October 19, 2025 • 39 mins
In this episode, Adam Shand speaks with Adelaide lawyer Andrew Carpenter, a man described as “the most hated by Australian child sex offenders.” Carpenter has dedicated his career to pursuing justice for survivors of child sexual abuse—specifically, by closing a shocking legal loophole that allows convicted pedophiles to hide their wealth in superannuation, beyond the reach of their victims.
Together, Adam and Andrew unpack how this injustice has persisted despite bipartisan promises to fix it, and why successive governments continue to protect offenders’ financial interests over those of their victims. Carpenter shares chilling examples—from corrupt magistrates to corporate predators—illustrating how the system fails survivors while taxpayers foot the bill.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
Approche production.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
This podcast contains discussion of child sexual assault and psychological trauma.
It's not recommended for younger listeners and discretion is advised.
Welcome to Real Crime with Adam Shand. I'm your host
Adam Shand. We talk a lot about victim centric justice
in Australia, about prioritizing the needs and experiences of those
(00:34):
harmed by crime and facilitating healing, support and empowerment through
the justice system.
Speaker 1 (00:41):
The federal government has been accused of dragging its feet
on closing a loophole that allows convicted child abuses to
protect their assets and superannuation, leaving survivors without compensation.
Speaker 2 (00:52):
Unfortunately, the talk does not always match the walk, especially
when it comes to the victims of child sexual abuse.
Speaker 3 (01:00):
South Australian survivor Eden Van Harron was awarded one point
four million million dollars in damages, but he hasn't seen
a cent.
Speaker 2 (01:09):
We've definitely gotten better at catching these vile perpetrators, but
in my opinion, we let them out too soon. When
it comes to properly compensating survivors, there is a very
long way to go. I wonder how many of you
know that scores of pedophiles have been allowed to hide
their assets, especially in superannuation, to defeat efforts by their
(01:30):
victims to sue them for compensation. The Treasury has been
considering reforms since twenty eighteen, but five years on the
loophole remains open. There's apparently bipartisan support for closing this loophole.
In twenty eighteen, the federal government identified this issue as
a priority, but surprise, surprise, nothing has changed. My guest
(01:55):
today has been described as the most hated man by
Australian child sex offenders, a worthy title. Indeed, Adelaide lawyer
Andrew Carpenter has dedicated himself to pursuing the assets of pedophiles.
He's part of the super for Survivor's team that is
demanding the Federal government reform the Bankruptcy Act so the
(02:16):
child sex offenders superannuation can be used to help victims
and survivors rebuild their lives. And Andrew Carpenter joins me out.
Speaker 3 (02:25):
Welcome Andrew, Hey, Adam, thanks for having on to have
this uncomfortable conversation.
Speaker 2 (02:29):
It's uncomfortable but very very necessary. How did you get
involved in this area of the law. You're not a
criminal lawyer.
Speaker 3 (02:36):
No I'm not, and I'm not a survivor of sexual
abuse as well. So when I got my first job
at a law firm, I just like every other graduate,
you sent him to do the jobs and the files
and other people don't want to touch. And the first
file that I got given was effectively a survival child
sexual abuse out to claim. And I saw the hardships
and how the legal system wasn't supportive of victim survivors,
(02:59):
and back in twenty eleven, I just thought, you know what,
I might as well run with these files and try
the voice of the voiceless and to try to make
change and also to make sure that these people finally
got the justice they deserve.
Speaker 2 (03:10):
How many people are we talking about here that have
taken advantage of this loophole to defeat compensation efforts by
their victims.
Speaker 3 (03:17):
Well, anyone that's works since nineteen eighty five will have superannuation.
And what we see in the very rare circumstances where
people secure a conviction against their offenders, by that time,
they've capitulated their assets, they've sold their house, they've spent
all their money paying lawyer's fees, and more often than not,
these individuals are above the preservation age, so above fifty
five years old, so they can use everything, declare bankruptcy
(03:41):
and then their supernuation will be able to keep them
afloat for the rest of their life or while their
s divivors can't touch anything.
Speaker 2 (03:48):
Meanwhile, the state and the individuals have to shoulder the
cost of their rehabilitation, their return to health if you like.
After these henous offenses, they're left on their own well's.
Speaker 3 (04:01):
Effectively, the taxpayer has been indemnifying child sex offenders decades.
There was a Brave Heart study back in twenty sixteen
that said that the annual cost of the Australian government
could be in a vicinity of thirty point one billion
dollars per year. Now, if you look at the budget
that came down this year was thirty one billion dollars
for the cost to run the entire government, and that
includes wages, super buildings, security, everything that needs to run
(04:26):
the federal government or the government included that thirty one
billion dollars and the fact that victim survivors do not
get the readers they deserve, and the tax payer continues
to meet the costs associated with Centerlink PBS medicare, psychological visits,
GP visits, all of that, and the victim survivors often
(04:46):
most likely can never recover that.
Speaker 1 (04:48):
From the offenders.
Speaker 3 (04:49):
It's just some of the taxpayers had to meet the
cost of and it's about time that the taxpayers band
together and say, no, we are not going to indemnify
pedophiles for their heinous crimes.
Speaker 2 (05:00):
You've been at this for what fourteen to fifteen years now,
nothing's happened.
Speaker 1 (05:05):
No, why is that?
Speaker 2 (05:06):
Are there no votes in this It's clearly improper. It's
somewhat evil to allow this loophole to exist.
Speaker 3 (05:13):
It is why I first heard about it in twenty eighteen.
My mother used to work in evanuation and she knew
I was dealing in this area. And as soon as
I heard that from her, I thought, great, the liberal
government will do this. But by the time twenty twenty here,
I took my oldest child to child care for the
first time and all hit home that I have to
try and trust other people with my child. And that's
when I thought, you know what, this isn't a problem
(05:35):
you can arrest out of the Statistics of conviction are horrible.
It's one in three girls and one in five boys
or endured child sexual abuse all the age of eighteen.
So what can I do to at least deter this
in the front tend And I thought, you know, just
like everyone that has anyone that has drivers last as,
for instance, no one cares about demerit points. You're not
using your phone in the car because you don't want
to find So I thought, at least deterring this upfront
(05:56):
of something that I could do. I've seen that, say
the atricalceed they've stopped doing convictions against directors, they're finding them,
and insolvent trading and all kinds of white collar crimes
like that have gone down. So I started in twenty
twenty with the Super Savivors campaign. I started lobbing to
the Liberal government then, who advised in twenty twenty one
on a current affair that if they're re elected they
(06:17):
will try to put this into power. But obviously they
weren't re elected. Labor has basically remained silent on this
for almost two terms now. But what the Labor governments
effectively said is we will never touch superannuation. Yet they
have started taxing superannuation. So I spoke about the budget
before twenty five billion dollars of revenue in the budget
from last year came from the taxation of superannuation. Yet
(06:41):
the Labor government do not want to go after the
super of child sex offenders, which basically to me shows
that they'd much rather tax hard work in Australians than
go after the supernuation of pedophiles. So I don't know
for the life of me, White hasn't been passed. It's
a no brainer and the only people that would be
against this law change would be the pedophiles themselves.
Speaker 2 (06:59):
It's right. And let's look at some of the examples
of this. You had your former longer serving registrate in
South Australia, Peter Liddy, was sentenced to twenty five years
jail with a non parole of eighteen years for sexually
abusing children at a surf life saving club in the eighties.
He managed to put his super beyond the reach of survivors.
Speaker 3 (07:21):
Well, yeah, so when he was sentenced, he was a
single guy, and he had a mansion in the Wine
region here in South Australia, and he collected all kinds
of weird historical artifacts like suits of armor and pirate
displayed old handguns. And yet when he was caught with this.
When he went to prison, all of his assets disappeared.
No one knows where they went, no one knows who
took them. But despite being worth millions, it was the
(07:44):
taxpayer that had to meet the cost. All of his
victors survivors got ten thousand dollars each from a taxpayer
funded all the bits a prime fund. Yet he was
a government worker before nineteen eighty seven, so the old
defined benefit scheme, if you went to the government for
more than twenty years before nineteen eighty seven, you retired
on eighty percent of your income. Effectively sitting in prison
(08:06):
since two thousand and one earning eighty percent of the
magistrate's wage. And when it gets out, his victim survivors
cannot go after him for anything because all of its
money is paid into superannuation and he can't be touched.
Speaker 2 (08:17):
Remember the Gypsy Joker President Steve Williams. I was actually
in Adelaide in two thousand and five, just after he disappeared,
and one of the things he did was he was
in touch with somebody who actually robbed Liddy's house of
a number of these artifacts and were trying to sell.
Steve was going to sell them on behalf of the victims.
That's where it got to because the state wasn't going
to do anything about compensating the victims. So I find
(08:40):
it kind of heenous that here you are a lawyer
advocating on behalf of victims. There are other lawyers who
make their daily bread from helping these heenous offenders hide
their assets.
Speaker 3 (08:52):
Well, it's not the lawyers that are hiring the assets,
and the fact that when these guys go to prison,
they're told by other inmates who do the exact same
thing as to what to do, So lawyers aren't actually
going out and say you should do this. It's the
fact that all of these affens a coupled in the
jail together or in protective custody and they're basically trading
more stories, telling each other how to hide assets. Or
(09:12):
the most grotesque thing is they're telling individuals who are
about to get released that there's a woman in this
street in South Australia. If you give one hundred dollars,
she'll let you with their children's for an hour. It's
the fact that if these individuals start putting in general population,
you see a lot of more people be too scared
to go back into prison because there was a recent
study a while ago. It's the reason why child sex
(09:33):
offenders are hated in prison. It's not by virtue of
their crimes. It's the fact that a large percentage of
people in prison were actually victim survivors of childhood sex
with the views themselves.
Speaker 2 (09:43):
I mean, what's the impact on the people that you
deal with when they look at the costs of what's
been done to them. How do they feel when they
can see these individuals defeating there If it's a compensation,
how does it feel for them?
Speaker 3 (09:59):
Well, for the victims survivor's standpoint, there's no good behavior bond,
there's no early release for good behavior. There's no suspended sentence.
Their trauma is a life sentence. Brother b who the
part of the mass brothers, it's very brave brothers that
confronted their abuser in court.
Speaker 1 (10:13):
He summed up perfectly.
Speaker 3 (10:14):
He said years ago that it's like you've dropped a
vase on the ground and it's smashed one thousand pieces. Yes,
you can go it back together, but the scars remained forever.
So many of the people that I deal with, they
can't work, can never work. Can't have partners. I've had
people that can't even leave the house. I've had some
that they give up on their weekly groceries to afford
(10:36):
their medication because they can't function without it. All whilst
all the offenders have freehold houses in their self managed
super fund, and yet it's a burden that goes onto
the tax payer. Offen often wondered why the Labor government
doesn't want to pass this. I mean, I'm not shedding
light on them because liberals had it did nothing as well.
But the reason why they're not passing it is what
(10:56):
they advised in an interview was that the cost of
the public of putting offenders in the old age pension
is too much. I've said, but you're literally making the
taxpayer meet the cost of someone from eighteen to life
instead of from sixty seven to I think the national
average age is eighty two eighty three, and so you're
capitulating millions of dollars on victors of drivers. Yet there's
(11:20):
too worried about someone from God on the age pension.
It just doesn't make sense. And if you think if
a victim survivor has a lump sum upfront, they could
go off and get the specialist psychatch treatment they need
to actually assimilate back into society. They could then finish school,
they could work, they could get a job, they could
start a family. But instead a lot of these people
(11:42):
that are living in poverty because of something that happened
to them, which is not their fault at all.
Speaker 2 (11:47):
And mean still, in the case of Lyddy, there were
I think there were seven claims for damages launched by
his victims. They were all later dropped because there was
virtually nothing left of his estate they could get to
and they got ten thousand dollars each. That was all.
It's just a try. It barely covers the life legal fees.
Speaker 3 (12:06):
Yeah, it doesn't cover the legal fees at all. There
were seven at the start, and I believe in about
two thousand and nine there was another trance of survivors
that came forward, but Peter led his lawyers successfully argued
for a permanent stay of the action because they're said,
by virtue of his crimes, everyone knows who is in
South Australia and he could get a fair trial because
any single person that's on the jury would know what
(12:27):
he's like. And you think if he's sitting on four
or five million dollars in cerpanuation in prison and it
can't be touched.
Speaker 1 (12:34):
It's insane.
Speaker 3 (12:34):
There was a I did want to get to another
monster here a few years ago, and he had seven
hundred and fifty thousand dollars in cerpnuation and he was
burning two hundred and fifty dollars a week in prison
on chocolate bars, newspapers, soft drinks. So in his sentence
he can legally capitulate two hundred and fifty thousand dollars
of his money in his sentence just on snacks. Yet
(12:57):
his victory survivors can't touch him. And I just don't
know why that. The Labor government said a while ago
they'll never touch the supernuation laws at all, but I
reminded them it was during COVID. It was no less
than ten days where the Liberal government at that stage
and now it's the people get access a superpnuation to
meet the cost of living due to the pandemic. And
then the Labor government when they got in, they started
(13:20):
taxing people at the start that had more than three
million in super and then they now issues new legislation
attacks people with money in super So there obviously can
touch it. You look at family court for instance, you
can divide up superpnuation as part of a family lord dispute.
There are ways and avenues to do it. I just
don't know, if the life of me, of why these
government bodies refuse to touch this when it's not going
(13:44):
to cost the tax payer of cents, it's going to
deter offending and it's going to compensate bingp to survivors.
Speaker 1 (13:49):
What happened to them?
Speaker 2 (13:52):
Is this the only class of crime where this loophole exists.
Speaker 1 (13:57):
It happens in other areas.
Speaker 3 (13:58):
But one thing that the government was mindful of is
if they opened the Pandora's box and this, they said, well,
what other crimes could follow suit? And I said that
there's no other crime like child sex abuse. The High
Court have always said that this is an outlier kind
of offense because there's no legal justification for it. You
think of with murder, you can argue mitigating factors for murder,
(14:19):
such as self defense, self defense of another, excessive self defense.
You can downgate drink driving to say that my mother
had a heart and sack I had to rush to
the hospital. Assault, for instance, you can say with adult
rape you can say that consent with withdrawn halfway through
the act. But with child sexual abuse there is no
mitigating factor because a child cannot consent to any sex activity.
(14:41):
And so this isn't going to be something where it
opens up the box of every single action that a
VIC survivor can bring against offenders. This is only designed
for child sexual abuse because this is all the percentages
that are disgusting.
Speaker 1 (14:55):
You look, for instance, the conviction rate.
Speaker 3 (14:57):
There's a study from doctor Judy Curtin from a few
years ago that's said for every one thousand reports of
child sexual abuse, only one hundred investigator by police siegs
get convicted and three get overturned on appeal. So that's
conviction rate of point zero zero three percent per thousand reports.
And to put that in perspective, I did a talk
was myself and Grace Tame at the ALA austral Lawyers
(15:20):
Alliance a few years ago in Law and Victoria, and
I thought the night before how can I put this
in real terms? And I said, look, the most trusted
news source in Australia, and I'm willing to go to
bat on this. The most trusted news source in Australia
is Sports Bet. They can pick elections, they can pick
sports or sporting events. And I said that week, I
think there was two AFL teams and one was paying
(15:41):
ten to one odds, And I said, who would put
your money on this ten to one odd team?
Speaker 1 (15:45):
And everyone said absolutely not.
Speaker 3 (15:46):
The closest statistical equivalent to appoint zero zero three percent
success rate at that time was Pauline Hanson and Bob
Catter becoming the next Prime.
Speaker 1 (15:57):
Minister of Australia one hundred and one.
Speaker 3 (16:00):
Now, if you think how remote and unlikely that is
to happen, you then realize how unlikely and remote it
is for a victor survived to get conversation. Yet, out
of fifteen years of law, I think only probably less
than ten of the matters that I've won have resulted
in a criminal conviction. Almost every single matter I've ever
had has resolved or succeeded when there's not even a
(16:21):
criminal charge laid. Because there was a study I think
it came out of the Royal Commission. It was the average
time frame it takes report is twenty nine point four years.
Now if you look, for instance, look at O. J. Simpson,
everyone knows he've done it. It's clear as day, but
he got off because there was a bungled prosecution the
racist police officer. But criminal is beyond reasource doubt. But
(16:42):
on the civil side of the bounce of probabilities, you
just have to convince the court that something is likely
to happen.
Speaker 1 (16:47):
So when O. J.
Speaker 3 (16:48):
Simpson got sued for the death of Nicole Simpson and
I think it was a waiter at a restaurant called
Ron from memory Goldman Ron, he was responsible for their deaths.
And so we're saying that this isn't just Willy Nearly
you just rock up to an offender and say give
me money. I from your super This legislation is aimed
to be able to go after a civil judgment or
(17:09):
a civil settlement. Victims of vivors should be able to
access supanuation of offenders because there is no similar case
in this Because again there is no legal justification as
sexually assault a child.
Speaker 2 (17:19):
It certainly has a chilling effect on people who would
consider mounting actions. Look at the case of former Bigger
Cheese boss Maurice von Ryan, who was convicted of abusing
nine boys and girls between eight and fifteen. He got
eighteen years or nineteen years in jail and there was
a compensation claim against him. He was there was an
(17:40):
award a one point four million, but not a cent
as him paid out.
Speaker 3 (17:44):
Why was that, Well, he declared bankruptcy and so he
was able to sell his house and his cars to
fund his criminal defense and put all his money into superannuation.
And you think the director of the biggest cheese company
in Australia worth millions and he doesn't have two cents
to rub together. It's because he knew about loophole. It's
(18:06):
commonly spoke about by offenders in prisons, and he knew
exactly what to do, how to do it, and his
victor survivors would never see a scent. But if this
ail is lifted, victor survivors could then say, right, well,
he's got ten million dollars in super we should be
able to have a crack at that because when he
gets out of prison, all that's going to happen is
he could access his superguation.
Speaker 1 (18:27):
He can live a comfortable life.
Speaker 3 (18:28):
I believe at one stage there was a mention of
him that he owned property in Thailand.
Speaker 1 (18:33):
But again there's.
Speaker 3 (18:34):
Going to be no redress paid out, and you think,
what does go into prison do for bitten survivors. It
doesn't help them put food on the table, It doesn't
help them get treatment. They get a poultry. Victors of
crime claim that maybe will last them for a year
of food, electricity rent, and then what for the rest
of their lives until we start setting example of these
(18:56):
insidious crimes. Once there's a resulting impact and enough stop
so I start doing weekly videos on my Instagram page
where I detail the percentages of crimes per week they're
in the District Court of South Australia. There was on
average about twenty five percent this week. I think Monday
was thirty percent, Tuesday was twenty five and today being Friday,
fifteen out of sixty matters, so twenty five percent of
(19:18):
all mattered the District Court of South Australia late to
the sexual abuse of a child. There was a day
last November where in one day in South Australia, fifty
three percent of all matters in court that day late
child sexual abuse. Yet the number one story of the
news that night was m Green's politician that said that
the government needed to ban fast food change from being
(19:40):
built within a kilometer of a school because it posed
the danger to children for health reasons. So we've got
politicians that don't want to talk about this, even though
it's the showing our treatment studies show that one in
three girls one in five boys will be sexually abused
for eighteenth birthday. Yet this is not it's not a
vote getting topic because it's not a topic that's going
to divide the country. You think this, If they had
a vote on this, I would be shocked if it
(20:01):
was more than ninety nine percent of people voted for this.
Speaker 2 (20:05):
Agree, I mean, I should correct something. Van Right only
actually got fourteen years in the end for his crimes
against nine boys and girls. I mean, and when you
look at the award that was made to just one
of his victims, it looks very reasonable one point four million.
And you look at the breakdown of that general damages
of half a million dollars, interest on damages twenty six thousand,
(20:25):
loss of earningcapacity two and fifty five thousand dollars, interests
thirty one thousand, past loss of superannuation twenty eight thousand,
and so on and so forth. These all seem like
very reasonable payments to someone who's last been utterly destroyed
by a monster. Yet this person is able to evade
this and with the help. I'll say it again, I'm
sorry to speak against your fellows in the legal profession,
(20:48):
but they are helping facilitate this as well. You can't
tell me that they aren't saying to their clients, listen,
let's salvage something from the wreckage here. Because obviously they're families,
they're also innocent victims in some of this as well.
They may need some money in the future despite your crime.
So there is an industry about saving these guys superinnuation.
Speaker 3 (21:09):
Yeah, and so that might be the case. I don't
do criminal also, I don't know what they advise. But
the brave individual in the judgment you just referred to,
he's actually waved his right to anonymity and he's spoken publicly.
Speaker 1 (21:20):
His name's Eden.
Speaker 3 (21:21):
And luckily for van Rinn, he has been able to
at least get a job work part time. But there's
so many victims of vivors that will never work and
say someone, there's judgments for people that in their say
sixties or seventies, yet you know they have never worked
their entire life. They've been on centiling and if they're
commensated for what they could have been earning from ages
(21:42):
sixteen to retirement age. We're talking four to five million
dollars here. There's claims that have been easy to say.
The judgments have been around five or six million dollar mark.
And that's for when people are completely they have all
their agency removed. They can't work, can't study. And so
these cases where people have their lives ruined, why aren't
(22:02):
they able to then go after the Affentit It just
baffles me as to how this is a conversation that
we're still having five and a half years after I
started the law.
Speaker 1 (22:12):
Change it.
Speaker 3 (22:12):
To me, there's no rhyme or reason why the government
hasn't changed this. And I don't know why such a
topic like this is not dealtly. You look at I
think the voice for instance, the vote it was what
seventy thirty elections usually you know fifty one to forty
nine percent. They're all topics that are divisive in nature.
But this is the one thing that if anyone has children,
(22:34):
or grandchildren or nieces and nephews, this is the one
thing you band together because people don't want to see
children getting harmed and they don't want to see a
crime where ninety nine point nine to ninety seven cent
of people get away with it. If you think if
if one in three girls and one in five boys
say was it to meth amphetamine? Or was murdered or
killed someone driving whilst texting, you watch how quickly the
(22:56):
government would change the laws in relation to those crimes.
We'll look at, for instance, last year domestic violence. It's
a horrific crime, but you look at the millions of
people that march around Australia. Domestic violence happens to one
in six women. You're twice as likely as a woman
to be sexually abused as a child than you are
to be assaulted by a partner. Yet there's radio silence
and all ends from the government relation to these crimes.
Speaker 2 (23:18):
Now in South Australia, we've long heard about the existence
of the shadowy family, a group of rich and powerful
individuals who protect each other this child sex ring, and
you look at child sex offending overall, it is in
the higher socioeconomic strata of our society. Do you think
there is a conspiracy at some level to protect individuals,
(23:40):
particularly in South Australia.
Speaker 3 (23:43):
I mean it is definitely a crime in the higher
restlant because you look at the sex holidays. Is Icico's take,
you know, when they're just bearing to Thailand or Southeast
Asia three or four times a year to commit these offenses.
It's obviously an added cost. But the hard thing with
stats is not the strange danger thing that where we
should be concerned of. It's eighty percent of child abuses incestral,
and ninety two percent is known to the business of
(24:05):
whether it's teacher, priest, sports coach, neighbor. I've heard all
the stories about the family, and I think they were
eighties and nineties they around, so I remember there was
a the family murder was Rob Kelvin. It was a
newsreader's son and that was Spencer von Eman. So it
was a group of men that would target young boys
(24:26):
and sexual assault and murder them. I've heard rumblings over
the years that it was in old boys' homes where
some of these things took place. But the studies and
the statistics show that it's mainly father's, stepfather's uncles, great grandfather's, grandfathers,
but mainly.
Speaker 1 (24:42):
Stepfather's commit these crimes.
Speaker 3 (24:44):
I mean, it wouldn't surprise me if there was still
the family out there. It was very hard to think
that organized syndicates would just completely die off. But my
main focus has always been on the main perpetrators, which
are people known to children. So I've always tried to
highlight the signs and what people should look for with offenders.
Speaker 1 (25:02):
But this day and age, nothing surprises me.
Speaker 2 (25:06):
What did an episode recently with a survivor from Queensland
who was sexually assaulted by her stepfather for the period
of three years. Her mother denied the whole thing was happening,
swept in under the carpet. She was actually put in
a foster home for a period of time, and for
decades she lived with the impacts of all that until
(25:28):
she decided to get charges against now a very elderly offender.
It's taken the police two or three years to even
look at the case. He's in another state. She's tried
to go after his assets, she can't find any and
the impact on her life is so dire. It's affected
every relationship that she's ever had since. It's very sad,
and I wonder when people come to you like that,
(25:52):
how can you give them any confidence that you can
do something positive for them? Do you have to say, listen,
there's big hurdles here do you try to dissuade them?
What do you do?
Speaker 3 (26:01):
One of the biggest things that actually happened that was
after the Royal Commission is that they totaled states and
territories to abolish limitation periods, because, like I said, it
was twenty nine point four years before people reported, so
that was one of the main barriers that BIGNA survivors
hadn't actually seeking a civil redress. But the main thing
is if an offender doesn't have any assets, there's nothing
you can do, and if they're not convicted of the crime,
(26:23):
there's no way you can get vindors of crime. And
so if you think we're in South Australia, we've I
think we're sitting on almost two or three hundred million
dollars of a victors of Crime fund, and you think,
why should victims of crime funds be growing? They should
be there to commensate victims of crime. I don't know
what it would be in the other states as well,
but if there's someone that's clearly been abused their whole life,
(26:44):
they've been going to the doctor for years and there's
been a formal diagnosis that they've suffered PTSD, anxiety, anything
from childhood sexual abuse.
Speaker 1 (26:53):
You wonder why.
Speaker 3 (26:53):
Governments don't say, right, well, we've got all this excess
money in victs of crime funds. You should be able
to do that, especially if an independent psychiatrist says that, yes,
you have these injuries, because it is very hard to
pull the all over the eyes of a lawyer when
someone goes in, because I am kind of engaging in
a bit of a mini cross examination at times when
I first meet someone to see the legitimacy of their crimes.
(27:14):
And I've had one in fifteen years that I just said, look,
I don't think I can help you because they showed
telltale signs of making up things. But if you can
convince a lawyer and an independent psychiatrist who is not
a treating psychiatrist, you just see once that something happened
to you, and then you can go to the government
and say, here's my psych report, here's my GP notes,
(27:36):
here's all proof that I've been dealing with trauma from
childhood sexual abuse my whole life. There's no reason why
they shouldn't be able to go after bits of crime
fund because again it's growing, and it's the fund is
there to commensate victim survivors of all kinds of crimes.
Like in South Australia, it's a staging approach. So if
you were a victim of crime before nineteen sixty nine,
the maximum you can claim it's one thousand dollars. Before
(27:58):
nineteen seventy something it's two thousand. I think it went
up to twenty thousand in the eighties, fifty thousand in
early two thousands, and it's now to one hundred thousand
dollars here in South Australia maximum. But again, the fund
is there for a reason. It should be used for
all the people that fall through the cracks. Look at
the Redress Scheme for instance. The Redress Scheme is set
up for victims vivors to go after institutions that are
(28:21):
no longer in existence and no longer able to be sued.
But what a lot of the churches, the schools and
the state governments do is they tell people to go
straight through the redress scheme and it's capped a one
hundred and fifty thousand dollars because they know they'll be
paying cents the dollar if people sue the institutions that
have insurance and assets their claims are worth millions, so
(28:42):
to me, the Redress scheme is the absolute claim of
last resort you'd go to. But the government set up
the National Redress Scheme for people that have been abused
and institutions. Now only four percent of all abuse takes
place as an institution. The rest is by a family
member and other offenders. So I don't know where the
other people are meant to go. If there's billions been
(29:04):
spent on institutions which have insurance and funds to satisfy claims.
Speaker 2 (29:10):
Only four percent come from institutional sex abuse, that's remarkable.
So ninety six percent are, as you say, outside that realm,
and they have no chance of pursuing the assets of
these offenders. You had a bit of success. You've been
talking to the Albaneze government for a while and the
Minister for Financial Services, Stephen Jones, prior to the last election,
(29:30):
did talk about a discussion paper for consultation, but it
seemed to be watered down almost from the beginning, where
it was only going to be making available additional super contributions.
In other words, after someone was convicted, who would then
make additional contributions to defeat their possible claims. That seems
to be too little, too late.
Speaker 3 (29:50):
Well, it was myself, Madeline West, fighters against TILDEBEUS Australia
and the Great Team Foundation and discussions with Stephen Jones,
and we said that it has to be for all
inters of abuse, not just guilty findings, because though a
point zero zero three percent of overall abuses, and we
said it had to be out of all contributions and
(30:12):
all matters. What Labor has said is, well, we do
it for only findings of guilt and out of a
character contribution. So if your employe is putting in one
thousand dollars a week into Super and you pay fifty
dollars a week on top of that, the Labor government
says you're only entired to go after that fifty dollars
a week, and so you could be sitting on millions
of Super and they still won't budge. And the main
(30:33):
thing that the Labor government has said is they don't
want to touch Super. But they show again and again
that they are continuing to tax all Australians superannuation and
yet they're saying you can't touch child sex offenders. It
makes no sense whatsoever for a government that's been to
be representing the best interest of all Australians. They're not
representing the interests of Australians if they're making tax payers
(30:54):
foot the bill for crimes or what offenders cause. In
circumstances where offenders have assets available for distribution, A.
Speaker 2 (31:02):
What advice would you give to victim? Survivors are facing
this whole question, then maybe they've waited for a long time.
It's difficult enough to come forward. They have demonstrable losses
and effects in their life from the abuse they've suffered.
What advice do you give them?
Speaker 3 (31:19):
Still speak to a lawyer, because the first point of
call it's to see if these offenders have assets. Now,
most people, if the abuse happened in the sixty seventies, eighties, nineties,
the cost of living was actually manageable.
Speaker 1 (31:31):
So often offenders have houses.
Speaker 3 (31:34):
But again, if they're married, you can only go after
fifty per center of the equity in their property. And
so I've seen some of the bigger law firms around
Australia they're suing offenders for five million dollars they've only
got five hundred thousand dollars equity in the property. It
just doesn't make sense, and that's the reason why all
of the claims don't exist. When you're suing the offender,
your claim against them is basically worth what their assets are.
(31:55):
I will always say, firstly, it's not your fault. Speech
to a lawyer right away and do title search to
see if he is offenders own assets. And the one
thing I've noticed more than anything is, yes, the timeframe
is large, but most of the time when people report
is when they have children of their own, and that's
when it hits home that, oh, this is something that
I happen to me as a child. I don't ever
(32:18):
want my kid to go through this, and so that's
when they report to the police. But again, people are
scared to apport to the police because when they're a
young child and they're being sexually abused in a room,
they don't want to then go sit in front of
a big, scary police officer who's probably the same age
as their offender was in a room by themselves. It's
just triggering to them. So we've even said in the
(32:39):
past there should be things like having a specialized unit
for this where child psychologists or at least qualified psychologists
or social workers are with a police officer to actually
soften the approach of taking a statement, because more people
would be more than willing to come forward if they're
not going to be triggered by virtue of recounting the
offense against them. But then they see things like so
the Britney Higgins trial, they see that it's the trial
(33:02):
is basically attacking the victim. The offender will sit there
in silence, they'll get to cross examine the victim survivor,
and more often than not that the actual criminal trial,
if it gets that far, is more triggering the abuse itself.
So many victims survivors simply too scared to go to
the police or the one thing they believe that no
one's going to believe them. I mean, the easiest way
(33:24):
to deal with it is if you've got a kid
that's in year nine and the abuse happens in year nine.
They've been top of the class their whole life, their abuse,
and turn one and year nine, and all of a
sudden they start failing every subject. Years after the fact,
you can pinpoint that this abuse happened in or about
year nine, and when you were turn one, you're in
year nine, and that your grades went down. You can
(33:46):
pinpoint that you don't need to be exact with the dates.
In civil matters, you just have to give a time frame.
And anecdotal evidence would be that if your parents come
forward and say, oh, you definitely change in year nine
and your GP note show that you started seeing a
psychologist you had low mood, there's ways to actually trace
it back. So people get scared because of remember the
exact dates and times that happened. But everyone goes to
(34:08):
the doctor. Everyone can have reports that are kept for
years for schools. That is a clear indication of the
impact after the abuse.
Speaker 2 (34:17):
You've really put your heart in solider this. You could
be doing cushy corporate law jobs and so forth, but
you've decided to do this. And I have to say,
the tide is not turning in your favorite this stage.
Politics are standing in your way of the just outcome.
Do you think anything will change? And how long can
you continue to advocate on behalf of victim survivors if
(34:38):
the law doesn't change all My.
Speaker 1 (34:40):
Wife will so quite stubborn. So I'm not going to
back down from this.
Speaker 3 (34:43):
And I've had people over the years say, oh, you know,
you should run for office, and I say no, Like
I can do a lot more damage being outside the
castle pissing in than inside the castle pissing out. And
the fact that it's taken five and a half years
to get to this point and I'm not seeing any
government body willing to put their hand up and actually say, hey,
we're going to pass this. It's not disheartening. It just
(35:03):
makes me want to grind down and fight for it,
because again, I've.
Speaker 1 (35:08):
Got children my own.
Speaker 3 (35:09):
I want to make sure when they're older that my
grandkids and great grandkids in a world where there's going
to be greater deterrence and committing these crimes. Like if
you went to casino and the game was if you
put one hundred dollars down, you're ninety nine point nine
nine to seven percent likely to win, you'd be doing
it every day of the week because the chances of
losing are so remote and obscure. And even if I
(35:30):
can't improve the conviction rate, at least this cause will
hopefully deter people from offending because they're going to think, oh,
hang on, I know a guy that lost his entire
million dollars superannuation he's been working for for forty years
because he offended it as a child. Maybe I shouldn't
do that. You know, I'm not doing one hundred and
fifty k's on the road on the way to work
every morning because I don't want to pay a massive
(35:52):
fine and get my car crushed. Most people are sensible
when it comes to the financial cost, because I get
why criminal lawyers say that suspended sentences at home to
tendents are a real thing. But God, during COVID everyone
did home detention. Home detention is you can't leave the
house unless it's the growthro is or a medical appointment.
And you know it sucked, but it wasn't prison.
Speaker 2 (36:13):
Good point, Andrew Carpenter. It's been a pleasure to talk
to you. I wish you all the very best. It's
a tough ask. I wonder whether you have to get
to the High Court, you have to get to some
forum where you can change the law. This can be
challenged on a very fundamental level. Do you think it's
possible or is it simply we're waiting for politicians to
do what we're paying them for, or.
Speaker 3 (36:35):
It's waiting for politicians and this could be something is
simple as adding six words to the Bankruptcy Act except
for child sex abuse matters. That's one section. We could
put that in about super being a protected asset because
if you're a fraudster, for instance, you can declare bankruptcy
as a fraudster, but ten years later, if you've got
money that's popped up, you can be bankrupted again.
Speaker 1 (36:56):
But any other crime it's not.
Speaker 3 (36:58):
So fraudsters under the Bankruptcy Act are deemed more dangerous
than child sex offenders. So I just hope there's more
federal ministers that are going to put their hand up
and go after this cause because until that we're not
going to see the numbers drop.
Speaker 1 (37:13):
We're going to see it become worse.
Speaker 3 (37:15):
And look at technology, like the law hasn't brought up
with technology yet. We've got all these AI apps that
are producing child abuse images and that hasn't been shut
down yet. So until we start addressing all crimes later children,
you think the youth crime would go down if children
aren't abused and ut turning drugs. Prisoners will go down
if people aren't committing crimes to turn drugs. This is
(37:35):
a fundamental, basic level change which is going to do
a lot of good, prevent a lot of harm, and
finally get bitness survivors getting the recourse they deserve.
Speaker 2 (37:46):
Do you thank you so much for your time today.
I really appreciate it.
Speaker 1 (37:49):
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (37:52):
That's Andrew Carpenter from the Super for Survivors team that's
demanding the federal government reform the Bankruptcy Act. This is
just not fair. The victims of sexual abuse in our
society have suffered in silence for far too long. Most
of them have been reluctant to come forward. They're coming
forward now in great numbers. We know this is an
incredibly pervasive offense in our society and it's time we
(38:17):
hit these monsters where they lived, in their homes, their superinnuation.
This loophole needs to be closed sooner rather than later.
Politics often fails victims. There is another case of it.
If you've been a victim of child sexual abuse, I
urge you to come forward, come to the police, call
Crime Stoppers one out out of triple three, triple zero.
(38:39):
You can also contact Andrew Carpenter at Webster's Lawyers and Adelaide.
He will certainly take your case. We'd also like tea
from you as well. You can give you an email
Adam Shander writer at gmail dot com, but also write
to your local member of parliament. Make sure they know
that the silent majority will not cop this anymore. These
monsters need to be brought to account, not just in
(39:00):
the courts because the sentences are just not enough. Get
their money from them, That's what all really hurt them,
so they can't come out to a cushy lifestyle having
left their victims in squalor and suffering for the rest
of their lives. Thanks for listening to this has been
Adam Shand for real crime
Approche production.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
This podcast contains discussion of child sexual assault and psychological trauma.
It's not recommended for younger listeners and discretion is advised.
Welcome to Real Crime with Adam Shand. I'm your host
Adam Shand. We talk a lot about victim centric justice
in Australia, about prioritizing the needs and experiences of those
(00:34):
harmed by crime and facilitating healing, support and empowerment through
the justice system.
Speaker 1 (00:41):
The federal government has been accused of dragging its feet
on closing a loophole that allows convicted child abuses to
protect their assets and superannuation, leaving survivors without compensation.
Speaker 2 (00:52):
Unfortunately, the talk does not always match the walk, especially
when it comes to the victims of child sexual abuse.
Speaker 3 (01:00):
South Australian survivor Eden Van Harron was awarded one point
four million million dollars in damages, but he hasn't seen
a cent.
Speaker 2 (01:09):
We've definitely gotten better at catching these vile perpetrators, but
in my opinion, we let them out too soon. When
it comes to properly compensating survivors, there is a very
long way to go. I wonder how many of you
know that scores of pedophiles have been allowed to hide
their assets, especially in superannuation, to defeat efforts by their
(01:30):
victims to sue them for compensation. The Treasury has been
considering reforms since twenty eighteen, but five years on the
loophole remains open. There's apparently bipartisan support for closing this loophole.
In twenty eighteen, the federal government identified this issue as
a priority, but surprise, surprise, nothing has changed. My guest
(01:55):
today has been described as the most hated man by
Australian child sex offenders, a worthy title. Indeed, Adelaide lawyer
Andrew Carpenter has dedicated himself to pursuing the assets of pedophiles.
He's part of the super for Survivor's team that is
demanding the Federal government reform the Bankruptcy Act so the
(02:16):
child sex offenders superannuation can be used to help victims
and survivors rebuild their lives. And Andrew Carpenter joins me out.
Speaker 3 (02:25):
Welcome Andrew, Hey, Adam, thanks for having on to have
this uncomfortable conversation.
Speaker 2 (02:29):
It's uncomfortable but very very necessary. How did you get
involved in this area of the law. You're not a
criminal lawyer.
Speaker 3 (02:36):
No I'm not, and I'm not a survivor of sexual
abuse as well. So when I got my first job
at a law firm, I just like every other graduate,
you sent him to do the jobs and the files
and other people don't want to touch. And the first
file that I got given was effectively a survival child
sexual abuse out to claim. And I saw the hardships
and how the legal system wasn't supportive of victim survivors,
(02:59):
and back in twenty eleven, I just thought, you know what,
I might as well run with these files and try
the voice of the voiceless and to try to make
change and also to make sure that these people finally
got the justice they deserve.
Speaker 2 (03:10):
How many people are we talking about here that have
taken advantage of this loophole to defeat compensation efforts by
their victims.
Speaker 3 (03:17):
Well, anyone that's works since nineteen eighty five will have superannuation.
And what we see in the very rare circumstances where
people secure a conviction against their offenders, by that time,
they've capitulated their assets, they've sold their house, they've spent
all their money paying lawyer's fees, and more often than not,
these individuals are above the preservation age, so above fifty
five years old, so they can use everything, declare bankruptcy
(03:41):
and then their supernuation will be able to keep them
afloat for the rest of their life or while their
s divivors can't touch anything.
Speaker 2 (03:48):
Meanwhile, the state and the individuals have to shoulder the
cost of their rehabilitation, their return to health if you like.
After these henous offenses, they're left on their own well's.
Speaker 3 (04:01):
Effectively, the taxpayer has been indemnifying child sex offenders decades.
There was a Brave Heart study back in twenty sixteen
that said that the annual cost of the Australian government
could be in a vicinity of thirty point one billion
dollars per year. Now, if you look at the budget
that came down this year was thirty one billion dollars
for the cost to run the entire government, and that
includes wages, super buildings, security, everything that needs to run
(04:26):
the federal government or the government included that thirty one
billion dollars and the fact that victim survivors do not
get the readers they deserve, and the tax payer continues
to meet the costs associated with Centerlink PBS medicare, psychological visits,
GP visits, all of that, and the victim survivors often
(04:46):
most likely can never recover that.
Speaker 1 (04:48):
From the offenders.
Speaker 3 (04:49):
It's just some of the taxpayers had to meet the
cost of and it's about time that the taxpayers band
together and say, no, we are not going to indemnify
pedophiles for their heinous crimes.
Speaker 2 (05:00):
You've been at this for what fourteen to fifteen years now,
nothing's happened.
Speaker 1 (05:05):
No, why is that?
Speaker 2 (05:06):
Are there no votes in this It's clearly improper. It's
somewhat evil to allow this loophole to exist.
Speaker 3 (05:13):
It is why I first heard about it in twenty eighteen.
My mother used to work in evanuation and she knew
I was dealing in this area. And as soon as
I heard that from her, I thought, great, the liberal
government will do this. But by the time twenty twenty here,
I took my oldest child to child care for the
first time and all hit home that I have to
try and trust other people with my child. And that's
when I thought, you know what, this isn't a problem
(05:35):
you can arrest out of the Statistics of conviction are horrible.
It's one in three girls and one in five boys
or endured child sexual abuse all the age of eighteen.
So what can I do to at least deter this
in the front tend And I thought, you know, just
like everyone that has anyone that has drivers last as,
for instance, no one cares about demerit points. You're not
using your phone in the car because you don't want
to find So I thought, at least deterring this upfront
(05:56):
of something that I could do. I've seen that, say
the atricalceed they've stopped doing convictions against directors, they're finding them,
and insolvent trading and all kinds of white collar crimes
like that have gone down. So I started in twenty
twenty with the Super Savivors campaign. I started lobbing to
the Liberal government then, who advised in twenty twenty one
on a current affair that if they're re elected they
(06:17):
will try to put this into power. But obviously they
weren't re elected. Labor has basically remained silent on this
for almost two terms now. But what the Labor governments
effectively said is we will never touch superannuation. Yet they
have started taxing superannuation. So I spoke about the budget
before twenty five billion dollars of revenue in the budget
from last year came from the taxation of superannuation. Yet
(06:41):
the Labor government do not want to go after the
super of child sex offenders, which basically to me shows
that they'd much rather tax hard work in Australians than
go after the supernuation of pedophiles. So I don't know
for the life of me, White hasn't been passed. It's
a no brainer and the only people that would be
against this law change would be the pedophiles themselves.
Speaker 2 (06:59):
It's right. And let's look at some of the examples
of this. You had your former longer serving registrate in
South Australia, Peter Liddy, was sentenced to twenty five years
jail with a non parole of eighteen years for sexually
abusing children at a surf life saving club in the eighties.
He managed to put his super beyond the reach of survivors.
Speaker 3 (07:21):
Well, yeah, so when he was sentenced, he was a
single guy, and he had a mansion in the Wine
region here in South Australia, and he collected all kinds
of weird historical artifacts like suits of armor and pirate
displayed old handguns. And yet when he was caught with this.
When he went to prison, all of his assets disappeared.
No one knows where they went, no one knows who
took them. But despite being worth millions, it was the
(07:44):
taxpayer that had to meet the cost. All of his
victors survivors got ten thousand dollars each from a taxpayer
funded all the bits a prime fund. Yet he was
a government worker before nineteen eighty seven, so the old
defined benefit scheme, if you went to the government for
more than twenty years before nineteen eighty seven, you retired
on eighty percent of your income. Effectively sitting in prison
(08:06):
since two thousand and one earning eighty percent of the
magistrate's wage. And when it gets out, his victim survivors
cannot go after him for anything because all of its
money is paid into superannuation and he can't be touched.
Speaker 2 (08:17):
Remember the Gypsy Joker President Steve Williams. I was actually
in Adelaide in two thousand and five, just after he disappeared,
and one of the things he did was he was
in touch with somebody who actually robbed Liddy's house of
a number of these artifacts and were trying to sell.
Steve was going to sell them on behalf of the victims.
That's where it got to because the state wasn't going
to do anything about compensating the victims. So I find
(08:40):
it kind of heenous that here you are a lawyer
advocating on behalf of victims. There are other lawyers who
make their daily bread from helping these heenous offenders hide
their assets.
Speaker 3 (08:52):
Well, it's not the lawyers that are hiring the assets,
and the fact that when these guys go to prison,
they're told by other inmates who do the exact same
thing as to what to do, So lawyers aren't actually
going out and say you should do this. It's the
fact that all of these affens a coupled in the
jail together or in protective custody and they're basically trading
more stories, telling each other how to hide assets. Or
(09:12):
the most grotesque thing is they're telling individuals who are
about to get released that there's a woman in this
street in South Australia. If you give one hundred dollars,
she'll let you with their children's for an hour. It's
the fact that if these individuals start putting in general population,
you see a lot of more people be too scared
to go back into prison because there was a recent
study a while ago. It's the reason why child sex
(09:33):
offenders are hated in prison. It's not by virtue of
their crimes. It's the fact that a large percentage of
people in prison were actually victim survivors of childhood sex
with the views themselves.
Speaker 2 (09:43):
I mean, what's the impact on the people that you
deal with when they look at the costs of what's
been done to them. How do they feel when they
can see these individuals defeating there If it's a compensation,
how does it feel for them?
Speaker 3 (09:59):
Well, for the victims survivor's standpoint, there's no good behavior bond,
there's no early release for good behavior. There's no suspended sentence.
Their trauma is a life sentence. Brother b who the
part of the mass brothers, it's very brave brothers that
confronted their abuser in court.
Speaker 1 (10:13):
He summed up perfectly.
Speaker 3 (10:14):
He said years ago that it's like you've dropped a
vase on the ground and it's smashed one thousand pieces. Yes,
you can go it back together, but the scars remained forever.
So many of the people that I deal with, they
can't work, can never work. Can't have partners. I've had
people that can't even leave the house. I've had some
that they give up on their weekly groceries to afford
(10:36):
their medication because they can't function without it. All whilst
all the offenders have freehold houses in their self managed
super fund, and yet it's a burden that goes onto
the tax payer. Offen often wondered why the Labor government
doesn't want to pass this. I mean, I'm not shedding
light on them because liberals had it did nothing as well.
But the reason why they're not passing it is what
(10:56):
they advised in an interview was that the cost of
the public of putting offenders in the old age pension
is too much. I've said, but you're literally making the
taxpayer meet the cost of someone from eighteen to life
instead of from sixty seven to I think the national
average age is eighty two eighty three, and so you're
capitulating millions of dollars on victors of drivers. Yet there's
(11:20):
too worried about someone from God on the age pension.
It just doesn't make sense. And if you think if
a victim survivor has a lump sum upfront, they could
go off and get the specialist psychatch treatment they need
to actually assimilate back into society. They could then finish school,
they could work, they could get a job, they could
start a family. But instead a lot of these people
(11:42):
that are living in poverty because of something that happened
to them, which is not their fault at all.
Speaker 2 (11:47):
And mean still, in the case of Lyddy, there were
I think there were seven claims for damages launched by
his victims. They were all later dropped because there was
virtually nothing left of his estate they could get to
and they got ten thousand dollars each. That was all.
It's just a try. It barely covers the life legal fees.
Speaker 3 (12:06):
Yeah, it doesn't cover the legal fees at all. There
were seven at the start, and I believe in about
two thousand and nine there was another trance of survivors
that came forward, but Peter led his lawyers successfully argued
for a permanent stay of the action because they're said,
by virtue of his crimes, everyone knows who is in
South Australia and he could get a fair trial because
any single person that's on the jury would know what
(12:27):
he's like. And you think if he's sitting on four
or five million dollars in cerpanuation in prison and it
can't be touched.
Speaker 1 (12:34):
It's insane.
Speaker 3 (12:34):
There was a I did want to get to another
monster here a few years ago, and he had seven
hundred and fifty thousand dollars in cerpnuation and he was
burning two hundred and fifty dollars a week in prison
on chocolate bars, newspapers, soft drinks. So in his sentence
he can legally capitulate two hundred and fifty thousand dollars
of his money in his sentence just on snacks. Yet
(12:57):
his victory survivors can't touch him. And I just don't
know why that. The Labor government said a while ago
they'll never touch the supernuation laws at all, but I
reminded them it was during COVID. It was no less
than ten days where the Liberal government at that stage
and now it's the people get access a superpnuation to
meet the cost of living due to the pandemic. And
then the Labor government when they got in, they started
(13:20):
taxing people at the start that had more than three
million in super and then they now issues new legislation
attacks people with money in super So there obviously can
touch it. You look at family court for instance, you
can divide up superpnuation as part of a family lord dispute.
There are ways and avenues to do it. I just
don't know, if the life of me, of why these
government bodies refuse to touch this when it's not going
(13:44):
to cost the tax payer of cents, it's going to
deter offending and it's going to compensate bingp to survivors.
Speaker 1 (13:49):
What happened to them?
Speaker 2 (13:52):
Is this the only class of crime where this loophole exists.
Speaker 1 (13:57):
It happens in other areas.
Speaker 3 (13:58):
But one thing that the government was mindful of is
if they opened the Pandora's box and this, they said, well,
what other crimes could follow suit? And I said that
there's no other crime like child sex abuse. The High
Court have always said that this is an outlier kind
of offense because there's no legal justification for it. You
think of with murder, you can argue mitigating factors for murder,
(14:19):
such as self defense, self defense of another, excessive self defense.
You can downgate drink driving to say that my mother
had a heart and sack I had to rush to
the hospital. Assault, for instance, you can say with adult
rape you can say that consent with withdrawn halfway through
the act. But with child sexual abuse there is no
mitigating factor because a child cannot consent to any sex activity.
(14:41):
And so this isn't going to be something where it
opens up the box of every single action that a
VIC survivor can bring against offenders. This is only designed
for child sexual abuse because this is all the percentages
that are disgusting.
Speaker 1 (14:55):
You look, for instance, the conviction rate.
Speaker 3 (14:57):
There's a study from doctor Judy Curtin from a few
years ago that's said for every one thousand reports of
child sexual abuse, only one hundred investigator by police siegs
get convicted and three get overturned on appeal. So that's
conviction rate of point zero zero three percent per thousand reports.
And to put that in perspective, I did a talk
was myself and Grace Tame at the ALA austral Lawyers
(15:20):
Alliance a few years ago in Law and Victoria, and
I thought the night before how can I put this
in real terms? And I said, look, the most trusted
news source in Australia, and I'm willing to go to
bat on this. The most trusted news source in Australia
is Sports Bet. They can pick elections, they can pick
sports or sporting events. And I said that week, I
think there was two AFL teams and one was paying
(15:41):
ten to one odds, And I said, who would put
your money on this ten to one odd team?
Speaker 1 (15:45):
And everyone said absolutely not.
Speaker 3 (15:46):
The closest statistical equivalent to appoint zero zero three percent
success rate at that time was Pauline Hanson and Bob
Catter becoming the next Prime.
Speaker 1 (15:57):
Minister of Australia one hundred and one.
Speaker 3 (16:00):
Now, if you think how remote and unlikely that is
to happen, you then realize how unlikely and remote it
is for a victor survived to get conversation. Yet, out
of fifteen years of law, I think only probably less
than ten of the matters that I've won have resulted
in a criminal conviction. Almost every single matter I've ever
had has resolved or succeeded when there's not even a
(16:21):
criminal charge laid. Because there was a study I think
it came out of the Royal Commission. It was the average
time frame it takes report is twenty nine point four years.
Now if you look, for instance, look at O. J. Simpson,
everyone knows he've done it. It's clear as day, but
he got off because there was a bungled prosecution the
racist police officer. But criminal is beyond reasource doubt. But
(16:42):
on the civil side of the bounce of probabilities, you
just have to convince the court that something is likely
to happen.
Speaker 1 (16:47):
So when O. J.
Speaker 3 (16:48):
Simpson got sued for the death of Nicole Simpson and
I think it was a waiter at a restaurant called
Ron from memory Goldman Ron, he was responsible for their deaths.
And so we're saying that this isn't just Willy Nearly
you just rock up to an offender and say give
me money. I from your super This legislation is aimed
to be able to go after a civil judgment or
(17:09):
a civil settlement. Victims of vivors should be able to
access supanuation of offenders because there is no similar case
in this Because again there is no legal justification as
sexually assault a child.
Speaker 2 (17:19):
It certainly has a chilling effect on people who would
consider mounting actions. Look at the case of former Bigger
Cheese boss Maurice von Ryan, who was convicted of abusing
nine boys and girls between eight and fifteen. He got
eighteen years or nineteen years in jail and there was
a compensation claim against him. He was there was an
(17:40):
award a one point four million, but not a cent
as him paid out.
Speaker 3 (17:44):
Why was that, Well, he declared bankruptcy and so he
was able to sell his house and his cars to
fund his criminal defense and put all his money into superannuation.
And you think the director of the biggest cheese company
in Australia worth millions and he doesn't have two cents
to rub together. It's because he knew about loophole. It's
(18:06):
commonly spoke about by offenders in prisons, and he knew
exactly what to do, how to do it, and his
victor survivors would never see a scent. But if this
ail is lifted, victor survivors could then say, right, well,
he's got ten million dollars in super we should be
able to have a crack at that because when he
gets out of prison, all that's going to happen is
he could access his superguation.
Speaker 1 (18:27):
He can live a comfortable life.
Speaker 3 (18:28):
I believe at one stage there was a mention of
him that he owned property in Thailand.
Speaker 1 (18:33):
But again there's.
Speaker 3 (18:34):
Going to be no redress paid out, and you think,
what does go into prison do for bitten survivors. It
doesn't help them put food on the table, It doesn't
help them get treatment. They get a poultry. Victors of
crime claim that maybe will last them for a year
of food, electricity rent, and then what for the rest
of their lives until we start setting example of these
(18:56):
insidious crimes. Once there's a resulting impact and enough stop
so I start doing weekly videos on my Instagram page
where I detail the percentages of crimes per week they're
in the District Court of South Australia. There was on
average about twenty five percent this week. I think Monday
was thirty percent, Tuesday was twenty five and today being Friday,
fifteen out of sixty matters, so twenty five percent of
(19:18):
all mattered the District Court of South Australia late to
the sexual abuse of a child. There was a day
last November where in one day in South Australia, fifty
three percent of all matters in court that day late
child sexual abuse. Yet the number one story of the
news that night was m Green's politician that said that
the government needed to ban fast food change from being
(19:40):
built within a kilometer of a school because it posed
the danger to children for health reasons. So we've got
politicians that don't want to talk about this, even though
it's the showing our treatment studies show that one in
three girls one in five boys will be sexually abused
for eighteenth birthday. Yet this is not it's not a
vote getting topic because it's not a topic that's going
to divide the country. You think this, If they had
a vote on this, I would be shocked if it
(20:01):
was more than ninety nine percent of people voted for this.
Speaker 2 (20:05):
Agree, I mean, I should correct something. Van Right only
actually got fourteen years in the end for his crimes
against nine boys and girls. I mean, and when you
look at the award that was made to just one
of his victims, it looks very reasonable one point four million.
And you look at the breakdown of that general damages
of half a million dollars, interest on damages twenty six thousand,
(20:25):
loss of earningcapacity two and fifty five thousand dollars, interests
thirty one thousand, past loss of superannuation twenty eight thousand,
and so on and so forth. These all seem like
very reasonable payments to someone who's last been utterly destroyed
by a monster. Yet this person is able to evade
this and with the help. I'll say it again, I'm
sorry to speak against your fellows in the legal profession,
(20:48):
but they are helping facilitate this as well. You can't
tell me that they aren't saying to their clients, listen,
let's salvage something from the wreckage here. Because obviously they're families,
they're also innocent victims in some of this as well.
They may need some money in the future despite your crime.
So there is an industry about saving these guys superinnuation.
Speaker 3 (21:09):
Yeah, and so that might be the case. I don't
do criminal also, I don't know what they advise. But
the brave individual in the judgment you just referred to,
he's actually waved his right to anonymity and he's spoken publicly.
Speaker 1 (21:20):
His name's Eden.
Speaker 3 (21:21):
And luckily for van Rinn, he has been able to
at least get a job work part time. But there's
so many victims of vivors that will never work and
say someone, there's judgments for people that in their say
sixties or seventies, yet you know they have never worked
their entire life. They've been on centiling and if they're
commensated for what they could have been earning from ages
(21:42):
sixteen to retirement age. We're talking four to five million
dollars here. There's claims that have been easy to say.
The judgments have been around five or six million dollar mark.
And that's for when people are completely they have all
their agency removed. They can't work, can't study. And so
these cases where people have their lives ruined, why aren't
(22:02):
they able to then go after the Affentit It just
baffles me as to how this is a conversation that
we're still having five and a half years after I
started the law.
Speaker 1 (22:12):
Change it.
Speaker 3 (22:12):
To me, there's no rhyme or reason why the government
hasn't changed this. And I don't know why such a
topic like this is not dealtly. You look at I
think the voice for instance, the vote it was what
seventy thirty elections usually you know fifty one to forty
nine percent. They're all topics that are divisive in nature.
But this is the one thing that if anyone has children,
(22:34):
or grandchildren or nieces and nephews, this is the one
thing you band together because people don't want to see
children getting harmed and they don't want to see a
crime where ninety nine point nine to ninety seven cent
of people get away with it. If you think if
if one in three girls and one in five boys
say was it to meth amphetamine? Or was murdered or
killed someone driving whilst texting, you watch how quickly the
(22:56):
government would change the laws in relation to those crimes.
We'll look at, for instance, last year domestic violence. It's
a horrific crime, but you look at the millions of
people that march around Australia. Domestic violence happens to one
in six women. You're twice as likely as a woman
to be sexually abused as a child than you are
to be assaulted by a partner. Yet there's radio silence
and all ends from the government relation to these crimes.
Speaker 2 (23:18):
Now in South Australia, we've long heard about the existence
of the shadowy family, a group of rich and powerful
individuals who protect each other this child sex ring, and
you look at child sex offending overall, it is in
the higher socioeconomic strata of our society. Do you think
there is a conspiracy at some level to protect individuals,
(23:40):
particularly in South Australia.
Speaker 3 (23:43):
I mean it is definitely a crime in the higher
restlant because you look at the sex holidays. Is Icico's take,
you know, when they're just bearing to Thailand or Southeast
Asia three or four times a year to commit these offenses.
It's obviously an added cost. But the hard thing with
stats is not the strange danger thing that where we
should be concerned of. It's eighty percent of child abuses incestral,
and ninety two percent is known to the business of
(24:05):
whether it's teacher, priest, sports coach, neighbor. I've heard all
the stories about the family, and I think they were
eighties and nineties they around, so I remember there was
a the family murder was Rob Kelvin. It was a
newsreader's son and that was Spencer von Eman. So it
was a group of men that would target young boys
(24:26):
and sexual assault and murder them. I've heard rumblings over
the years that it was in old boys' homes where
some of these things took place. But the studies and
the statistics show that it's mainly father's, stepfather's uncles, great grandfather's, grandfathers,
but mainly.
Speaker 1 (24:42):
Stepfather's commit these crimes.
Speaker 3 (24:44):
I mean, it wouldn't surprise me if there was still
the family out there. It was very hard to think
that organized syndicates would just completely die off. But my
main focus has always been on the main perpetrators, which
are people known to children. So I've always tried to
highlight the signs and what people should look for with offenders.
Speaker 1 (25:02):
But this day and age, nothing surprises me.
Speaker 2 (25:06):
What did an episode recently with a survivor from Queensland
who was sexually assaulted by her stepfather for the period
of three years. Her mother denied the whole thing was happening,
swept in under the carpet. She was actually put in
a foster home for a period of time, and for
decades she lived with the impacts of all that until
(25:28):
she decided to get charges against now a very elderly offender.
It's taken the police two or three years to even
look at the case. He's in another state. She's tried
to go after his assets, she can't find any and
the impact on her life is so dire. It's affected
every relationship that she's ever had since. It's very sad,
and I wonder when people come to you like that,
(25:52):
how can you give them any confidence that you can
do something positive for them? Do you have to say, listen,
there's big hurdles here do you try to dissuade them?
What do you do?
Speaker 3 (26:01):
One of the biggest things that actually happened that was
after the Royal Commission is that they totaled states and
territories to abolish limitation periods, because, like I said, it
was twenty nine point four years before people reported, so
that was one of the main barriers that BIGNA survivors
hadn't actually seeking a civil redress. But the main thing
is if an offender doesn't have any assets, there's nothing
you can do, and if they're not convicted of the crime,
(26:23):
there's no way you can get vindors of crime. And
so if you think we're in South Australia, we've I
think we're sitting on almost two or three hundred million
dollars of a victors of Crime fund, and you think,
why should victims of crime funds be growing? They should
be there to commensate victims of crime. I don't know
what it would be in the other states as well,
but if there's someone that's clearly been abused their whole life,
(26:44):
they've been going to the doctor for years and there's
been a formal diagnosis that they've suffered PTSD, anxiety, anything
from childhood sexual abuse.
Speaker 1 (26:53):
You wonder why.
Speaker 3 (26:53):
Governments don't say, right, well, we've got all this excess
money in victs of crime funds. You should be able
to do that, especially if an independent psychiatrist says that, yes,
you have these injuries, because it is very hard to
pull the all over the eyes of a lawyer when
someone goes in, because I am kind of engaging in
a bit of a mini cross examination at times when
I first meet someone to see the legitimacy of their crimes.
(27:14):
And I've had one in fifteen years that I just said, look,
I don't think I can help you because they showed
telltale signs of making up things. But if you can
convince a lawyer and an independent psychiatrist who is not
a treating psychiatrist, you just see once that something happened
to you, and then you can go to the government
and say, here's my psych report, here's my GP notes,
(27:36):
here's all proof that I've been dealing with trauma from
childhood sexual abuse my whole life. There's no reason why
they shouldn't be able to go after bits of crime
fund because again it's growing, and it's the fund is
there to commensate victim survivors of all kinds of crimes.
Like in South Australia, it's a staging approach. So if
you were a victim of crime before nineteen sixty nine,
the maximum you can claim it's one thousand dollars. Before
(27:58):
nineteen seventy something it's two thousand. I think it went
up to twenty thousand in the eighties, fifty thousand in
early two thousands, and it's now to one hundred thousand
dollars here in South Australia maximum. But again, the fund
is there for a reason. It should be used for
all the people that fall through the cracks. Look at
the Redress Scheme for instance. The Redress Scheme is set
up for victims vivors to go after institutions that are
(28:21):
no longer in existence and no longer able to be sued.
But what a lot of the churches, the schools and
the state governments do is they tell people to go
straight through the redress scheme and it's capped a one
hundred and fifty thousand dollars because they know they'll be
paying cents the dollar if people sue the institutions that
have insurance and assets their claims are worth millions, so
(28:42):
to me, the Redress scheme is the absolute claim of
last resort you'd go to. But the government set up
the National Redress Scheme for people that have been abused
and institutions. Now only four percent of all abuse takes
place as an institution. The rest is by a family
member and other offenders. So I don't know where the
other people are meant to go. If there's billions been
(29:04):
spent on institutions which have insurance and funds to satisfy claims.
Speaker 2 (29:10):
Only four percent come from institutional sex abuse, that's remarkable.
So ninety six percent are, as you say, outside that realm,
and they have no chance of pursuing the assets of
these offenders. You had a bit of success. You've been
talking to the Albaneze government for a while and the
Minister for Financial Services, Stephen Jones, prior to the last election,
(29:30):
did talk about a discussion paper for consultation, but it
seemed to be watered down almost from the beginning, where
it was only going to be making available additional super contributions.
In other words, after someone was convicted, who would then
make additional contributions to defeat their possible claims. That seems
to be too little, too late.
Speaker 3 (29:50):
Well, it was myself, Madeline West, fighters against TILDEBEUS Australia
and the Great Team Foundation and discussions with Stephen Jones,
and we said that it has to be for all
inters of abuse, not just guilty findings, because though a
point zero zero three percent of overall abuses, and we
said it had to be out of all contributions and
(30:12):
all matters. What Labor has said is, well, we do
it for only findings of guilt and out of a
character contribution. So if your employe is putting in one
thousand dollars a week into Super and you pay fifty
dollars a week on top of that, the Labor government
says you're only entired to go after that fifty dollars
a week, and so you could be sitting on millions
of Super and they still won't budge. And the main
(30:33):
thing that the Labor government has said is they don't
want to touch Super. But they show again and again
that they are continuing to tax all Australians superannuation and
yet they're saying you can't touch child sex offenders. It
makes no sense whatsoever for a government that's been to
be representing the best interest of all Australians. They're not
representing the interests of Australians if they're making tax payers
(30:54):
foot the bill for crimes or what offenders cause. In
circumstances where offenders have assets available for distribution, A.
Speaker 2 (31:02):
What advice would you give to victim? Survivors are facing
this whole question, then maybe they've waited for a long time.
It's difficult enough to come forward. They have demonstrable losses
and effects in their life from the abuse they've suffered.
What advice do you give them?
Speaker 3 (31:19):
Still speak to a lawyer, because the first point of
call it's to see if these offenders have assets. Now,
most people, if the abuse happened in the sixty seventies, eighties, nineties,
the cost of living was actually manageable.
Speaker 1 (31:31):
So often offenders have houses.
Speaker 3 (31:34):
But again, if they're married, you can only go after
fifty per center of the equity in their property. And
so I've seen some of the bigger law firms around
Australia they're suing offenders for five million dollars they've only
got five hundred thousand dollars equity in the property. It
just doesn't make sense, and that's the reason why all
of the claims don't exist. When you're suing the offender,
your claim against them is basically worth what their assets are.
(31:55):
I will always say, firstly, it's not your fault. Speech
to a lawyer right away and do title search to
see if he is offenders own assets. And the one
thing I've noticed more than anything is, yes, the timeframe
is large, but most of the time when people report
is when they have children of their own, and that's
when it hits home that, oh, this is something that
I happen to me as a child. I don't ever
(32:18):
want my kid to go through this, and so that's
when they report to the police. But again, people are
scared to apport to the police because when they're a
young child and they're being sexually abused in a room,
they don't want to then go sit in front of
a big, scary police officer who's probably the same age
as their offender was in a room by themselves. It's
just triggering to them. So we've even said in the
(32:39):
past there should be things like having a specialized unit
for this where child psychologists or at least qualified psychologists
or social workers are with a police officer to actually
soften the approach of taking a statement, because more people
would be more than willing to come forward if they're
not going to be triggered by virtue of recounting the
offense against them. But then they see things like so
the Britney Higgins trial, they see that it's the trial
(33:02):
is basically attacking the victim. The offender will sit there
in silence, they'll get to cross examine the victim survivor,
and more often than not that the actual criminal trial,
if it gets that far, is more triggering the abuse itself.
So many victims survivors simply too scared to go to
the police or the one thing they believe that no
one's going to believe them. I mean, the easiest way
(33:24):
to deal with it is if you've got a kid
that's in year nine and the abuse happens in year nine.
They've been top of the class their whole life, their abuse,
and turn one and year nine, and all of a
sudden they start failing every subject. Years after the fact,
you can pinpoint that this abuse happened in or about
year nine, and when you were turn one, you're in
year nine, and that your grades went down. You can
(33:46):
pinpoint that you don't need to be exact with the dates.
In civil matters, you just have to give a time frame.
And anecdotal evidence would be that if your parents come
forward and say, oh, you definitely change in year nine
and your GP note show that you started seeing a
psychologist you had low mood, there's ways to actually trace
it back. So people get scared because of remember the
exact dates and times that happened. But everyone goes to
(34:08):
the doctor. Everyone can have reports that are kept for
years for schools. That is a clear indication of the
impact after the abuse.
Speaker 2 (34:17):
You've really put your heart in solider this. You could
be doing cushy corporate law jobs and so forth, but
you've decided to do this. And I have to say,
the tide is not turning in your favorite this stage.
Politics are standing in your way of the just outcome.
Do you think anything will change? And how long can
you continue to advocate on behalf of victim survivors if
(34:38):
the law doesn't change all My.
Speaker 1 (34:40):
Wife will so quite stubborn. So I'm not going to
back down from this.
Speaker 3 (34:43):
And I've had people over the years say, oh, you know,
you should run for office, and I say no, Like
I can do a lot more damage being outside the
castle pissing in than inside the castle pissing out. And
the fact that it's taken five and a half years
to get to this point and I'm not seeing any
government body willing to put their hand up and actually say, hey,
we're going to pass this. It's not disheartening. It just
(35:03):
makes me want to grind down and fight for it,
because again, I've.
Speaker 1 (35:08):
Got children my own.
Speaker 3 (35:09):
I want to make sure when they're older that my
grandkids and great grandkids in a world where there's going
to be greater deterrence and committing these crimes. Like if
you went to casino and the game was if you
put one hundred dollars down, you're ninety nine point nine
nine to seven percent likely to win, you'd be doing
it every day of the week because the chances of
losing are so remote and obscure. And even if I
(35:30):
can't improve the conviction rate, at least this cause will
hopefully deter people from offending because they're going to think, oh,
hang on, I know a guy that lost his entire
million dollars superannuation he's been working for for forty years
because he offended it as a child. Maybe I shouldn't
do that. You know, I'm not doing one hundred and
fifty k's on the road on the way to work
every morning because I don't want to pay a massive
(35:52):
fine and get my car crushed. Most people are sensible
when it comes to the financial cost, because I get
why criminal lawyers say that suspended sentences at home to
tendents are a real thing. But God, during COVID everyone
did home detention. Home detention is you can't leave the
house unless it's the growthro is or a medical appointment.
And you know it sucked, but it wasn't prison.
Speaker 2 (36:13):
Good point, Andrew Carpenter. It's been a pleasure to talk
to you. I wish you all the very best. It's
a tough ask. I wonder whether you have to get
to the High Court, you have to get to some
forum where you can change the law. This can be
challenged on a very fundamental level. Do you think it's
possible or is it simply we're waiting for politicians to
do what we're paying them for, or.
Speaker 3 (36:35):
It's waiting for politicians and this could be something is
simple as adding six words to the Bankruptcy Act except
for child sex abuse matters. That's one section. We could
put that in about super being a protected asset because
if you're a fraudster, for instance, you can declare bankruptcy
as a fraudster, but ten years later, if you've got
money that's popped up, you can be bankrupted again.
Speaker 1 (36:56):
But any other crime it's not.
Speaker 3 (36:58):
So fraudsters under the Bankruptcy Act are deemed more dangerous
than child sex offenders. So I just hope there's more
federal ministers that are going to put their hand up
and go after this cause because until that we're not
going to see the numbers drop.
Speaker 1 (37:13):
We're going to see it become worse.
Speaker 3 (37:15):
And look at technology, like the law hasn't brought up
with technology yet. We've got all these AI apps that
are producing child abuse images and that hasn't been shut
down yet. So until we start addressing all crimes later children,
you think the youth crime would go down if children
aren't abused and ut turning drugs. Prisoners will go down
if people aren't committing crimes to turn drugs. This is
(37:35):
a fundamental, basic level change which is going to do
a lot of good, prevent a lot of harm, and
finally get bitness survivors getting the recourse they deserve.
Speaker 2 (37:46):
Do you thank you so much for your time today.
I really appreciate it.
Speaker 1 (37:49):
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (37:52):
That's Andrew Carpenter from the Super for Survivors team that's
demanding the federal government reform the Bankruptcy Act. This is
just not fair. The victims of sexual abuse in our
society have suffered in silence for far too long. Most
of them have been reluctant to come forward. They're coming
forward now in great numbers. We know this is an
incredibly pervasive offense in our society and it's time we
(38:17):
hit these monsters where they lived, in their homes, their superinnuation.
This loophole needs to be closed sooner rather than later.
Politics often fails victims. There is another case of it.
If you've been a victim of child sexual abuse, I
urge you to come forward, come to the police, call
Crime Stoppers one out out of triple three, triple zero.
(38:39):
You can also contact Andrew Carpenter at Webster's Lawyers and Adelaide.
He will certainly take your case. We'd also like tea
from you as well. You can give you an email
Adam Shander writer at gmail dot com, but also write
to your local member of parliament. Make sure they know
that the silent majority will not cop this anymore. These
monsters need to be brought to account, not just in
(39:00):
the courts because the sentences are just not enough. Get
their money from them, That's what all really hurt them,
so they can't come out to a cushy lifestyle having
left their victims in squalor and suffering for the rest
of their lives. Thanks for listening to this has been
Adam Shand for real crime
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.