Sunny perfectly summarises the current status quo at Fort Fumble, I particularly liked the legal term ‘Barratry’
:
Barratry (pron.: /ˈbærətri/ BA-rə-tree) is a legal term with several meanings. In common law, barratry is the offence committed by people who are “overly officious in instigating or encouraging prosecution of groundless litigation” or who bring “repeated or persistent acts of litigation” for the purposes of profit or harassment.
But is it something that could be proven in a court of law?
However perhaps we are jumping ahead of ourselves here, so let’s reflect on Dom’s submission first and where he said….
“Section 24 of the Transport Safety Investigation Act was written to prevent any person - regardless of who they are - from interfering with the ATSB's process of investigation. If one was to inhabit the mind of the author of Section 24 and the scenario they wished to prevent, then the events surrounding the investigation of the Norfolk Island accident would almost certainly be what they had in mind. Therefore, in order to respect the purpose of Section 24, it is vital that action be taken when it becomes evident it has been breached....”
To put that in context this was where s24 was first bought up in the inquiry:
From page 22 of Hansard 15/02/2013:
Senator XENOPHON: I will just read it to you:
24 Offence to hinder etc. an investigation
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if:
(a) the person engages in conduct; and
(b) the person is reckless as to whether the conduct will adversely affect an investigation:
(i) that is being conducted at that time; or
(ii) that could be conducted at a later time into an immediately reportable matter; and
(c) the conduct has the result of adversely affecting such an investigation (whether or not the investigation had commenced at the time of the conduct);
…
You do not see that you in any way adversely impacted on the ATSB's investigation by not releasing the Chambers report?
So the guy has a point but is there also more elements of criminality or administrative law breaches here that need exploring?
Dom finishes up by saying…
“All I ask is that this matter be referred to the appropriate authority so that evidence can be given under oath and the facts be examined in the appropriate forum….”
So if the Senators have referred or are considering referring this matter (presumably to the AFP) for investigation what else is potentially a breach of commonwealth laws? And is there enough evidence here and within the inquiry to justify the AFP investigating?
Perhaps a good place to start exploring possible breaches would be in here:
Criminal Code Act 1995
The middle section of which looks promising, here’s a sample to consider:
136.1 False or misleading statements in applications
137.1 False or misleading information
137.2 False or misleading documents
139.2 Unwarranted demands made by a Commonwealth public official
142.2 Abuse of public office
145.4 Falsification of documents etc.
145.5 Giving information derived from false or misleading documents
149.1 Obstruction of Commonwealth public officials
Food for thought…maybe others, with a more legal bent, might have suggestions to chuck into the mix??
On a side note and also from page 22 of the Hansard 15/02/2013 we got this:
Mr McCormick: At this stage is it possible that we could perhaps put in a supplementary submission at some stage in light of the information that has come up to date?
And page 23…
CHAIR: Cease fire. Thank you. Will you be putting in a supplementary report?
Mr McCormick: Given the issues we are looking at, is that acceptable?
CHAIR: That is okay. We are most grateful for your attendance. Thank you very much.
Mr McCormick: Thank you.
So what ever happened to the supp submission from FF?? Maybe the DAS was advised to quit while they were ahead..well sort of ahead!