Warren Anderson, the property tycoon from Perth, has unsuccessfully appealed his conviction for assaulting his wife. A judge in Perth determined that there was no justification for his loss of self-control.
Guilty of assault against his estranged wife, Cheryl Anderson, during a tumultuous disagreement at their Peppermint Grove residence last year, Anderson was convicted by a Perth magistrate in April.
Anderson’s legal representatives argued that the multi-millionaire was provoked after his wife labeled him a ‘fucking paedophile who was rooting all the young girls around town.’
Consequently, he lost control momentarily, seizing Mrs. Anderson by the right arm in an effort to force her out the door; however, she stumbled over a rug and fell.
Attorney Laurie Levy contended that such comments were exceedingly offensive, containing grave accusations of paedophilia, which could lead an average person to lose self-control.
On Monday, however, Justice Stephen Hall affirmed Magistrate Pamela Hogan’s initial ruling, stating that the words spoken could not be perceived as a direct claim of paedophilia.
‘What was communicated and understood was that Mrs. Anderson implied Mr. Anderson was involved in one or potentially several sexual relationships with women significantly younger than himself,’ he remarked in the West Australian Supreme Court.
‘These statements were made within the setting of a heated argument.
‘Furthermore, the actual language used suggested that Mr. Anderson’s behavior in these relationships was shameful, indiscreet, and socially unacceptable.’
Justice Hall also agreed with Magistrate Hogan, concluding that Mrs. Anderson’s words would not ‘deprive an ordinary person of the power of self-control’ and instigate an attack.
Thus, the judge dismissed Anderson’s appeal… which seems just.
This individual has likely been accustomed to acting on his desires whenever he pleases. He is a successful man living the so-called dream; after all, many aspire to such a lifestyle.
Having engaged in a dispute and acted violently could suggest this may not be the first instance, and whether or not his actions were deliberate remains uncertain.
Yet, to invoke the term paedophile simply for engaging with consensual adults, even if they are slightly younger than him, seems misplaced.
Regular readers of Ozzie News will recognize my strong opposition to paedophiles; I believe they should face severe consequences and that taxpayer resources shouldn’t be spent on such offenders.
While the dynamics of his relationship may be morally questionable, they are not unlawful.
The judge has concluded that he had no justification for losing control.
If you live by the sword, be ready to face the repercussions.
by Sel Hurst
