Bernie Matthews, "But perhaps Ian Barker overstepped the mark at the recent pre-sentence hearing when he claimed Power was "a person of integrity" and a good man who had made an "outstanding contribution to society"."

I thought Barker said, "This is an extremely sad case, we have a good man, a person of integrity, recognised by his friends, relatives and peers as a person of integrity, who is ruined by his own conduct."

Couldn't the same have been said about yourself? "Who was ruined by his own conduct".

In as much as you want to be respected for your change in behavior and not judged by your past, it is unfair of you to ignore Power's previous "good" behavior in light of his present "bad" behavior.

Did your lawyer and friends not stand up and give examples of your non-criminal behavior at your trial?

As for the Roseanne Catt trial. I would say a lot more was going on than what ever Powers part may have been. The whole story is a shocking balls up by the very institutions we expect to protect us. Even this many years later a good thorough investigation by the Feds wouldn't go amiss.

Hamlet, your admiration for Power's legal prowess is self-evident. I have not witnessed him in action so I will accept your observation that "he acted as a skilled advocate for the Crown." I would suggest it was that same legal skill he utilised to prosecute and help wrongfully imprison Roseanne Catt.
Fact 1. Patrick Power prosecuted Roseanne Catt. It was a case predicated by defence claims that material prosecution witnesses including Barry Catt and a police detective were involved in paedophile activity with Roseanne Catt's step-children. The children initially reinforced those claims but under Power's guidance they later recanted their stories. Roseanne Catt was convicted and sent to prison.
Fact 2. In 2002 the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal instigated an inquiry into Catt's conviction. The 18-month inquiry headed by Judge Thomas Davidson found the conviction was unsafe and recommended Roseanne Catt's release from prison. He also found that Detective Peter Thomas, Barry Catt and Adrian Newell conspired to have Rosemary Catt wrongfully convicted and imprisoned. Judge Davidson was also critical of Patrick Power's handling of the case.
Fact 3. 2004 Judge Davidson's findings of fact went back to the NSW CCA where Roseanne Catt's conviction was quashed and she was released from prison after 10 years of wrongful imprisonment.
It is an undeniable fact that four NSW judges (Judge Davidson and three Appelate judges) all agreed that Roseanne Catt's conviction was unsafe as opposed to the skilled legal advocacy of Patrick Power that helped convict her. If I was a punter, then 4-1 are good odds that something was seriously flawed in the prosecution of Roseanne Catt.
Fact 4. 2006 Patrick Power is arrested, charged and pleads guilty to possessing child pornography. Patrick Power might have been a skilled advocate for the Crown but he is now a self-confessed paedophile. That connection adds another dimension to the claims of a cover-up in the Roseanne Catt case.
Hamlet, without trying to be omniscient, if it quacks like a duck and it waddles like a duck, then unfortunately, it is a duck. Regards bernie matthews

Thank you Bernie for the article and your thoughts and research. I am a tad tentative about the 'intuitive leap'... that Power prosecuted Catt; Power was into Porn; Catt's trial was about porn & paedophilia; therefore Catt's trial was flawed.
Is this the logic pared away? Are you suggesting that Power's actions were overt? Are you suggesting that he was active in protecting the prosecution's witnesses to the point of miscarriage or are you suggesting that it was covert and even latent: a character flaw taken inevitably to his job?

I was always amused by Sir Garfield Barwick's assertion (from memory in a TV interview) that once he placed the wig and gown on, he was without values (a judicial tabla rasa) or some such nonsense. Was the interviewer Gerard Henderson?

Bernie - it would be well to develop a thicker skin - shooting the messenger is a journalists occupational hazard. Your work is good and many think so. You've turned your life around 180 degrees. The malice exhibited towards you may in fact be prompted by envy - your work is erudite - theirs is not. Ignore it.

Dealing with the Mob - As a newly graduated journalist ( who incidentally was a teacher prior to that) I watched in horror and disbelief as the Chamberlain case unfolded with its blatant and gross police and judicial distortions. My horror was compounded when other journalists I knew, whom I previously regarded in high esteem, subscribed to these deliberate and provocative distortions in reporting them, leading the public down an inevitable path. Because I did not fall into their patterns of behaviour, I was ostracized toatally and became isolated, like you. I wish I could be more encouraging. It does not get better, but just know that you are not alone.

It is worthwhile reading the 2005 Court of Criminal Appeal judgement in the Catt matter.

The CCA quashed several of the convictions, left others in place, and have remitted others for retrial. No-one reading the judgement, based on the investigation by Judge (later acting Justice) Davidson, could escape the conclusion that Ms Catt indeed assaulted her husband on several occasions.

Judge Thomas Davidson, of deep baritone voice, is a thorough and meticulous man. Anyone who has sat through one of his two and a half hour 'remarks on sentence' can atest to that.

The judgment, of the CCA, that leans heavily on the report of Judge Davidson, can be found at:

http://caselaw.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/isysquery/312f523c-dada-49d6-bccd-d3c31d6a2638/1/doc

Of interest is the following paragraph at 111:

"The children were called by the Crown at the hearing before Davidson ADCJ and gave evidence in relation to the rock incident, the cricket bat incident and other matters which was contrary to the evidence they had given at the trial. Furthermore, they now say that the sexual assault allegations which they had previously made against their father, Barry Catt, were false and explained that they had been persuaded to make them by the appellant."

Perhaps instead of simply accepting the version offered by the author of this article we should all go back to the actual judgement of the CCA for ourselves.

Do we really want a journalist, of any hue, interpreting information and deciding what we should read? Do we trust what is in the press? Not always. Why should we trust some one's version in OLO?

Getting back to the original topic: The CCA judgement makes no mention of Patrick Power.

Getting back to a previous article:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=2836

Kathleen Folbigg: Bernie, I didn't see you at the back of the court, did you actually hear any of the evidence in her original trial at Darlingurst?