A SOMERVILLE businessman has failed in his bid to have a rehearing granted after a personal safety intervention order was made against him last year (Publisher ‘harassed’ and ‘intimidated’ woman – Magistrate, The Times 12/11/24).
At a November 7 Magistrates’ Court hearing, Jamie (Jay) Scicluna was found to have stalked and harassed a Somerville woman, who alleged she was the victim of derogatory and sexually demeaning behaviour, repeated visits to her workplace, and physical intimidation. Magistrate Charles Tan found that Scicluna had referred to the victim as a “c**t”, that he stated he was “out for blood” and “won’t stop until he destroys her.”
The victim alleged Scicluna’s behaviour continued to escalate over time culminating in her being granted an interim personal safety intervention order against Scicluna on 26 April last year. Scicluna, however, breached the order after the victim saw him standing outside her workplace on 21 June. She called police and the matter was heard in October last year where Scicluna was handed a 12-month diversion order.
Last Wednesday (15 January) Scicluna, who is the founder and editor of the “Somerville Times and Peninsula Local” news platform, appeared before Magistrate Tan stating there were “exceptional circumstances” that prevented his attendance at the original hearing. He argued that the Personal Safety Intervention Orders Act 2010 (Vic) stipulates a rehearing may be granted if “there are exceptional circumstances and a rehearing is fair and just in all the circumstances of the case” [PSIOA s 99(1)(b)].
Scicluna, who represented himself in court, explained to the Magistrate that he had another matter being heard at VCAT later on 7 November, and while he intended to attend the court on the morning to seek an adjournment of the Magistrates’ Court matter, his car broke down and he was unable to attend. He also detailed multiple mental health issues which made it difficult for him to deal with the court matter effectively.
Questioned by the Magistrate why he didn’t attend the original hearing despite the court allowing him more time to arrange alternative transport, Scicluna said “the travel time from walking to a bus stop or a train station, to catching the V-Line to Frankston, which minimal services do run (sic), can take anywhere between an hour to an hour and a half.”
The lawyer for the Somerville businesswoman told the court “It appears this is a situation where Mr Scicluna has prioritised one proceeding over another and now regrets that decision”. The Magistrate agreed.
“In terms of ‘exceptional circumstances’, the matters he has raised fall short,” said the Magistrate. “What is fair and just must also take into account [the victim’s] rights. She came to court on 7 November. She had witnesses available. She gave evidence before me. Evidence of things that were difficult in nature. ““The law applies when you find exceptional circumstances. I haven’t found that in any of the factors. The application for a rehearing is refused.”
As a result of the Magistrate’s decision, the personal safety intervention order remains in place for the remaining portion of the original two years. It prohibits Scicluna from going within five metres of the victim or communicating or publishing any information about her on the internet. It states that he must not stalk her and must not get another person to do anything that is prohibited in the order, among other conditions. Also remaining in place is the Firearm Prohibition Order against Scicluna prohibiting him from “acquiring, possessing, or carrying a firearm or firearm related item”.
First published in the Frankston Times – 21 January 2025
