Derryn Hinch courting trouble again

Derryn Hinch isn’t afraid of Australian courts, he tweeted this yesterday:

Someone complained that it would hurt the victim, to which Hinch replied:

Now it is all over the news:

THE broadcaster Derryn Hinch has defended naming a man convicted of sexual misconduct with his stepdaughter, despite in effect breaking a court suppression order.

On his Melbourne radio program yesterday, Hinch named the prominent Sydney property developer who was sentenced last week to 18 months’ jail in the District Court.

An edited version of the text of the show appeared on the station’s website but the full version appeared on Hinch’s Human Headline blog with the disclaimer ”A Warning! Access Illegal in NSW”.

The convicted man’s barrister, Anthony Bellanto, QC, last week successfully argued to have the defendant’s name suppressed in NSW to ”minimise any ongoing damage to his reputation”.

Hinch wrote in his blog that Mr Bellanto asked the District Court Judge Ken Taylor to ”reduce the damage that will no doubt occur if these matters reach the [media]”.

Patrick George, a senior partner at the Sydney law firm Kennedys, said Hinch had in effect opened himself to contempt of court given that anyone from NSW could access the article.

”He has effectively published the name by putting it on the [website], and if it’s accessible in NSW, despite his disclaimer, the means of access that he’s given people means that he’s published it,” Mr George said.

”I think he’s in breach of the suppression order.”



THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • Brian Smaller

    I don’t think Hinch gives a fuck about the courts. He is living on borrowed time, even with a new liver, and he knows it. Good on him.

  • CommonSense404

    He named him on ZB last night with Larry Williams – said quite within his rights to do so in NZ. The best bit was the explicit support from the victim, removing the only arguable defense to supression

  • Beagle

    heard the ZB piece last night too.  The victim has explicitly asked him to do this and it turns out there is another step-daughter from a previous relationship that he has done this too also. Alos recall him saying that anywhere else in Australia he could name him, just not in NSW.

    in some instances name suppression has its place but not for this cretin.

    • Dave

      @ Beagle.  Correct, his name is only suppressed in NSW, but what a waste of time that was, it would only be a few weeks before it leaked.     Derryn stated the offenders name outside NSW, and it was quoted on the 3AW website, with a disclaimer, saying it was illegal to access the next page in NSW.   This will be an interesting case, as they are attempting to put the onus on the reader.  I accessed the page from NZ, so Good on him, about time these perverts were named and shamed.   

      • Beagle

        Agree Dave. I think Derryn even indicated that it was a flimsy defence but he was going to run with it. Good on him.

        I am often amazed at the lengths some of my colleagues will go too to seek name suppression… can be a head scratcher. I sometimes find myself sitting there thinking ” you’ve got to be having a laugh”.  it is always amusing to sit there and watch the judge pretend to give two shits too. i still maintain that supression does have a place but should not be handed out with the same regularity as a Briscoes or Rebel Sport sale.

        The easiest way to have a name published is to ask for supression. The MSM gallery love that.

  • Roflcopter

    I like listening to Derryn, he calls it like it is. Good job!

  • John Q Public

    Hinch is a NZer who left here after being fucked over by his news media employer over a contempt of court issue in the 70’s. He went to jail over it for a short time, so probably isn’t one to be bullied. Even by liver disease.

  • Busman

    Does this mean NZ convicted offenders can be named in australia ?? sure would eb a good source to out these scum

    • Ronnie Chow

        Biggest problem here , as in the case of the book listing Australasian sex offenders not so long ago , is that the pedophiles use the list as a telephone book  . Best way would be to ban internet use , with regular random checks . So many destroyed lives…

    • jay cee

      they can and they have.

  • toby_toby

    Anybody who wants to read about the sicko Peter Versi can do so by visiting this link:

    Hinch’s website is being hammered at the moment, so you’ll need to give it a few minutes to load.

    I think I can speak for everyone here when I say how disgusted I am by Peter Versi, a man convicted of molesting a child, who thinks that his reputation should be protected so that he can still make money.

  • Gazzaw

    Derryn Hinch is a Kiwi to be proud of! We could do with him back home to rattle a few cages.
    A good hard-arsed old journo who takes no prisoners.

  • Salacious T Crumb

    And the Victorian Supreme Court on on Hinch’s conviction strongly recommended changes to the laws governing name supression. The most telling comment was that anonimity is the best weapon of the paedophile.
    A pity our judiciary don’t clue up on this.

  • Mr_Blobby

    You have to wonder when the offender gets name protection, with no rights for the victim who for any reason, probably there mental health, may want them, named and shamed.
    It’s all about the money, money, money not about the victim,victim,victim. We just want to make the World safe

  • Peter Jenkins

    Derryn Hinch is a hero. I wish I had the gonads to do what he does. I agree with Gazzaw, he is a Kiwi to be proud of and look up to.

    Post conviction name suppression is a travesty, except in the rare cases where it is requested by the victim or their guardians. In such cases there also needs to be an efficient and easily accessible mechanism for the victim themselves to lift suppression at a later stage should the wish to do so. Currently they have to write to the original judge on the case to get it lifted – which is a huge hassle for most in my experience

    Peter J