I’d like to express a critical analysis of Judge Sweeney’s remarks.

Regarding Count 1: ‘A’ in 1969:

< …you twice put your hand up her skirt between her legs and touched her vagina over her clothing. >

That was the entirety of the action.

< In her Victim Impact Statement ‘A’ states, which I am sure is true, that you took her childhood innocence; for which she blamed herself and became an angry child and teenager, unable to express herself and unable to trust men. >

Well hold on. I wonder how intensively cross-examined ‘A’ was over this assertion. It seems like a leap too far for such an action to cause such consequences. And it is surely not at all verifiable nor reasonable to assume that her anger as a child and teenager and lack of expression and trust for men all arose from this single very quick once-off event. Did the court hear about any other things that happened in this girl’s life, or was the assumption that she was telling the truth just blithely accepted?

It is all very easy to say things like this. Very easy to beat up the consequences of all manner of bad encounters with people. And I would suggest that in this case, having gone to the extent of making a complaint, it was in ‘A’s interest to maximise the negative consequences of Harris’ actions and make them seem as bad as possible.

I am concerned greatly about this. I wonder how thoroughly scrutinised these claims were in court. Should they have been dismissed? Or considered as probable but not proven and quite possibly not anywhere near as bad as stated?

Very likely she was just telling the truth without any exaggeration. But we just don’t know.

Harris got nine months imprisonment for that.

Well I think that is just outrageous. Something in the order of a three hundred dollar fine would have been much more appropriate.

continued

Regarding Count 2: ‘B’ in July 1978:

< You groped her bottom, squeezing her left buttock a number of times. >

That was the entirety of the action.

Well…. really….. that’s pretty damn light-on indeed.

Harris got six months imprisonment for that. He should have received NO penalty at all for such a non-issue.

Regarding Counts 3 to 9: ‘C’ starting in 1978:

On Count 3:

< You left your wife and ‘C’’s parents downstairs and you went up to ‘C’’s bedroom on the top floor of the house.

You spat on the fingers of one hand, put that hand down her jeans and knickers, and digitally penetrated her vagina. The episode lasted for about a minute until she managed to get away. >

Well… how did it last for a minute? There is no suggestion that Harris was preventing her from ‘getting away’. Surely if she had not wanted it to happen, she would have got away immediately or rolled over or otherwise made her private parts inaccessible.
On Count 4:

< You spat on the fingers of one hand, put that hand down her dungarees and knickers and digitally penetrated her vagina. You continued for up to a minute until she managed to get away >

Same thing again. What is with the time-frame of about a minute? How did she manage to get away after that time and not before?

On Counts 5 & 6:

< ‘C’ was visiting Bindi at Bray and was permitted by her parents to stay – sleeping in one of two single beds in Bindi’s room. >

Surely, if ‘C’ had been repulsed by Harris’ previous actions, she would not have been staying overnight in his house on this occasion. She would have known by this time that there must have been a considerable likelihood of further contact from Harris.

continued

< You took her pants down, spat on the fingers of one of your hands, and digitally penetrated her vagina (Count 5), then you took off your glasses bent down to her vagina and started licking it (Count 6) &#8208; continuing until she closed her legs and pushed you away. >

Two counts from this one action. Sorry, but that is absurd.

So how did he take her pants down and put his head right in her crotch if she wasn’t willing to let him do it? It does not compute.

< Counts 7 & 8 arose from another single incident in the same period between the autumn of 1980 and Easter 1981– and thus when ‘C’ was still aged 15 and you were aged 50. Again ‘C’ was visiting Bindi at Bray and was sleeping in one of the two single beds in Bindi’s room. >

Again ‘C’ had placed herself right in the position where surely she knew, and expected, Harris to physically contact her again.

< you entered the room, again in breach of trust, pulled ‘C’’s pants down to her ankles, spat on the fingers of one hand and digitally penetrated her vagina (Count 7), then you licked her vagina again keeping an eye on Bindi (who was still asleep) as you did so (Count 8) &#8208; continuing until ‘C’ closed her legs and pushed you away. >

Again two counts from one action, which is surely absurd.

Again, how could this happen without ‘C’s tacit approval?

continued

On Count 9:

< …in 1984 when she was aged 19… >

< ‘C’ was using the indoor swimming pool when you appeared in your swimming trunks and got in. >

< you touched ‘C’s breasts and then put one of your hands down her bikini bottom and digitally penetrated her vagina. >
Well… she was 19 and she let him do it. There is no offence.

< Whilst I do not sentence you in relation to what you did to ‘C’ in the decade that followed that offence, I am sure that offences against her continued until 1994. >

How can the judge say that?

How could ‘C’ continue to put herself in the position where Harris could physically contact here if she was repulsed and deeply negatively affected by the experiences?

< I have no doubt, in view of the evidence given at trial by ‘C’, and by the doctors and counsellors who treated her, that it was your crimes against her that resulted in her becoming an alcoholic for many years with all that that entailed, and that thus (as I have already touched on) you caused her severe psychological harm >

Again, how can the judge say that?
I would suggest that ‘C’ must have gone along with it all the way up to1994 when she was 29…. and indeed went along with it right from the start in 1978 when she was 13.

No other conclusion makes any sense!

Ok, maybe I’m wrong. But the point is surely that the judge and the jury could not be sure that what ‘C’ has said in her Victim Impact Statement was true at face value. And if they couldn’t be sure…. and I would suggest there was a very large reasonable doubt… then it should not have been allowed to weigh against Harris’ defence.

continued

It would seem that in each of their encounters Harris was very gentle and brief. ‘C’ kept putting herself in situations where those encounters could happen. She then continued to have encounters with him long after her childhood.

Conclusion: Nothing of any great consequence ever happened there. Yes it was illegal to touch an underaged girl in the way that Harris did. But in the circumstances…. as far as I can glean entirely from the judge’s sentencing remarks; it was all pretty benign.

On Count 3 Harris got 15 months imprisonment. Well sorry but I think that is just outrageous. A $1000 fine would have been more appropriate.

On Counts 3 to 9, some of which he got concurrent sentences, he received a total of 42 months imprisonment.

I do not see these offences, all added together, as the sort of misdemeanour that someone should be sent to prison for.

On Counts 10, 11 & 12:

< …you got Tonya to sit on your knee, put your hand on her thigh under her skirt and moved it up to her vagina over her tights and knickers and fondled her there until she managed to make an excuse and fled to the Ladies toilet. >

< Counts 11 & 12 arose from a single incident after she came out. >

< You got her in a forceful bear hug, put one hand down her top and into her bra and played with one of her breasts for about 30 seconds, fondling and squeezing it (Count 11). Then, really quickly, you moved the same hand under her skirt, down her tights and knickers and quickly digitally penetrated her vagina (Count 12). You then stopped and walked away. >

Three counts from this one action. That is absurd.

But yes, that was bit rich. Harris should certainly be ashamed of himself for that effort.

He received 21 months imprisonment for this. Well, that really is a very hefty sort of sentence. Again I would think that it is not something to send someone to prison over.

continued

I have spoken to quite a lot of people about this in recent days. Responses fall into two categories – those who don’t really care and don’t have any feeling for the detail of the situation and just go along with the media in thinking that Harris is a despicable pedophile, and those who have more interest and can see it in a broader perspective and think that Harris has been very badly done-by here, and that the sorts of things that he has done are really just as common as dishwater, and are very meek in the greater scheme of things.