clip pretty well sums up how the system has failed everyone except the lawyers (cut/paste URL) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHFa30pD3N8
      You will see juries misled and offenders literally getting away with murder.

      Reply
 
Sorry, comments are now closed for this article.

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Malcolm Farr

farrm51 27 May 12 04:24PM

@AndrewCatsaras Agreed. Kills more people than AIDS. Yet tolerated. Meanwhile: Good Insiders piece again Andrew.

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 27 May 12 02:08PM

RT @JamieTravers: I'm in Europe and don't care for Eurovision, why is my twitter feed filled with Aussies recounting the bloody thing!?

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 26 May 12 09:27PM

Dementor doing a good job for sweden #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 26 May 12 09:11PM

Ukraine song pinches chord progression from The Verve's Bittersweet Symphony. Fo real #sbseurovision

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

by David Penberthy

132

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

An email was sent to almost every politician in Australia this week saying that someone should cut off…

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

by Paul Toohey

17

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

We admire them, but we’re not entirely sure why. We allow them to operate in the shadows; we rarely…

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

by Angela Mollard

2

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

Like a fat full-stop, it lay in my hand. A small orange – not exactly fresh, but purchased anyway…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed