#auspol explicit Court Docs: I've re-examined transcript of the Magistrates Court before Appeal which overturned it.Abbott gave his evidence before Magistrate but after conviction to alleviate sentence. What the Magistrate thought of Tony's 'beacon of humanity' we cannot tell but he did not accept the priest and believed the child. It seems despite Abbott's lavish praise the Magistrate he decided gaol was necessary.


HERE'S THE ORIGINAL CONVICTION BY THE LOCAL COURT MAGISTRATE:
transcript included:
the other side of him that he was awoken by something prodding in his bottom.
Nestor: M'mm.
Q86 Is there anything you can tell me about that?

Nestor: Well , it didn't, wasn't anything connected with me that's for sure .
Q87 Well, he, he's informed me that it was, was your penis

Nestor:Yeah .

Q.your erect penis

Nestor: Yeah.

Q. being pushed in against his bottom whilst he had his pyjamas on - - -
Nestor: M'mm .

Q. - in, in a gyrating type motion. Ah huh. /
Can you tell me anything about that?

Nestor: It's quite incorrect.


MAGISTRATE HELD: GUILTY
The offence involved acts committed by the defendant against the victim, when the victim and his brother were staying overnight at the defendant's home and 50
they were watching videos together.I don't think it's
necessary that I go into the detail of what I was satisfied has occurred that night. But there were three incidents that were complained of by the victim. They'd all occurred at about the same time and I was satisfied that each of 55
those had been committed on him.

That the defendant and his younger brother had been altar boys and that following this offence back in 1991, all
contact with the church ceased. The Court has no direct evidence of the consequences for the victim of this offence as to what's happened to him psychologically following the commission of the offence. The Court saw him in the witness box and can reach some conclusions based on that. But the
Court expects that any child sexually assaulted by an adult, would suffer varying degrees of psychological harm.
When defendant's are before the Courts for this sort of offence, the Court, as I said, I think it there to impose a
penalty that reflects community attitudes for this offence. All offences indeed, but on this occasion this sort of offence. And the aggravating factors here are very clearly the breach of trust, which both the child and his family had 25
placed in the defendant.The child clearly admired and respected the defendant, had been on camps with him, had been hiking with him and stayed at his home a number of times. And that trust that he and his family and the community have in the defendant was destroyed. And destroyed by the commission of an offence which is regarded, I think, by the community at large as abhorrent, a sexual assault on a child.

Despite the defendant's previous good character and what's been said about him, despite the fact that he has no prior convictions, the Court, I think, must deal with the matter in such a way that it reflects the views of the community that this is an abhorrent thing to do. Particularly when it's done by a person in the position of trust, as the defendant was. And that the overwhelming need of the Court in passing sentence is do endeavour to make it clear, on behalf of the community, that such offences must be punished, must be punished with some severity, to endeavour to deter others from committing such offences. 45
It's suggested to me by Mr Conomos that given the, again to use his words, "horrendous" punishment that the defendant has and will suffer as a result of the conviction, that arecognizance would be an appropriate penalty. I can't agree 50
that that would be seen by the community to be a punishment at all, or an effective sentence at all, or a sentence that would convey any message of deterrence to anybody in a position of trust who betrays that.
55
It seems to me that in sentencing people for breach of
trust, for whatever sort of offences, but in particular in
respect of these sort of offences, that the higher courts in this state have made it clear enough that offences involving breaches of trust, that in the normal course of events be dealt with by a sentence of imprisonment. This was not a
where a plea of guilty was entered. It's not a case
where there's remorse shown. It's a case that ran for a day and a bit where the victim was cross-examined at some length' by the barrister formerly appearing for the defendant. So that contrition and remorse and pleas of guilty are not matters that come into this sentencing exercise. But a gross breach of trust is what stands out in the case.And that requires the Court to deal with the matter in the way I
intend to deal with it.

As I said, a good behaviour bond would be seen to be token punishment, if that, for such an offence.The only way in which the Court can impose a penalty which would actas a general deterrent, would be by way of a sentence of imprisonment. I can't see the Court has any option other than to impose a sentence of imprisonment. And in view of the position where the defendant was in such a position of
trust, developed over many years between the victim and his family and breached that in the way that he did.It must bemore than a token sentence of imprisonment.
Would you stand up please, Father Nestor.

YOU WILL BE SENTENCED TO A MINIMUM TERM OF IMPRISONMENT OF TWELVE MONTHS FROM TODAY. THE SENTENCE WILL COMMENCE TODAY.
IT WILL EXPIRE ON 17 FEBRUARY NEXT YEAR. THERE WILL BE AN 30
ADDITIONAL TERM OF IMPRISONMENT OF FOUR MONTHS, WHICH WILL COMMENCE ON 18 FEBRUARY NEXT YEAR AND WHICH WILL EXPIRE ON

Abbott's stamp of approval of the convicted paedophile's general character became part of the case on Appeal. When Judge Phelan was making his decision he remarked the crime required a very high standard of proof and 'Finally there is the undisputed fact that the appellant is a person of good character'

After Judge Phelan dismissed the case the Catholic Church via Wollongong Bishop, Philip Wilson, now Catholic Archbishop of Adelaide,found the priest Nestor was an active paedophile with "significant additional material" relating to further complaints made against him.In 2008 the Vatican struck him off the List of Clergy.



Reply · Report Post