Scroll down to watch a passionate and emotional Hinch deliver his comeback to the lost appeal.

The video includes an interview with his lawyer Nic Pullen.

DERRYN HINCH: Not a good afternoon. I lost. The High Court has just handed down its decision  over a case that started with my Name Them and Shame Them campaign and the news was as bad as it gets. The Full Bench decided seven-nil that the laws covering suppression orders of serial rapists and paedophiles are valid. Are constitutional.

In layman’s language it is business as usual. So I guess Melbourne remains the suppression capital of Australia.

I now will be sent back to the Magistrate’s Court to be sentenced on five charges which carry a maximum penalty of five years jail and/or $60,000 in fines. More than some real crims get.

This all stems from that day nearly three years ago when we held a rally on the steps of Parliament House as part of that Name Them and Shame Them campaign. I gave the then Premier, John Brumby, and Attorney General Rob Hulls a petition signed by more than 7000 people from around the world.

The petition said: WE, the undersigned, demand the Victorian Parliament change the laws so that a judge or magistrate cannot suppress the identity of a serious sex offender unless such identification will also identify a victim.’

I believe, that demand is even more valid today than it was then. On that day I named two notorious sex offenders who had had their names suppressed. Men who had committed such awful crimes I can hardly describe them. Thousands of you shouted the names out too but the DPP chose to prosecute only one. Me.

I was told they would be Magistrates Court charges because they didn’t want too much fuss. Well, they got it.

We took the issue to the Supreme Court and lost and then were privileged to get to the High Court. I argued that the way some of our laws are being interpreted and enforced by our judges, justice is not being done and not being seen to be done. That through suppression orders, our justice system is not being open and transparent – as justice must be in a democracy like ours. That criminals are getting more protection than victims.

I said back then: You, the community, have a right to know. For your sake and for the sake of your kids.

In the High Court judgement today Chief Justice French described some of my arguments, and passionate editorials, as ‘febrile rhetoric’. Well, I’m not ashamed of any of that, if that’s what it takes. To draw attention to a law which I believe will be changed, if not in my life time.

The irony in all this, is that I applauded when the Labor Government appeared to get tough by announcing they were amending the 2005 Serious Sex Offenders Monitoring Act. It meant the Secretary of the Department of Justice could apply to the County or Supreme Court for a supervision order if a convicted sex offender is assessed as posing a serious risk to the community of re-offending on his release from jail.

And they could then keep tabs on them under an Extended Supervision Order. Where they could live. If they changed their name or their job. Even be ordered to wear an electronic monitoring bracelet.

Nobody mentioned to us that, in return, some of the worst rapists and paedophiles in this country could have their names and addresses and photos suppressed by law. That they could return to the community incognito and melt back into the community without the public knowing who they are or where they are. 

That they could be living next to you, or next to your kids’ school, or your local park. They didn’t trumpet that minor point.

Police Minister Tim Holding said in 2005 ‘The public can be reassured that every precaution is being taken to protect the community against these people.’  And Corrections Minister Bob Cameron said ‘The new scheme will….. result in enhanced community safety.’

Both were speaking rubbish. Dangerous rubbish. These suppression orders have nothing to do with community safety. They are now being used to protect the identity of dangerous criminals. And Melbourne has become Suppression City.

The courts toss them around like confetti.

As the Herald Sun said: ‘We believe in the public’s right to know that the person who may be moving in next door may be one of these monsters.’

I know what I did, and what several thousand of you did, on the steps of Parliament House three years ago was morally right. And I do not regret it. The High Court has decided that I was legally wrong.

 So, I now go back to the Magistrates Court for sentencing. I intend to represent myself at that hearing. I know there is a legal saying that any man who defends himself has a fool for a client but I am happy to take that risk.

If I am jailed I will only ask, because of my health, that it is at a prison close to Melbourne because I am on transplant alert. That is why I was not in Canberra for the High Court decision today.

And if I need comfort in this rough time it is through the phrase I have used many times. And never before has this tired and simple old question of mine been so important:

Who’s looking after the children?

Footnote: To get a hearing at the High Court is a privilege not a right. And I was only there because of a legal team that understood the constitutional issues at stake. They all worked pro bono and  put in months of work on my behalf on a complex and, I believe, nationally important legal matter. I thank them. David Bennett QC, for ten years the Solicitor-General of Australia, is leading the team. With my barrister, Geoff Slater. And from HWL Ebsworth Nic Pullen and Andrew Thompson.

EARLIER: Derryn Hinch has lost his appeal to the High Court today in an unanimous decision. 

Almost three years ago, Hinch named two notorious sex offenders at a victims of crime rally on the steps of Parliament House.

Hinch faces five charges which carry maximum penalties of $60,000 in fines and up to five years in jail.

The 3AW host has long been adamant that it is unconstitutional for the government to protect sex offender's identities after they have been convicted of a sex-related crime.

This is not the first time Derryn has fought the law on this issue. Hinch spent 12 days in prison in 1987 and was fined $10,000 for revealing prior convictions of a priest who was on trial for other sex offences.

It has been a tough week for 3AW's Drive host, as Hinch also learned that he has eight months to live if he does not receive a liver transplant for advanced liver cancer.

Outside court, Hinch told reporters he wasn't surprised and that he is done fighting the case.

The case now goes back to the Magistrates' court where Derryn will be sentenced. 

Share

Hinch: Waiting is the worst part

"The clock is still ticking. From last year. That means without a transplant I have about eight months to live. The window of opportunity is closing. I even counted the weeks: thirty-two. Give or take." Read Hinch's latest health report by clicking the image on the right.