Australian Priest Fined $400 for Wilful Exposure


A Melbourne priest caught sunbaking in a public park next to a school has been convicted of wilful exposure.


The Rev Father Wieslaw Pawlowski claimed he was just following doctor's orders to get some sun.

Much of the evidence heard yesterday centered on whether the priest was nude or wearing a G-string and whether sunbaking naked in a public park was actually lewd and obscene.

Two pairs of underwear -- a pair of white briefs and a grey G-string -- were offered up as evidence as the priest fought to prove that he wasn't a perve, but a 40-year-old following his doctor's orders and getting sun on a skin condition.

Medical evidence tendered to the court said that sunbaking, physio and hydrotherapy were all part of treatment needed for widespread and severe burn scarring on the priest's back.

"The sun is good for my skin. I have to sunbake to stay healthy," said the Rev Father Pawlowski.

The Polish priest, who has lived in Australia since 2002, had moved from Sydney to Melbourne in 2006 but was on a three-month holiday in Sydney for his health.

He told the court that he sunbaked for 20 minutes up to three times a week, as ordered by his doctor.

When he was approached by police in the park about 10am on September 15 last year, he was lying on his back.

The court heard that the priest had seen the police and begun to put on a pair of white underpants. Father Pawlowski said he put white pants on over the top of the grey G-string he was already wearing.

Father Pawlowski said it was "nonsense" that he was lying naked with his penis exposed. "I never sunbake in the nude because it doesn't agree with me . . . it's against my principles."

Magistrate Janet Wahlquist found that Father Pawlowski was indeed naked in the park and that most people would find it obscene that a grown man was sunbaking naked in a park where children might play.

She fined him $400 she recorded a conviction.

Sphere: Related Content

Functions of a Good Criminal Defense Lawyer


When faced with a serious criminal charge, it's almost always important to have an experienced lawyer on your side.

Defendants faced with the possibility of going to jail or prison should almost always hire an attorney, unless they qualify for the free or reduced-fee services of a public defender or court-appointed attorney. The truth is, no matter what the person's intelligence or educational background, the criminal justice system makes it virtually impossible to do a competent job of representing oneself. Each criminal case is unique, and only a specialist who is experienced in assessing the particulars of a case -- and in dealing with the many variables present in every criminal case -- can provide the type of representation that every criminal defendant needs to receive if justice is to be done.

Criminal defense lawyers do much more than simply question witnesses in court. For example, defense lawyers:

* negotiate "deals" with prosecutors, often arranging for reduced charges and lesser sentencing (by contrast, prosecutors may be uncooperative with self-represented defendants)
* formulate sentencing programs tailored to a client's specific needs, often helping defendants avoid future brushes with the criminal justice system
* help defendants cope with the feelings of fear, embarrassment and reduced self-esteem that criminal charges tend to produce in many people
* provide defendants with a reality check -- a knowledgeable, objective perspective on their situation and what is likely to happen should their cases go to trial. This perspective is vital for defendants trying to decide whether to accept a prosecutor's offered "plea bargain"
* are familiar with important legal rules that people representing themselves would find almost impossible to locate on their own, because many criminal law rules are hidden away in court interpretations of federal and state constitutions (for example, understanding what may constitute an "unreasonable search and seizure" often requires familiarity with a vast array of state and federal appellate court opinions)
* are familiar with local court customs and procedures that aren't written down anywhere (for example, a defense lawyer may know which prosecutor has the "real" authority to settle a case, and what kinds of arguments are likely to appeal to that prosecutor)
* understand the possible "hidden costs" of pleading guilty which a self-represented person might never think about
* spend time on a case that a defendant cannot afford to spend
* gather information from prosecution witnesses, who often fear people accused of crimes and therefore refuse to speak to people representing themselves, and
* hire and manage investigators, who may be able to believably impeach (contradict) prosecution witnesses who embellish or change their stories at trial.


The Gulf Between Paper and Practice

Self-representation is made more difficult by the typical gulf between paper and practice in criminal cases. In books you can find laws that define crimes, fix punishments for their violation and mandate courtroom procedures. Take the time and trouble to read these books, defendants might think, and they'll understand the system. Alas, the practice of criminal law can't be understood by reading books alone. To experienced criminal defense attorneys, the criminal law appears much the same as a droplet of water appears to a biologist under a microscope -- a teeming world with life forms and molecules interacting unpredictably.

For example, "prosecutorial discretion" -- the power of prosecutors to decide whether to file criminal charges, and what charges to file -- determines much of what actually happens in the criminal courts. Which prosecutor has the power to make decisions, and when those decisions are made, can greatly affect the outcome of a case. An act that looks on paper to constitute one specific crime can be recast as a variety of other crimes, some more and others less serious. What in a statute book appears to be a fixed sentence for a particular crime can be negotiated into a variety of alternatives. In other words, the world of criminal law is vast, hidden and shifting, and defendants enter it alone at their peril. At the very least, most self-represented defendants should arrange for a lawyer to be a "legal coach" and consult with their coaches as needed.

Sphere: Related Content

How To Find A Criminal Law Attorney

Finding a Lawyer

If you or a loved one have been arrested or made the subject of a criminal investigation, you may need the immediate assistance of an experienced criminal defense lawyer. Unlike civil court cases, where money or property may be at stake, people suspected of committing a crime will see their fundamental freedoms put in jeopardy, and should act quickly to make sure that their rights are protected by an experienced criminal defense attorney.

If You Cannot Afford a Lawyer

At most steps in the criminal justice process, the United States Constitution guarantees the assistance of an attorney to almost all people who have been charged with a crime. This means that, even if you cannot afford to hire a criminal defense lawyer for yourself or a loved one, the government will provide you with a lawyer free of charge. Usually employed by the government as "public defenders", these attorneys are responsible for zealously protecting a criminal defendant's rights at all stages of the criminal process -- from arrest to appeal.

If a person can't afford the fees normally charged by criminal defense lawyers, the person will want the court to appoint a lawyer for him or her at government expense. To do this, the person must:

* ask the court to appoint a lawyer, and
* provide details about his or her financial situation.

A person's first opportunity to ask the court to appoint a lawyer is usually at his or her first court appearance, often called the arraignment.

Typically, the person shows up in court on the day indicated on the citation or bail receipt -- or the person is escorted to the court courtesy of the local sheriff if he or she hasn't posted bail -- and waits to be called. After being called, he or she moves to the place indicated by the bailiff (the court officer). Most often the judge will inquire about whether the person is represented by a lawyer. If he or she is not, the judge will ask the person whether he or she wishes to apply for court-appointed counsel. If the person says yes, some courts appoint a lawyer right then (if one is available in court) and finish the arraignment. After that the person is asked to fill in a financial questionnaire to be sure he or she qualifies for a court-appointed attorney. Other courts delay the case and only appoint a lawyer after the person's economic circumstances have been reviewed and the person has been approved for a lawyer at the state's expense.

Each state (or even county) makes its own rules as to who qualifies for a free lawyer. Also, the seriousness of a charge may affect a judge's decision as to whether a defendant is eligible for free legal assistance. For example, a judge may recognize that a wage-earner can afford the cost of representation for a minor crime, but not for one involving a complicated and lengthy trial.

Most states also provide for "partial indigency." This means that a judge may allow a defendant who doesn't qualify for free help but who cannot afford the full cost of a private lawyer to receive the services of a court-appointed attorney. At the conclusion of the case, the judge will require the defendant to reimburse the state or county for a portion of the costs of representation.

Sphere: Related Content

42-Year-Old Ex-Politician & Lawyer Engage In Sexual Intercourse With An Underaged

AN Australian lawyer has been granted bail after appearing in a Brisbane court on child sex charges.

The 42-year-old former politician is facing seven charges of engaging in sexual intercourse with a person under 16.

The charges carry a maximum penalty of 17 years imprisonment.

The man, who cannot be named in Queensland for legal reasons, today faced Brisbane Magistrates Court.

Magistrate Jacqui Payne granted him bail on a $100,000 surety, to be provided by his Brisbane-based uncle, and ordered he live with his parents in Sydney and report to the Castle Hill police station every day.

The man has been in custody since being arrested last Thursday at Brisbane International Airport following his extradition to Australia over the alleged rape of a 13-year-old girl in 1997.

Prosecutor Craig Chowhury today opposed bail on the grounds the man posed a risk of failing to appear after he fought attempts to have him brought back to Australia.

The man has already faced criminal proceedings overseas relating to the offences but a magistrate dropped the charges in 1999.

His lawyer Chris Nyst told the court the charges related to a family who had fallen into debt to the then-highflying lawyer after they failed to repay a loan.

Magistrate Payne adjourned the case for mention in Brisbane Magistrates Court on February 15.

Sphere: Related Content
Add to Technorati Favorites