John Aster was and did plead guilty to not 5 or 10 images, but 15 thousand images of young children that were sexually abused, living and dead.
John Aster obtained what is known in Australia as a NON CONVICTION or SPENT CONVICTION which still stands as a conviction, but is not identified unless he applies for employment working with CHILDREN then that company is informed of that conviction and legally he is not allowed any employment which allows him to be or around children of any description.
Reasons as to why he was given a non-conviction/spent:
In Australian and due to our legislation paedophiles are very protected and especially their identity and even those that have taken it to task to name and shame these people that have been convicted of the most heinous crimes entailing the worst kind of child abuse have looked down the barrel of jail sentence and severe penalties, such as the very well-known media spokesperson Derryn Hinch.
Hinch faces jail for naming paedophile’s
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/hinch-faces-jail-for-naming-pedophiles-20110310-1bp3g.htmlJohn Aster entered a guilty plea after he provided information in relation to other paedophile’s in his ring that were exchanging and manufacturing child pornography in Australia and because of the mere fact he had no previous criminal convictions and cooperated with the Queensland Police that had conducted the internet based operation- he received a NON CONVICTION/SPENT CONVICTION as detailed below the law regarding these convictions in Queensland and other States in Australia and why Queensland has come under great scrutiny over the years and by those who believe that there should be public record in relation to these perpetrators ,who does the law really protect when these subhuman individuals walk amongst us with our children in their sights?
What offences are ineligible to become Spent/Non Convictions?
Many jurisdictions currently distinguish between certain categories of offences when determining which convictions are eligible to become spent-non convictions:
For example, in NSW, Tasmania, the NT and the ACT
Convictions in respect of sexual offences can never be spent, regardless of the details of the offence, the gravity of the penalty imposed or the period of crime free behaviour.
In contrast, in Queensland, no distinction is made in respect of sexual offences when determining what convictions are eligible to become spent.
As noted above, in WA a distinction is made between „serious‟ and „lesser‟ convictions. Lesser
Convictions will be eligible to be spent on application to the Police Commissioner, if the penalty is for imprisonment for less than one year or a fine of less than $15,000.
In respect to serious convictions,
Spent Convictions Act 2000 (ACT) s11.
Certain minor offences are excluded from the WA Act, see Spent Convictions Act 1988 (WA) s4.where the prison sentence was for more than one year or a fine of $15,000 or more, a person may apply to the District Court to have the conviction declared spent after the required qualifying period has elapsed. The judge will decide whether to make a serious conviction spent by taking into account a range of factors including the length and kind of sentence imposed, the circumstances in which the offence was committed, the person’s circumstances at the time of the offence and at the time of the application, and any public interest to be served by not making an order.
Sexual Offences:
While the Model Bill generally does not distinguish between types of criminal offences, it does make provision for sexual offences to be excluded from the spent conviction regime. The Model Bill contemplates two alternative mechanisms for dealing with convictions in respect of sexual offences. One is to state that sexual offences can never be spent. The other adopts an approach similar to that adopted in WA in respect to serious convictions.
Section 9 of the Model Bill provides a separate procedure for dealing with „prescribed eligible offences‟, namely eligible adult offences or eligible juvenile offences that are sexual offences and are defined as such by regulation.
Section 9 provides that a conviction for a prescribed eligible offence will be spent if, on application to the Court by the convicted person, the Court makes an order that the conviction will be spent. When exercising its discretion to make such an order, the Court is required to have regard to the nature, circumstances and seriousness of the offence;
The length and kind of sentence imposed in respect of a conviction;
The length of time since the conviction;
All the circumstances of the applicant;
Whether the conviction prevents or may prevent the applicant from engaging in a particular profession, trade or business or in particular employment;
Whether there is any public interest to be served in not making an order.
The Discussion Paper seeks views on whether sexual offence should ever be permitted to become spent, and if so, whether the process of application outlined in section 9 should be adopted.
The Law Council submits that sexual offences should not be treated differently from any other category of offences and should become spent following the expiry of the prescribed qualifying period of good behaviour, as is the current practice in Queensland.
A central object of the spent conviction regime is to allow offenders convicted of minor offences, who have subsequently functioned in the community for a considerable period without committing another offence, the opportunity to engage in society without the stigma of a criminal conviction.
Given that no evidence was presented in the Discussion Paper to suggest that the rehabilitation period required for sexual offences is longer than that required for other offences, or that the approach adopted in Queensland has given rise to concern or criticism, the Law Council sees no reason why the spent conviction regime should not be applied consistently to all categories of offences.
In taking this position the Law Council acknowledges the public’s particular concerns regarding sexual offenders and sexual predators, and the need to protect vulnerable members of the community from the risk of sexual crime. However, the Law Council is of the view that a high level of community protection is already provided by the combination of the following factors:
Every spent conviction regime currently in operation is directed towards convictions for which relatively minor penalties have been imposed. Under the Model Bill, this is capped at penalties of less than one year imprisonment for adult offenders. This means that access to the spent conviction regime is only ever available to offenders whose crimes have been considered by the court to be of a nature warranting – at the most stringent - a penalty of only a short period of custody.
Given the seriousness the community and the courts attach to sexual offences, it is likely that only very minor offences would attract a penalty of less than one year imprisonment. This could include offences for which the rehabilitation motive of the spent conviction regime is particularly relevant, such as young people who engage in consensual sexual relations with peers who happen to be just below the age of consent.
The qualifying period that must expire before a conviction can be spent is considerable (ten years for adults and five for juveniles). This demonstrates to the community that the offender is able to function in the community without reoffending approach adopted in Queensland has given rise to concern or criticism, the Law Council sees no reason why the spent conviction regime should not be applied consistently to all categories of offences.
Specific exclusions apply in respect of the provisions preventing disclosure of spent convictions for situations where offenders will be tasked with or responsible for providing care, instruction or supervision of vulnerable groups or individuals, including children and the mentally disabled. This means, for example, that if a person has a conviction for a sexual offence that has been spent, disclosure of that conviction will not be unlawful (and in fact can be required) if the person is seeking to engage in employment in child care centre or a school. The existing exclusions in this respect are already broad in scope, and can be added to by regulation.
In addition, the Law Council is of the view that the application process proposed in section 9 of the Model Bill runs counter to the rationale underpinning the spent convictions regime.
A central premise of the spent conviction regime is that following the expiry of a certain period, past convictions for matters will not be disclosed to anyone, or be required to be disclosed to anyone, unless a specific exclusion applies.
To set up a procedure where by a person must apply to the court to have the conviction undermines this rationale by requiring the offender to initiate a process wherein the details of his or her past offending will again be the subject of judicial and potentially public scrutiny.
As noted by the NSW Bar Association and the Queensland Law Society, the practical effect of a convicted person having to be rejudged by a different court over an old offence offends the principle of double jeopardy and is likely to result in very few genuinely rehabilitated people applying to have an old conviction declared to be „spent‟ due to the stress involved, the risk of publicity and the expense.
If the Law Council’s position in relation to section 9 is not adopted, the Council would prefer the inclusion of section 9 in the Model Bill rather than the alternative suggested in the Discussion Paper. The Law Council would strongly oppose an approach wherein a sexual offence can never be permitted to become spent.
10 The Law Council notes that Schedule 1 of the Model Bill provides that section 9 hearings should be held in private unless otherwise ordered by the court.
If people take the time to read the POLICE CERTIFICATE that is blue and John Aster has put up to clear his name as having no convictions you will notice that on the very bottom in fine print that it actually states that legally if a person has a recorded of NON CONVICTION/SPENT CONVICTION, that the details of that conviction WILL NOT BE DISCLOSED DUE TO LEGISLATION.
If people also bother to listen to a recording on YouTube you will hear John Aster BY HIS OWN ADMISSION admitting he was charged and also admitting how furious he was that his previous conviction was used in his Family Law proceedings once the allegation was made, he had been caught masturbating next to his daughter Fiona Aster on the marital bed by his wife and was ordered to have supervised contact in a contact centre to be monitored for the safety and wellbeing of his young Daughter.
We in this country are known for our Freedom of Speech yet, predators like him are protected? Do we not as parents have a duty of care, not only to our own Children, but others in the community?
John Aster goes on a tirade all over the Internet regarding cyber stalking/bullying and that he is a VICTIM from such abuse, yet Know one writes things on social websites such as FACEBOOK PUBLICLY, if they do not want people to see it and have a PUBLIC WALL or open GROUPS as he does attacking people, children and organisations if he did not want a response!
People find it hard how to ignore people with his history and convictions & especially when their children are being used and attacked by the worst kind of predator *ONE THAT HAS ABUSED INNOCENRT CHILDREN IN THE WORST IMAGINABLE WAY!
John Aster should be made an example of why our Laws in Australia need to be changed and for multiple reasons, one being he is a known convicted predator, who should be on MAKO.
John Aster over a year ago started speaking to a young woman by the name of BEX ADAMS:
https://www.facebook.com/bex.adams.56 a young woman from the UK and she came to Australia for a holiday/work visa ,to travel since John Aster offered her a place to stay, this young woman being 20 years old or younger at the time she travelled to Australia & begun living with John Aster, this predator ended up not only sleeping with this young women, but taking naked photos of her and sexually explicit photos of her at the beach and other places.
She eventually moved out & ventured to see different parts of Australia & living her life & not wanting or being in a relationship with John Aster ,he became upset & angry telling people she was a slut and that she was sleeping with a new man every second night, had diseases and had asked her to leave ,despite the fact this predator was nearly 30 years older and the young girl had come to Australia for a holiday and to enjoy herself, still today he remains friends with & obsessed with her and often remarks how beautiful she is in photos ,despite what he tells others and still remains friends with this young vulnerable young woman that is old enough to be his daughter and being in a foreign country would rely on him if she had nowhere to go!
John Aster last year took up driving taxis and use to park at local night club’s where he would know there were young vulnerable drunken women or put ads in the local paper seeking people to rent out his rooms in his house and often you found the people that applied to these were struggling single mothers with children and many had moved in, only to move out and we must ask why?
John Aster maintains he has online relationships with women in countries such as America, the UK to distract from what he is really doing in Australia and to elude people to believe he is in a relationship and always these women have young children, that in some way have been sexually abused or raped or come from Domestic Violence or some other form of abuse, parental or otherwise that online deters from his predatory behaviour.
Despite the fact when looking at these women, even that conduct is predatory!
John Aster is currently abusing the young child that belongs to another man.
John Aster met Georgii Marie Mchill/ Norris now currently residing in Sydney
https://www.facebook.com/georgiimarie.mccahillnorrisVia the Internet after she had a brief relationship with P.Geary and from that brief relationship or affair no matter how one wants to view it, this woman who was known as a Forgotten Australian after being sexually abused by her father for many years and met the father of her children while prostituting ended up with a pill addiction and alcoholic and continued prostituting herself for many year at kings cross ,sadly due to the destructive nature of her lifestyle lost her three children and since they were very young they have been solely brought up by their father ,whom she also declares was an abuser, if there was any truth to that, one will never know, but the presumption is DOC’s would have also removed them from his care as well, rather than hers!
One has to question the merits and credibility of this woman when she declared to Centerlink she did not know the father of her child and his name is not on the birth certificate and that it was a one night stand she had met in the local pub to prevent any contact and obtain benefits, rather than allowing the father to pay child support like he wanted to and had been contributing to his son Sam/Charlie’s life after he found out that she was indeed pregnant with his child, after believing she was taking birth control and being in her mid-30’s at the time and did not have her three children in her care or had implemented any action in trying to get them back in her life to any degree.
Deception does not come at a higher price than when a man is trapped by a woman in such a way using an innocent child and the to use that child as a pawn against the father in a bid to hurt them, because they were prepared to for fill their duty as a father ,but not maintain a relationship with a woman who you had found out was still abusing her body with Alcohol and did not even have her other three children in her care or desire or motivation to even want them or have them back full time in her life gives a person the idea that people like her are not only not maternal, but are incapable and should never have had children.
Georgii –Norris decided there was even a better way to not only abuse her small innocent son and not only alienate him from his father and other siblings that he has a right to know, but chose to put him at even greater risk of sexual abuse along with his sister, that had decided in just under a year to come home and help her mother bring up her brother.
That Georgii decided that she would enter a relationship with JOHN ASTER- A MAN CONVICTED OF CHILD EXPLOITATION/PORNOGPRHAPHY, now that goes to show where the old quote applies-nothing like a scorned women.
To sleep with a man and have your young child around a person convicted of such crimes is more than incomprehensible and no mother let alone a decent human being ,would even consider putting their own child at such risk and danger of being abused and when questioned about why she could even consider it?
She stated - well everyone changes!!!
My opinion and I believe we are all entitled to one:
I believe John Aster , a man caught masturbating next to his own daughter Fiona Aster and was ordered by the Family Law Courts of Australia after being given the evidence of his past child exploitation and the fact he kidnapped his daughter from a supervised visit due to his history and the sexual nature of the allegation, accompanied by his past child exploitation of other’s children and conviction and after he had illegally taken his daughter went to various motels with her and eventually to his parents for over a month and finally after being in hiding returned the child and it was taken back to the Family Law Courts and it was ordered in need to protect the child from her own fathers, sick, unhealthy conduct ,should be enough to show any MOTHER, this man is not safe and proven by LAW on various occasions, to be around his own Daughter Fiona ,let alone any one else’s child and has not in years and will not ever see his daughter FIONA ASTER for her own protection and safety.
Georgii Norris and multiple other names she calls herself, see’s fit to allow him to be around her son, bath him, photography him and try and FATHER HER SON, all for the sake of getting back at one of John Asters arch rivals that has been exposing this predator with others after his admissions and constant attacks and is a well-known enemy to Pete.Geary the father of her child that she has set up, stalked and harassed, even hacking his accounts with john Aster, all because he did not want a relationship with her, but was more than prepared and had been supporting her and his child financially and otherwise after she had told him she was not prepared to have an abortion is no more than despicable ,but humanely unintelligible to any parent with any regard to the life of a child, its worth & their own children and who know what unconditional love is when it comes to their children & what is best for a child’s needs.
It is a sad irony when a woman that calls herself a mother goes to such lengths and it is ultimately the worst kind of Child Abuse I have encountered in my life with a mother, to put a child in harm’s way of the worst kind of abuse one can ever imagine with a very strong possibility the child will be sexually abused with a convicted Predator and she does not deserve ,nor does any mother that uses their child as a pawn due to separation and purely out of spite to get back at the father of her child.
May there be consequences for people like this and it be a reminder that we do not live in a place where are children are safe with people such as this being seen as role models for any child or being protected by the law that is here to protect children such as this from people just like these two individuals!
Calendar
