A gross miscarriage of justice

Barker gained Lindy Chamberlain’s conviction and she was jailed - only to have the conviction quashed after blood tests proved to be flawed. Nevertheless, Barker’s legal acumen was firmly established.

That legal acumen was employed to keep the charges against Power confined to the Magistrate’s Court where the maximum penalty that could be imposed for his guilty plea is two years imprisonment. If the charges had been elevated to District Court the penalty for Power’s guilty plea could been far more severe.

Another important legal tactic was to keep the court hearings out of the public arena by curtailing media access and public exposure. This tactic was accomplished by previous court hearings coinciding with public holidays - Melbourne Cup, Australia Day and Anzac Day - so the media would be occupied with other current and topical events as opposed to the stuffy confines of courtroom legalities. Power fronted magistrate's court prior to Melbourne Cup Day 2006. He pleaded guilty just prior to Australia Day holiday 2007. His last court date in magistrate's court was prior to Anzac Day.

But perhaps Ian Barker overstepped the mark at the recent pre-sentence hearing when he claimed Power was "a person of integrity" and a good man who had made an "outstanding contribution to society".

"This is an extremely sad case, we have a good man, a person of integrity, recognised by his friends, relatives and peers as a person of integrity, who is ruined by his own conduct," Barker told the court.

Barker said Power had always acted with complete propriety toward children and his "selfless work and generosity" should be remembered.

"In one sense the community is indebted to him and he is now entitled to call in the debt," he said.

Ian Barker then presented 59 references to the court vouching for Power's character and reputation and a further 17 references detailing his qualities as a crown prosecutor.

Barker told the court that Power suffered an Internet addiction and had long-term problems with depression. He said that his client has a serious mental condition and had been getting treatment for this condition since 1988. If these claims are correct then the NSW DPP have allowed a sexually dysfunctional Power to continue prosecuting cases for the past 19 years.

One of those cases he successfully prosecuted was that of Roseanne Catt in 1991 - a case in which pedophilia and the sexual exploitation of children was the cornerstone of her defence. A defence upheld by the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal 10 years later.

Roseanne Catt served 10 years on malicious trumped up charges prosecuted by a man who now faces a maximum of two years imprisonment for the pornographic and sexual exploitation of children. Somehow the scales of justice no longer tip equally in NSW.

Postscript: Roseanne Beckett, aka Roseanne Catt, whose convictions were overturned by the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal, the same convictions wrongfully and maliciously gained by Patrick Power when he acted as Senior NSW Prosecutor for the DPP, has been denied the legal right to make a Victim Impact Statement to the court during Power's sentencing. Who, apart from the child victims of Power, has a more valid legitimacy to make a Victim Impact Statement that a woman who was wrongfully imprisoned for 10 years because of Power?