The Age's geriatric gossip grouch Lawrence Money denied last week that he behaved criminally in that he was guilty of child endangering by identifying a party to an intervention order involving children. His false denial could land him in serious legal trouble, following a complaint about it being a contempt of court being made to Magistrate Ross Betts of the Melbourne Magistrates Court.
In a cowardly and despicable attack over two days last week, Money threw childish muck at former Labor Senator Robert Ray who had named and shamed the criminal in Parliament.
The OC concedes that there have been many good journalists caught up in these kind of offences quite unintentionally, but Money is neither good, nor a journalist nor did he commit these offences without knowing exactly what he was doing.
That's why he was charged with the crime of child endangering. It was no innocent mistake. He'd been warned by the victim's lawyers and did it any way.
The OC can reveal for the first time in any Australian media outlet what happened to the case.
MONEY'S SECRET SHAME REVEALED FOR THE FIRST TIME BY THE OC INVESTIGATIVE UNIT
Money denied pleading guilty to the offence. Not really true, is it Lawrence?
There is a provision in the Magistrates Court Act in section 128 which allows some criminal defendants, usually first-time offenders like Money to "accept responsibility for the offence" and be punished via a "diversion programme" designed to keep people out of jail and the criminal justice system.
And that's exactly what he did.
It seems like a perfectly reasonable penalty to impose on him in this situation.
The diversion programme, according to well-placed insiders, mandated that Money apologise in full and unconditionally to his victim. Money did this.
The Diversion Officer of the Magistrates Court further ordered that Money pay the sum of $10,000 (five times the maximum available penalty under the Act for the crime itself) to a charity of the victim's choosing.
In this case, the victim chose Ronald McDonald House, a charity deliberately chosen by the victim and family because it helps kids who are gravely ill.
SOME STORIES ARE WORTH TELLING TWICE
So in a nutshell:
■ Money committed the offence on no few than three occasions in 2001 on June 7, July 8 and July 15. Ordinarily we would publish the clippings we have obtained from The Age at the State Library but there's not much in the clippings that wouldn't identify the victim which obviously we cannot do for legal reasons;
■ Money was charged with two counts of child endangering, namely publishing information that identifies a person involved in proceedings under the Crimes (Family Violence) Act, where the family member is a child;
■ In late 2002, Money "acknowledged to the Court responsibility for the offence", an effective plea of guilty that first-time offenders can make to avoid jail and the criminal justice system (see s.128A Magistrates' Court Act); and
■ Money like other first-time criminals in this situation was then interviewed by the Court's diversion officer, assessed as to his chances of re-offending. The officer also spoke with the victim. They then required that Money pay $10,000 to the victim's nominated charity, Ronald McDonald House. Money also had to apologise to the victim
Those are the facts. Lawrence Money is a criminal who "acknowledged to the Court responsibility for the offence" and was forced to participate in a court-ordered diversion programme which required him to pay a very large fine and apologise to his victim.
Money is a strange one. He is clearly tortured and tormented by the circumstances of this crime. It was as we understand his first offence and he hasn't appeared to re-offend since. But denying committing the offence you've accepted responsibility for is, according to legal insiders, a blatant contempt of court.
Because of this, complaints have been made to the Magistrates Court which could see Money landed in hot water considerably warmer than that dispensed as McDonald's coffee.
Game on.
|