FRENCH OR BRITISH JUSTICE
Gaunty
I saw this extract elsewhere (slightly modified by me for tidiness)
"The real scary thing with VEU's and strict liability is the way the act is set up in respect to "Proof" as it currently stands the statement by a duly authorised CASA officer that CASA is "satisfied" that an offence has occurred is proof enough, there is no requirement in the act for proof to meet normal evidentiary requirements.
Being "Satisfied" can mean an awful lot of things, it is subjective and in its common form relies only on circumstantial styled evidence.
Being "satisfied" also opens pandora's box of dirty tricks some officers may use to settle scores or exercise plain mischief whilst under the protection of the Act.
If you sit and think about the potential for malfeasance on the part of CASA if this were to become black letter law you will be like myself, quite disturbed, even ASIO and the Tax Office have to rely on Evidence.
Also elsewhere
"If I am reading the new Act correctly, it is worse than "being satisfied", I am looking for it, but the words " is of the opinion" were used, scary stuff. Scary stuff that you can loose your license if "an officer of CASA is of the opinion" about some circumstance that happened at another time and place, and his source of information is a third party that gives rise to the "opinion"."
QUESTION
Are you suggesting that we have somehow managed to have this gross breach of civil liberties overturned?
If not, where is the win/win?
Cheers
Brian H