Share and Follow
Fiona Austin was jailed in September for stalking the boy over two periods between January 2015 and October 2016, in which she called and texted him thousands of times.
After reading the boy’s diary saved on his hard drive, she began to pull him out of class to talk to him and offered the keys to her apartment if he needed a place to go.
A jury ultimately found her guilty of stalking and harassment and she was sentenced to a total of 18 months in prison, with her 12-month non-parole period expiring early this month.
Representing herself in the Supreme Court on Thursday, Austin said: “To get parole, you have to admit you’re guilty. I’m not guilty.”
Austin claimed she was the victim of a significant miscarriage of justice, suggesting County Court Judge Michael O’Connell was influenced by his personal hatred of her during her trial.
Justice Phillip Priest told Austin that was an “absolutely outrageous allegation”, and repeatedly warned her through the bail application to stop interrupting him.
While Austin had her “first leg in” in that her sentence would expire by the time the court reached appeal proceedings, Justice Priest said he had difficulty accepting there was merit in her appeal arguments.
Austin claimed her conviction was unreasonable and unsafe, the trial judge was hostile and overtly biased, and her sentence was excessive and designed to cause her the greatest possible harm.
“That’s a scandalous allegation to make,” Justice Priest said.
Austin countered: “When I say something, it’s scandalous, when accusations are against me, that’s just fine.”
Read Related Also: Who Is Susan Michalski And Where Is She Now? Supreme Court Justice Wife’s Age Detail
Everything about Judge O’Connell during her trial “screams hostility and malicious conduct”, Austin said, pointing to instances where she claimed he laughed at her victim’s jokes.
Austin said she was limited in her ability to properly represent herself, given she did not have access to a computer in jail and couldn’t look through electronic versions of legal documents.
When Justice Priest suggested she get representation from legal aid, she retorted: “Legal aid, really? You’ve looked at the history of this matter …”
She told the judge his decision about whether to grant her bail should not rest on “your opinion of me, or Michael O’Connell, or your defence of judges everywhere”.
If he did not grant her bail, she would not appeal until after she got out of prison, she said.
Justice Priest said he would do his best to put aside what he considered Austin’s “gross impertinence” through the bail application, and would reflect on the matter in the quiet of his chambers to hand down his decision in the coming days.
“Of course I’m angry, I’m furious,” Austin told him.
“No, I am not going to be sweet or polite, because that time is long gone.”
In sentencing Austin in September, Justice O’Connell said she showed no empathy or insight into the profound impact on the boy and his mother, and was consumed by her own plight.
In early 2016 she posted multiple PowerPoint presentations online, blaming the teen for the destruction of her life, but also claiming she wanted to see him again.
