One of the first of the sadly limited number of court cases arising from the death of Dianne Brimble on a Pacific Sky cruise came to an end this week.

Its conclusion achieved nothing, other than to reinforce the public belief in the cavernous divide between community standards and the sentencing practices of the judiciary.

Dianne Brimble, in the blue jacket on the middle of the escalator, waves goodbye as she boards the cruise ship where she lost her life.

While there are other cases on the horizon which cannot legally be the subject of discussion here, the unsatisfactory conclusion of this week’s case involving one of the “Brimble Eight”, the execrable Leo Silvestri, has raised the worst case scenario surrounding the shocking death of this young woman.

Namely that the plodding nature of justice and the pernickety application of the law – all these things may conspire to ensure that no-one faces any genuine punishment over that fact that a woman was left for dead in a drugged stupor on the cold linoleum floor of a cheap cruise ship.

The judgment in the Silvestri case stands as another example where a judge will issue a stinging series of remarks condemning the shameful conduct of the accused, and then not actually give them a sentence.

The facts in the Silvestri case paint a picture of a man who is essentially a maggot.

You might recall that Silvestri is the member of the Brimble Eight who in a taped police interview told the cops that his only regret was the Brisbane mother of three had “f***ed up his holiday” by dying in his cabin.

Silvestri was in court this week on a charge of concealing a serious offence.

Immediately after Brimble’s death, knowing that she had taken the drug GBH, Silvestri lied to the police saying that no drugs had been consumed, but offering his services as a “star witness” who was prepared to cooperate with any investigation and testify against any accused on the condition he was granted indemnity from prosecution.

It was a total dog act, a waste of police time and resources, and ultimately an attempt to pervert the course of justice in his capacity as an indemnified witness who would have been going into court with the intention of lying to protect his mates and himself.

NSW District Court Judge Greg Hosking let Silvestri have it in his sentencing remarks this week, saying not only did he omit the truth, he went further and lied to the police.

He also said it “simply beggars belief” that Silvestri claimed he did not think the police would need to know that the drug had been taken.

“The offender did not only not tell police about the supply of GBH, or fantasy, but he actually told them a falsehood,” he said.

And after letting Silvestri have it, the Judge let Silvestri off, saying that “being callous or insensitive is not a criminal offence.”

He gave him a 13-month suspended sentence for his despicable part in this terrible story.

Another member of the Brimble Eight, Ryan Kuchel, was last week given an even more lenient penalty - an 18-month good behaviour bond - for the same offence.

Outside the Sydney court this week, Silvestri had a grin from ear to ear. And why wouldn’t he. The law had just shown itself to be an ass by covering his.

Dianne Brimble’s former husband Mark gave a brief radio interview after the (non) sentence was handed down.

“It’s horrible to find out today that two people who slowed this whole process down and added to the agony and pain that the family have gone through have basically got a slap on the wrist and told to go home again,” he said.

The hollow result of this court case will obviously be felt most acutely by the Brimble family, but the rest of society has every right to feel disappointment and anger too.

The courts had a chance to reflect the public’s total disgust at the flint-hearted indifference of Silvestri to the death of a woman who he treated as some inanimate sexual prop, knowingly left to die, and when confronted by the reality of her demise, channelled whatever thoughts he could muster with his atrophied mind to his own self-protection.

The courts have in this case shown themselves to be kind of indifferent too.

11 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • irene says:

      03:23pm | 09/09/09

      I agreed with Dave C.It would have been great to see the response of those men involved in the death of Dianne B if their mothers / sisters /daughters went through   the same as Dianne B.I am sure they will be jumping with joy as they are nothing but the uncaring dogs.

    • stephen says:

      06:18pm | 04/07/09

      Yes David ; as no-one is responsible for anything any more, perhaps the good Judge can get the police to arrest the ship.
      These ratbags need 2 years in the lockup - the lot of them - no apportioning blame and no freebies. They’re good mates so let them stay that way: in the same cell.

    • Mike says:

      08:27pm | 03/07/09

      Forgive me for agreeing with the writer, but if the esteemed judge is able to give a suspended sentence, does that not mean that the sentence could have been given UN-suspended?
      Studies of specific cases selected to prove a point do not show that the community thinks judges get it right. The fact that there is an uproar at almost every sentence, and that DPP’s across the country are finally appealing inadequate sentences indicates to me that sentences are indeed below community expectations.
      Judges, and Appeal Courts, are slaves to precedents, not legislation. The precedents/caselaw are the standard to which the case is compared, and are why sentences are low.
      Eliminating suspended sentences, which are in all ways except name no punishment at all, would be a great start.

    • Dave C says:

      05:49pm | 03/07/09

      I wonder how iansaid, pete m and real to would feel if it was their Mother or Daughter or Sister who was left to die in these circumstances. Would they defend the justice system then, would they call the attacks on the sentence by David P “tabloid journalism” then.

      Until you or your family are a victim of crime you would not understand why people attack judges in their soft sentencing. Of course the soft sentencing is done because defence lawyers invent mitigating circumstances so the judge has to go soft. I think every human rights activist and defender of soft sentencing should have to listen to the taped victims statements to the police and see some physical bruising of violent crime.

      Go for it David P, at least someone stands up for victims of crime and their families.

    • iansand says:

      11:51am | 03/07/09

      If anyone is interested in some proper research look here: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/CJB118.pdf/$file/CJB118.pdf

      The studies on sentencing once all facts are known are referred to on page 2.  It is pretty clear that people have a highly distorted understanding of the legal process.  It is a pity that journalists exacerbate the distortion instead of trying to present objective fact. 

      Of course a site like this could do stuff like link to remarks on sentencing (which are often available online) and give the full story.  Over to you, Mr Penberthy.  Throw off your tabloid past.

    • MR says:

      10:38am | 03/07/09

      David - the following comment of yours is close to an out-and-out falsehood:

      all these things may conspire to ensure that no-one faces any genuine punishment over that fact that a woman was left for dead in a drugged stupor on the cold linoleum floor of a cheap cruise ship.

      Are you not aware that prosecusion of one of the eight for manslaughter starts shortly, and that Silvestri will be testifying against that man?  Your writing here is plainly sensationalist - you are quite transparently attempting to convey the false impression that this is the end of the Brimble matter. 

      In other words you are misleading your audience - on purpose.

      And after letting Silvestri have it, the Judge let Silvestri off, saying that “being callous or insensitive is not a criminal offence.”

      Which is correct - it isn’t an offence.  Thus the judge wasn’t “letting him off” anything - he was pointing out that no charge is applicable.  Maybe you think our Parliament should pass a law criminalising callousness or insensitiveness - who knows.

      Do you actually feel good about yourself when you write an article designed to whip up a public frenzy through misleading and deliberately ignorant rhetoric?

    • iansand says:

      10:31am | 03/07/09

      steve symon wrote “Surely the processes of law can take into account the lack of contrition, not to mention a callous indifference to the plight of the victim on the night and the victim’s family thereafter”.

      As all he has read is the mouth frothing ravings of a tabloid journalist how do you know this was not done?  I have watched a few sentencing hearings, and then seen media reports of them.  5% of the material presented to the judge making it to the media (even the SMH and ABC) is an extraordinarily good result, and it is always an inflammatory 5%.  My pet peeve is why “journalists” seek comment from the families about the adequacy of the sentence.  They probably think this counts as going to a dispassionate, disinterested source.  Not many people would agree.

      The whole sentencing debate in this country is carried on against a background of biased and incomplete information.  Mr Penberthy would never report those studies (and there are several of them) that show that ordinary people, presented with all the material presented to a sentencing judge consistently give lighter sentences than the judges.  Mr Weatherburn could point him to that material if he cares to ask.  But he won’t.

    • realto says:

      10:24am | 03/07/09

      You can’t be jailed for making callous remarks about a person’s death and being ‘a maggott’, Pembo. The judge made it clear that while Silvestri’s conduct was poor he could only be sentenced for the attempt to cover the evidence of his mate supplying GBH. Perhaps you’ve been exposed for too long to tabloid crime reporting and the apparently necessary displays of accompanying outrage. What has surprised me in the Brimble case is no reporting or commentary on Brimble’s own contribution to her demise. It seems that for a middle aged woman her behaviour on the night was reckless to say the least. These guys facilitated her recklessness and tried to cover it up. While highly reprehensible, I don’t think it’s throw-away-the-key time.

    • steve symon says:

      08:52am | 03/07/09

      I cannot agree with you more regarding this matter and I fail to understand why both sentences are so lenient.  Surely the processes of law can take into account the lack of contrition, not to mention a callous indifference to the plight of the victim on the night and the victim’s family thereafter. One can only hope that some form of karma awaits the three that were charged and all of the others involved.

    • pete m says:

      08:34am | 03/07/09

      Please show me the criminal charge you allege covered the public’s disgust at his indifference.

      You criticise the judge for sentencing him according to law.  Here’s a cluebat, “ACCORDING TO LAW”.

      Which part of “the LAW”, which Parliament enacted, is the Judge / Court responsible for?

      Sure there is a maximum sentence, but this is reserved for the worst example of the offence, and this certainly wasn’t one of them.

      YOU elected the politicians who enacted these laws, which state that gaol is a last resort.

      YOU then slam a Judge for doing his job and following the law he is bound to follow.

      How about focusing on the law as enacted and seeing if it needs changing and directing your efforts at those who can effect that change, instead of the usual media hammering of a bloke doing his job.

      Or would you rather see a maverick judge handing out jail sentences to all and sundry who offend the public, then the usual appeals follow (at your expense), letting them go, and more media hammering, to show for what?

      For a very experienced journalist to continue to bang the justice system, without letting your readers see why the judge is bound to follow law he did not make, does a disservice to your readers and this publication.

    • iansand says:

      08:21am | 03/07/09

      You would add more to the sum of human knowledge if you actually did some research into sentencing instead of reverting to your Telecrappian tabloid sensationalism.  Don Weatherburn would be delighted if some real journalist talked to him about sentencing and published the results.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Paul Colgan

@seamus yeah it's now called Smooth or Soft or Douchey Dad FM or something

Paul Colgan

It's a Sydney thing, but 95.3FM... Why? It used to be all Bohemian Rhapsody and Walk this Way; now it's Father to Son and Country Road. Wah.

tory_maguire

@pryorlisa There's a column in this... turning into something you thought you'd never be... I crossed the threshold with a soccer mum car!

Paul Colgan

@davesag it's @qantasairways

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project

I’d like to be able to say that sharing the world’s largest radio telescope with South Africa…

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

When North Queensland Liberal MP George Christensen got the idea of launching a new political organisation…

Please enter your password

Please enter your password

Help! I’ve succumbed to a crippling modern illness that can strike at any moment. Symptoms include:…

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