Fat Bernard Finnigan Labor MP/ child porn

Clearly this fat Labor SA MP Bernard Finnigan likes to look at child porn!!!

 

SA MP Bernard Finnigan to face only one child pornography count out of six

• Chief Court Reporter Sean Fewster
• adelaidenow
• May 13, 2013 2:34PM

• Increase Text Size
• Decrease Text Size
• Print
• Email

SA politician Bernard Finnigan outside the Supreme Court. Picture: Tait Schmaal

FIVE of the six child pornography charges against state MP Bernard Finnigan have been thrown out by a court.

The Adelaide Magistrates Court today found Finnigan had no case to answer on allegations he had taken steps to obtain access to pornographic images of children under the age of 14 years.
Magistrate Simon Smart further ruled Finnigan should not face trial on the alternative, lesser offence of taking steps to obtain access to pornography featuring children of any age.
However, he ordered Finnigan must stand trial on a single count of having obtained access to pornographic images of children under the age of 14.
If convicted of that offence, Finnigan faces a jail term and loss of his Parliamentary seat.
Mr Smart's decision now serves as a benchmark for the state's re-written child pornography laws, which were "strengthened" by the former Rann Government.
It also ends months of debate over whether those laws can actually be used to prosecute an alleged offender.
Outside court, Finnigan made a brief statement to the media.
"Today I have entered a plea of not guilty to one aggravated charge, which I will vigorously defend," he said.
"Like anyone else, I'm entitled to the presumption of innocence, equality before the law and due process.
"I will not have any further comment at this time."
Finnigan, 40, had pleaded not guilty to six aggravated counts of accessing, and taking steps to access, child pornography.
His increasingly complex case has already spanned two jurisdictions and multiple twists of fate, with lawyers commenting it will require the wisdom of King Solomon to resolve.
In January, the Full Court of the Supreme Court overturned an order that Finnigan stand trial - but each of the three judges had different reasons for doing so.
Finnigan's lawyers had claimed that, if a child in an image was older than 14 at the time the image was viewed, an accused could not be charged with aggravated offences.
Chief Justice Kourakis said Finnigan had been denied procedural fairness and deserved another hearing.
Justice Tom Gray said the committal order was made in error, meaning the case should be reheard.
Justice Ann Vanstone said a person could not be guilty of taking steps to access child pornography because unless access was obtained, there was no victim who had suffered because of Finnigan's alleged conduct.
By consensus, the matter was sent back to the Magistrates Court for re-hearing - an action that had an unexpected side-effect.
Under state law, persons accused of committing sex-related crimes cannot be publicly identified until they have entered a plea.
By remitting the matter, the Full Court had inadvertently re-activated the suppression on Finnigan's identity.
For two weeks, the media could neither name nor show Finnigan, despite having done so repeatedly for four months.
In February, Chief Magistrate Liz Bolton made a landmark freedom of speech ruling permitting publication of Finnigan's identity despite his lack of a plea.
She handed down her ruling just 24 hours after amendments to the Evidence Act (1929) came into effect.
The Advertiser, the ABC and channels 7 and 9 successfully argued Finnigan's identity was a matter of public interest and so should be exempt from suppression.
Last week, Finnigan's lawyers argued the case should be dropped because prosecutors could "never" prove their allegations.
They said the complexities of the State Government's strengthened child pornography laws made it impossible for a jury to convict their client.
They said prosecutors would first have to prove that the search terms Finnigan allegedly entered into his internet browser would have definitely, not probably, led him to child pornography.
They claimed investigators had used those same alleged search terms since Finnigan's arrest and come up with nothing.
They said prosecutors would also have to prove any child in the alleged images was definitely, not probably, under the age of 14 years.
A judgment of their apparent age - based on how they might look - was insufficient, they claimed.
They argued the law had been designed to protect people from facing aggravated charges over digitally manipulated images.
Prosecutors rejected those claims, saying they had identified the sites Finnigan had allegedly accessed using the same alleged search terms.
Regardless of today's hearing, both prosecution and defence counsel retain the right to appeal, once again, to the Full Court - and can challenge that jurisdiction's ruling in the High Court.