Robert Hughes loses appeal
Former Hey Dad! star Robert Hughes loses his appeal against his conviction for child sexual offences.
- Published by David Knox
- on
- Filed under News
Former Hey Dad! star Robert Hughes yesterday lost his appeal against his conviction for child sexual offences in the NSW Court of Criminal appeal.
He appealed his convictions in part because he believed he did not receive a fair trial due to “poisonous vilification” on social media. His lawyer also argued a miscarriage of justice due to the conduct of the crown prosecutor, and the refusal of the trial judge to discharge the jury as a result.
But Chief Justice Tom Bathurst and Justices Margaret Beazley and Paul Hidden found, “Changes to Australian society wrought by the digital revolution (including the rise of the internet and various forms of social media), and the consequent explosion in publicity about notable criminal trials should not diminish the commitment of the criminal justice system to trial by jury.”
They also found that the trial judge acted within reason and found no error in the way the criminal trial was conducted.
Further complaints of assaults in prison were referred to the Minister and Commissioner for Corrective Services.
Lawyers may yet appeal to the High Court of Australia.
Hughes will now continue his term of at least six years in prison.
Source: ABC
Share
- Tagged with Hey Dad
9 Responses
At one stage he was more popular than the Prime Minister (in an age where the Prime Minister was a very popular figure), but his actions have forever damaged the lives of many, as well as tarnishing what was a well written show, in fact Australia’s longest running sitcom, which featured an excellent ensemble cast.
David, I am gobsmacked that you are allowing comments, on an on-going legal case, and normally you don’t?
It’s not on going. There was a conviction. Appeal has been heard.
In your own article.
Lawyers may yet appeal to the High Court of Australia.
Shouldn’t comments be closed as per usual.
No.
Do the crime do the time, he was happy to use his position of fame to try and get away with such awful offences now the media has turned on him he doesn’t like it…..
For one sexual assault (not severe) and 10 counts of indecency around a minor the sentence was pretty much the maximum he could get. People have gotten less for killing people. The major allegations the Jury found him not guilty of because they didn’t trust the witness because of the way they used the media.
Another ground for appeal was the the judge allowed a lot of testimony about events not related to the charges as Tendency evidence. Which is now allowed.
Alarmed you managed to write this response without expressing any disapproval of his crimes let alone empathy for victims.
Your comment is very disturbing. Why are you are downplaying a sexual predator’s crimes?
•The sex assault was ‘not severe’ (BTW, 2 assaults, not 1). How did you decide it was not severe, were the victim’s statements not horrifying enough? I found them very distressing.
•’Indecency around a minor’? He was convicted of 7 acts of indecent assault. He made 7-15 year old children touch his genitals and did awful things to them. He molested children for over 20 years and scared them into keeping quiet. He negatively altered these people’s lives forever.
•What ‘major allegations’ was he found not guilty of? He was convicted of 10 of the 11 charges – an indecent act charge resulted in a hung jury.
•Jurors are legally prohibited from discussing a trial – your statement they didn’t trust the witness is unfounded.