Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

[stan]

Massive face palm coming up for the government tomorrow. Going to be looking for a new defence minister soon.....

[Jimmy_041]

I’ll condemn both Shorten & this bloke if they’re convicted in a proper criminal Court otherwise where does it stop?

Most recently, an independent investigation was used to examine Dyson Heydon's sexual harassment of six junior court staff. There is plenty of precedence for this.

The High Court instituted an investigation into what happened to its employees just as your employer or mine is allowed to do.

There is no way an employer would investigate an alleged crime such as this. They’d probably end up on the end of their own legal problems.

Not quite true. As Kathleen Foley points out in her interview with Tingle:

No-one is saying it's a precise analogy with the Dyson Heydon situation. Obviously there are differences. What is useful from the Dyson Heydon situation is a model where an independent person of the highest integrity and calibre is appointed.

In many situations in law firms for example and in large companies when a serious allegation is made, for example, against a senior law partner, one that won't be dealt with through the criminal courts perhaps the complainant doesn't want to go down the path, a process like this will be adopted. There is nothing extraordinary about that.

It’s exactly what I said other than if she thinks any company is going to investigate a rape, or similarly serious, allegation then she’s off with the pixies. The fact that she can’t distinguish between an allegation of harassment and rape just shows how objective her opinion is.
BTW, posting one persons opinion does not make it right. Show me some opinions from senior Law Society people to back it up. They will defend the basics of presumption of innocence, the right to a fair trial and the requirement to be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt over anything else especially a political witch hunt.

[Q.]

Not quite true. As Kathleen Foley points out in her interview with Tingle:

No-one is saying it's a precise analogy with the Dyson Heydon situation. Obviously there are differences. What is useful from the Dyson Heydon situation is a model where an independent person of the highest integrity and calibre is appointed.

In many situations in law firms for example and in large companies when a serious allegation is made, for example, against a senior law partner, one that won't be dealt with through the criminal courts perhaps the complainant doesn't want to go down the path, a process like this will be adopted. There is nothing extraordinary about that.

It’s exactly what I said other than if she thinks any company is going to investigate a rape, or similarly serious, allegation then she’s off with the pixies. The fact that she can’t distinguish between an allegation of harassment and rape just shows how objective her opinion is.
BTW, posting one persons opinion does not make it right. Show me some opinions from senior Law Society people to back it up. They will defend the basics of presumption of innocence, the right to a fair trial and the requirement to be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt over anything else especially a political witch hunt.

The point is, non-criminal investigations are common including in workplaces & there are well established "standards for justice" in civil law that aren't the criminal 'beyond reasonable doubt'. An independent inquiry would look at the balance of probabilities and not demand that Porter prove beyond reasonable doubt that he is innocent - it's not a witch hunt.

[Jimmy_041]

Not quite true. As Kathleen Foley points out in her interview with Tingle:

No-one is saying it's a precise analogy with the Dyson Heydon situation. Obviously there are differences. What is useful from the Dyson Heydon situation is a model where an independent person of the highest integrity and calibre is appointed.

In many situations in law firms for example and in large companies when a serious allegation is made, for example, against a senior law partner, one that won't be dealt with through the criminal courts perhaps the complainant doesn't want to go down the path, a process like this will be adopted. There is nothing extraordinary about that.

It’s exactly what I said other than if she thinks any company is going to investigate a rape, or similarly serious, allegation then she’s off with the pixies. The fact that she can’t distinguish between an allegation of harassment and rape just shows how objective her opinion is.
BTW, posting one persons opinion does not make it right. Show me some opinions from senior Law Society people to back it up. They will defend the basics of presumption of innocence, the right to a fair trial and the requirement to be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt over anything else especially a political witch hunt.

The point is, non-criminal investigations are common including in workplaces & there are well established "standards for justice" in civil law that aren't the criminal 'beyond reasonable doubt'. An independent inquiry would look at the balance of probabilities and not demand that Porter prove beyond reasonable doubt that he is innocent - it's not a witch hunt.

Thank you for agreeing with me. Yes non-criminal investigations are common but that does not extend to criminal conduct which has its own laws and procedures. The two are completely separate for good reasons that I have said before.

My position has nothing to do with Porter but the defence of our legal rights should one of us be accused of a criminal act.

"it's not a witch hunt" is enough of a ludicrous comment to not extend this discussion any further.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/13/social-media-witch-hunts

[Jimmy_041]

Without presumption of innocence we are on shifting sands

It is dangerous to call for inquiries that stand outside the law that alone decides between guilt and innocence.

Arthur Moses
Contributor
AFR
Mar 3, 2021 – 3.45pm


There is no doubt that rape is one of the most heinous of crimes.

We all agree that those convicted of such crimes are reprehensible. They are not fit and proper people to hold public office.

We are a country that believes the law should apply equally to us all, regardless of status, wealth or popularity.

If we accept this belief, we must also be prepared to accept its corollary.

If the law applies equally to each of us, the other side of the coin must be that each of us are just as entitled to the force of the law’s protection and procedural fairness, just as we all are subject to the force of its reprimand.

This means that in a nation governed by the rule of law, everyone is entitled to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt before a criminal court.

The presumption of innocence has been deeply ingrained in our legal system for centuries. It must not be eroded.

Former High Court chief justice Gibbs called it “a cardinal principle” that the Crown must prove an accused’s guilt.

Former High Court justice Kirby explained that an accused has basic rights, including the rights to be presumed innocent and to have the accusation proved beyond reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of a court.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides that, in determining any criminal charge, “everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law”.

We do not get to pick and choose which laws or rights we uphold, or to whom they apply.

It does not matter whether the alleged perpetrator is a cabinet minister or cabinet maker. It does not matter whether we like them, whether we voted for them, or whether they themselves have undermined the rule of law.

Any allegations of criminal conduct against elected officials must be treated with the utmost seriousness. These allegations must be dealt with by the criminal justice system, instead of trial by media.

These principles protect the rights of an accused and importantly they also safeguard convictions secured on behalf of victims.

As lawyers we fight every day for justice for the marginalised and voiceless in the community. We must equally fight for justice for all community members.

If we don’t, we set a dangerous precedent. I am troubled by the suggestion of some lawyers who usually advocate for the rule of law that there should be some sort of investigation by a retired judge or senior lawyer into the rape allegation against Attorney-General Christian Porter, in circumstances where the police have determined no action can be taken.

There is no suggestion in this case that the police have not discharged their obligations.

It is not clear what process is envisaged by some of my colleagues in the legal profession which would operate outside of the criminal justice system without its safeguards. It is also not clear how the process would protect the reputation of the deceased woman, or honour her wishes, or her grieving family.

Even if an inquiry were instigated, it will not determine the guilt or innocence of the cabinet minister on a criminal charge. That is the responsibility of the criminal justice system alone.

Leaving aside the rule of law, out of respect for the deceased woman and her family, in the absence of new evidence, the decision of the police should be the end of the matter.

Politicising these circumstances and causing the family further pain diminishes our Parliament, our justice system, and our media. We are better than this.

Imagine the outcry if the Abbott Liberal government called an inquiry into allegations made against Bill Shorten after police closed the case in 2014. I would expect the lawyers now calling for an inquiry into this allegation to oppose it as an affront to the rule of law and join with me to stop it.

If the Prime Minister buckles and calls an inquiry to quell this controversy, it will set a dangerous precedent for the executive to unfairly and unjustly destroy their opponents by setting up inquiries into historic allegations in their personal lives after police have closed an investigation.

The politicians calling for an inquiry should be careful what they wish for when deciding to further comment on this matter. The Prime Minister needs to demonstrate real leadership and oppose these calls for an inquiry while explaining the reasons why it should not happen.

An inquiry would make a mockery of the separation of powers.

Our constitution deliberately distinguishes the roles of the executive, legislature and judiciary. The prime minister of this country should never be encouraged to be prosecutor, judge and jury presiding over inquiries into her or his colleagues or opponents masquerading as trials.

Of course, our elected officials must be held to the highest of standards. Those standards must include the highest respect for the rule of law, the presumption of innocence and trials by independent, impartial courts.

Australian citizens pledge to uphold and obey Australia’s laws. The Ministerial Standards require ministers to act lawfully in their public and private capacity.

We do not get to pick and choose which laws or rights we uphold, or to whom they apply.

A shifting sands approach to the rule of law is anything but just. It is time for the loud noises to stop.

Arthur Moses, SC, has practised at the NSW Bar for over 25 years, and also served as president of the NSW Bar Association and president of the Law Council of Australia.

[Apachebulldog]

Without presumption of innocence we are on shifting sands

It is dangerous to call for inquiries that stand outside the law that alone decides between guilt and innocence.

Arthur Moses
Contributor
AFR
Mar 3, 2021 – 3.45pm


There is no doubt that rape is one of the most heinous of crimes.

We all agree that those convicted of such crimes are reprehensible. They are not fit and proper people to hold public office.

We are a country that believes the law should apply equally to us all, regardless of status, wealth or popularity.

If we accept this belief, we must also be prepared to accept its corollary.

If the law applies equally to each of us, the other side of the coin must be that each of us are just as entitled to the force of the law’s protection and procedural fairness, just as we all are subject to the force of its reprimand.

This means that in a nation governed by the rule of law, everyone is entitled to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt before a criminal court.

The presumption of innocence has been deeply ingrained in our legal system for centuries. It must not be eroded.

Former High Court chief justice Gibbs called it “a cardinal principle” that the Crown must prove an accused’s guilt.

Former High Court justice Kirby explained that an accused has basic rights, including the rights to be presumed innocent and to have the accusation proved beyond reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of a court.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides that, in determining any criminal charge, “everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law”.

We do not get to pick and choose which laws or rights we uphold, or to whom they apply.

It does not matter whether the alleged perpetrator is a cabinet minister or cabinet maker. It does not matter whether we like them, whether we voted for them, or whether they themselves have undermined the rule of law.

Any allegations of criminal conduct against elected officials must be treated with the utmost seriousness. These allegations must be dealt with by the criminal justice system, instead of trial by media.

These principles protect the rights of an accused and importantly they also safeguard convictions secured on behalf of victims.

As lawyers we fight every day for justice for the marginalised and voiceless in the community. We must equally fight for justice for all community members.

If we don’t, we set a dangerous precedent. I am troubled by the suggestion of some lawyers who usually advocate for the rule of law that there should be some sort of investigation by a retired judge or senior lawyer into the rape allegation against Attorney-General Christian Porter, in circumstances where the police have determined no action can be taken.

There is no suggestion in this case that the police have not discharged their obligations.

It is not clear what process is envisaged by some of my colleagues in the legal profession which would operate outside of the criminal justice system without its safeguards. It is also not clear how the process would protect the reputation of the deceased woman, or honour her wishes, or her grieving family.

Even if an inquiry were instigated, it will not determine the guilt or innocence of the cabinet minister on a criminal charge. That is the responsibility of the criminal justice system alone.

Leaving aside the rule of law, out of respect for the deceased woman and her family, in the absence of new evidence, the decision of the police should be the end of the matter.

Politicising these circumstances and causing the family further pain diminishes our Parliament, our justice system, and our media. We are better than this.

Imagine the outcry if the Abbott Liberal government called an inquiry into allegations made against Bill Shorten after police closed the case in 2014. I would expect the lawyers now calling for an inquiry into this allegation to oppose it as an affront to the rule of law and join with me to stop it.

If the Prime Minister buckles and calls an inquiry to quell this controversy, it will set a dangerous precedent for the executive to unfairly and unjustly destroy their opponents by setting up inquiries into historic allegations in their personal lives after police have closed an investigation.

The politicians calling for an inquiry should be careful what they wish for when deciding to further comment on this matter. The Prime Minister needs to demonstrate real leadership and oppose these calls for an inquiry while explaining the reasons why it should not happen.

An inquiry would make a mockery of the separation of powers.

Our constitution deliberately distinguishes the roles of the executive, legislature and judiciary. The prime minister of this country should never be encouraged to be prosecutor, judge and jury presiding over inquiries into her or his colleagues or opponents masquerading as trials.

Of course, our elected officials must be held to the highest of standards. Those standards must include the highest respect for the rule of law, the presumption of innocence and trials by independent, impartial courts.

Australian citizens pledge to uphold and obey Australia’s laws. The Ministerial Standards require ministers to act lawfully in their public and private capacity.

We do not get to pick and choose which laws or rights we uphold, or to whom they apply.

A shifting sands approach to the rule of law is anything but just. It is time for the loud noises to stop.

Arthur Moses, SC, has practised at the NSW Bar for over 25 years, and also served as president of the NSW Bar Association and president of the Law Council of Australia.

Jimmy great article you have excelled again I have highlighted what I think are the most pertinent points.

Once again I refer to the Bill Shorten case as in this case there has been police investigations and not enough evidence for prosecution.

So all these people calling for an independent inquiry on the Porter case should then use the same principle and call for an inquiry on Shorten
case????

For me its all a waste of time what will it achieve ????



In my opinion

[Apachebulldog]

[quote="Apachebulldog"][quote="Jimmy_041"][quote]Without presumption of innocence we are on shifting sands

It is dangerous to call for inquiries that stand outside the law that alone decides between guilt and innocence.

[RB]

"it's not a witch hunt" is enough of a ludicrous comment to not extend this discussion any further.

Uh-oh, I hope you're not trying to 'cancel' this discussion, Jimmy. [emoji6]

[Jimmy_041]

"it's not a witch hunt" is enough of a ludicrous comment to not extend this discussion any further.

Uh-oh, I hope you're not trying to 'cancel' this discussion, Jimmy. [emoji6]

only that particular one on one RB.
I'm happy to debate anyone else if you think I'm right or wrong

[tigerpie]

Purely hypothetical here, but what if she left a detailed letter?
A letter that was corroborated by other people, a lawyer perhaps?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to hang the bloke, but I'm still stuck on admissible evidence.

Take the political bullshit out of it I reckon.
If this bloke is innocent his life must be hell right now.

Time we moved on I think.

[Dinglinga75]

Apart from the alleged rape and vile, misogynistic comments he's made about women, let's not forget Robodebt which caused anguish to thousands of people and resulted in several suicides!
Porter is privileged, arrogant evil at its worst.

[Jimmy_041]

Purely hypothetical here, but what if she left a detailed letter?
A letter that was corroborated by other people, a lawyer perhaps?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to hang the bloke, but I'm still stuck on admissible evidence.

Take the political bullshit out of it I reckon.
If this bloke is innocent his life must be hell right now.

Time we moved on I think.

Right on cue, good old Dingalinga75 to the rescue ............^^^

Here you go tigerpie

http://www.legacy.envlaw.com.au/handout6.pdf

[Q.]

Not quite true. As Kathleen Foley points out in her interview with Tingle:

No-one is saying it's a precise analogy with the Dyson Heydon situation. Obviously there are differences. What is useful from the Dyson Heydon situation is a model where an independent person of the highest integrity and calibre is appointed.

In many situations in law firms for example and in large companies when a serious allegation is made, for example, against a senior law partner, one that won't be dealt with through the criminal courts perhaps the complainant doesn't want to go down the path, a process like this will be adopted. There is nothing extraordinary about that.

It’s exactly what I said other than if she thinks any company is going to investigate a rape, or similarly serious, allegation then she’s off with the pixies. The fact that she can’t distinguish between an allegation of harassment and rape just shows how objective her opinion is.
BTW, posting one persons opinion does not make it right. Show me some opinions from senior Law Society people to back it up. They will defend the basics of presumption of innocence, the right to a fair trial and the requirement to be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt over anything else especially a political witch hunt.

The point is, non-criminal investigations are common including in workplaces & there are well established "standards for justice" in civil law that aren't the criminal 'beyond reasonable doubt'. An independent inquiry would look at the balance of probabilities and not demand that Porter prove beyond reasonable doubt that he is innocent - it's not a witch hunt.

Thank you for agreeing with me. Yes non-criminal investigations are common but that does not extend to criminal conduct which has its own laws and procedures. The two are completely separate for good reasons that I have said before.

My position has nothing to do with Porter but the defence of our legal rights should one of us be accused of a criminal act.

"it's not a witch hunt" is enough of a ludicrous comment to not extend this discussion any further.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/13/social-media-witch-hunts

You're still missing the point of the inquiry - it is not to decide whether Porter is guilty or not guilty of a criminal act, it is to look at the balance of probabilities, whether the allegations have merit, and whether the Attorney General of Australia is an appropriately fit and proper person to hold that office (probity).

Calling for an inquiry to determine the above is not a witch hunt - in fact, until there is an inquiry it will simply be then left to the media to, for example, dissect his statements. The continuing uncertainty regarding his probity undermines the operation of the office and makes his position as AG wholly untenable.

[Q.]

Jimmy great article you have excelled again I have highlighted what I think are the most pertinent points.

Once again I refer to the Bill Shorten case as in this case there has been police investigations and not enough evidence for prosecution.

So all these people calling for an independent inquiry on the Porter case should then use the same principle and call for an inquiry on Shorten
case????

For me its all a waste of time what will it achieve ????



In my opinion

The difference is that Shorten was investigated twice by Vic Pol. NSW Police have not conducted an investigation, the alleged victim was not interviewed and Porter was never interviewed.

[Q.]

Thank you for agreeing with me. Yes non-criminal investigations are common but that does not extend to criminal conduct which has its own laws and procedures. The two are completely separate for good reasons that I have said before.

My position has nothing to do with Porter but the defence of our legal rights should one of us be accused of a criminal act.

"it's not a witch hunt" is enough of a ludicrous comment to not extend this discussion any further.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/13/social-media-witch-hunts

You're still missing the point of the inquiry - it is not to decide whether Porter is guilty or not guilty of a criminal act, it is to look at the balance of probabilities, whether the allegations have merit, and whether the Attorney General of Australia is an appropriately fit and proper person to hold that office (probity).

Calling for an inquiry to determine the above is not a witch hunt - in fact, until there is an inquiry it will simply be then left to the media to, for example, dissect his statements. The continuing uncertainty regarding his probity undermines the operation of the office and makes his position as AG wholly untenable.

Professor Rosalind Dixon outlined this on ABC News Radio this morning The criminal process is not the only option for rape allegation, says law expert.

To paraphrase, if the allegations are substantiated on the balance of probabilities, Attorney General Christian Porter could return to his life in Perth without fear of criminal prosecution but not hold the highest law office in the land.

[Dinglinga75]

The irony with Robodebt was 100% about seeing poor people as guilty and them having to provide refutation. Who introduced: Christian Porter

[Q.]

The irony with Robodebt was 100% about seeing poor people as guilty and them having to provide refutation. Who introduced: Christian Porter

The greater irony around claiming 'rule of law' is that the PM and AG are currently prosecuting - in a secret trial - both the whistleblower on Australia spying on East Timor for the profit of Woodside Petroleum and his lawyer.

[cracka]

Jimmy great article you have excelled again I have highlighted what I think are the most pertinent points.

Once again I refer to the Bill Shorten case as in this case there has been police investigations and not enough evidence for prosecution.

So all these people calling for an independent inquiry on the Porter case should then use the same principle and call for an inquiry on Shorten
case????

For me its all a waste of time what will it achieve ????



In my opinion

The difference is that Shorten was investigated twice by Vic Pol. NSW Police have not conducted an investigation, the alleged victim was not interviewed and Porter was never interviewed.

Leon Byner has been saying all morning that it was investigated by police.

[Dinglinga75]

AND WE THOUGHT THERE’D BE A DAY FREE FROM SUSPECTED LNP SCANDALS.
Grants to Monaro Farming Systems, an agricultural group that includes federal MP Angus Taylor’s brother, will be reviewed by the New South Wales agriculture minister, after it was revealed a $107,000 grant was given without the group actually applying for it.

[Q.]

Leon Byner has been saying all morning that it was investigated by police.

No investigation took place because she died before making a statement, therefore case closed due to no admissible evidence and Porter not interviewed. Statement from NSW Police: