Killing Time Read Free

sentences because the significant aspect of all his offending is that he refused to partake in any sex offenders’ programs. How in heaven’s name can the Corrections Commissioner, the Office of Corrections, the courts and the Parole Board allow these sorts of people on the street if they refuse to undergo sex offenders’ programs?
    Towards the end of my sentence I was at Fulham Prison with another rapist by the name of David Lakeman and he refused parole – that is, to be released early –because it would require him to undergo a sex offenders’ program. Instead he served his parole period in jail, the logic being that once he had completed his full sentence he would not be subject to any sex offenders’ programs. It came to pass and he was allowed out the door without the Parole Board having any hold over him at all. This is an outrageous situation and society should be rightly outraged. Once again this man maintained throughout the entirety of his sentence that he was wrongly charged and convicted and was not guilty. Does anyone notice a pattern emerging with these blokes?
    Davies asked me to read his brief, which I did because I was new in jail, didn’t know the ropes and was frankly scared stiff. I was revolted by the brief and the statements of the two young girls. Davies was clearly identified by them because he looks somewhat like a chimpanzee and that’s precisely how they described him. He said that it was all bullshit and that it wasn’t him, he had been wrongly charged, he’d been singled out for special treatment by the coppers – blah, blah, blah.
    Having acted for a number of sex offenders over many years, I’ve noticed one common thread running through all their offences, and that is a complete denial of any wrongdoing, even after conviction and imposition of a prison sentence.
    A classic example of such a mindset was many years ago when a young bloke was referred to me by the senior partner of one of Australia’s more prestigious law firms. The senior partner rang me, introduced himself and said that a dear old friend of his had a son who had got himself into a little trouble. I asked what sort of trouble. He said that the son was a scout master, to which I replied “How many scouts have complained?” He was surprised that I had hit the nail on the head.
    A couple of the scouts had made a complaint about sexual assaults by the scout master. The young man attended my office and sat down. He was incensed that he had been charged and strident in proclaiming his innocence. He explained to me that he and another scout master had taken a large number of scouts away for the weekend. When they arrived at the camping ground it was raining so heavily that they only had time to put up two tents, not all of the tents that were required, and as a result the accommodation in the tents was very, very tight and, guess what, when he woke up the next morning he had a scout’s penis in his mouth!
    This is a true story and this was put to me in deadly seriousness. I sat there in my office absolutely dumbfounded that anybody would think that any court or jury on this planet would be stupid enough to accept that fiction as a defence. It was all I could do not to burst out laughing at the absurdity of it all. I told the young bloke that he would have noticed that I hadn’t made one note during the interview and that if he thought I was going to court to run that defence for him he’d better think again.
    He went away and came back with his parents, who were equally outraged at his having being charged. I had to give them the bad news in words of one syllable so that there was no misunderstanding, and he ended up pleading Guilty. He got a short jail sentence, as he should.
    Davies, likewise, was adamant that he was not guilty, so much so that he then pleaded Not Guilty, went to trial and, surprise!, was convicted. He was then sentenced by his Honour Judge