Launceston prosecution what has happened? (Part 2)
Thread Starter
Launceston prosecution what has happened? (Part 2)
The original thread about the Launceston prosecution has been closed (see here), however at last I have received an answer from the DPP.
Following is the wording of an answer I have received from Mark de Crespigny, Acting Senior Assistant Director of the Department of Public Prosecutions. I had written to them asking the reason for the delay in the action coming to Court - now over 5 years.
The reference to the readability of the transcript is explaining why one of the delays is caused. It appears that the transcript wasnt readable!
It would be interesting to know what the procedural issues are. Could it be that an organisation is throwing a huge amount of money in making sure every i is dotted and every t is crossed? Then again, that is their right.
In respect for the people concerned who are quite possibly innocent I have deleted their names from the DPP letter.
Following is the wording of an answer I have received from Mark de Crespigny, Acting Senior Assistant Director of the Department of Public Prosecutions. I had written to them asking the reason for the delay in the action coming to Court - now over 5 years.
The reference to the readability of the transcript is explaining why one of the delays is caused. It appears that the transcript wasnt readable!
It would be interesting to know what the procedural issues are. Could it be that an organisation is throwing a huge amount of money in making sure every i is dotted and every t is crossed? Then again, that is their right.
In respect for the people concerned who are quite possibly innocent I have deleted their names from the DPP letter.
Dear Mr Smith
Prosecution of Mr and Mr ..
Thank you for your letter dated 1 February 2007 concerning the prosecution of Mr and Mr .
As you would be aware Mr and Mr were committed for trial on 4 November 2005 for two offences each of breaching sub-sections 20A(1) and 20A(2) of the Civil Aviation Act 1988.
This Office is continuing the prosecution of Mr .. and Mr . and has been seeking to have the matter set down for trial. The setting down of the matter for trial has been delayed largely due to procedural issues over which this Office has no control. We are hopeful that the issues can be resolved and that this matter can be finalised in the near future.
In your letter you refer to there being discussions at the last mention of this matter before the Court concerning the readability of transcript. I note that the transcript in question is a transcript of the committal proceedings held in November 2005.
Thank you for your enquiry.
Yours sincerely
Mark de Crespigny
Acting Senior Assistant Director
Prosecution of Mr and Mr ..
Thank you for your letter dated 1 February 2007 concerning the prosecution of Mr and Mr .
As you would be aware Mr and Mr were committed for trial on 4 November 2005 for two offences each of breaching sub-sections 20A(1) and 20A(2) of the Civil Aviation Act 1988.
This Office is continuing the prosecution of Mr .. and Mr . and has been seeking to have the matter set down for trial. The setting down of the matter for trial has been delayed largely due to procedural issues over which this Office has no control. We are hopeful that the issues can be resolved and that this matter can be finalised in the near future.
In your letter you refer to there being discussions at the last mention of this matter before the Court concerning the readability of transcript. I note that the transcript in question is a transcript of the committal proceedings held in November 2005.
Thank you for your enquiry.
Yours sincerely
Mark de Crespigny
Acting Senior Assistant Director
Last edited by Dick Smith; 22nd Feb 2007 at 02:37.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you Mr Smith for that information.
You would have earned heaps more respect here had you written your letter first, then published the reply here with a comment that you had done so out of a genuine concern for the apparently long delay in getting to trial.
As you yourself agree it is the defendants fundamental right to have every i dotted and t crossed and procedure followed down to the very last letter, if that takes 5 years so be it.
Why was it then necessary for your Part 1 "speculative" post beyond an opportunity to give Qantas, CASA, DPP and anyone else you could draw in, a thorough beating up, something of which you yourself have been most critical of with PPRUne.
Relationship of cart to horse comes to mind.
I cant think for the moment what the journalistic term for it is, beyond a cheap beat up, but it will come to me sooner or later.
You would have earned heaps more respect here had you written your letter first, then published the reply here with a comment that you had done so out of a genuine concern for the apparently long delay in getting to trial.
As you yourself agree it is the defendants fundamental right to have every i dotted and t crossed and procedure followed down to the very last letter, if that takes 5 years so be it.
Why was it then necessary for your Part 1 "speculative" post beyond an opportunity to give Qantas, CASA, DPP and anyone else you could draw in, a thorough beating up, something of which you yourself have been most critical of with PPRUne.
Relationship of cart to horse comes to mind.
I cant think for the moment what the journalistic term for it is, beyond a cheap beat up, but it will come to me sooner or later.
Dear Gaunty,
I feel the dick has done no wrong. He has merely brought to our attention something that is yet to be finalised.
I assume these poor fellows are still on leave without pay FIVE YEARS ON.
The parallels to Hicks are not lost.
The wait for the accused is deplorable.
Dick is allowed to further the cause of the represented.
I feel the dick has done no wrong. He has merely brought to our attention something that is yet to be finalised.
I assume these poor fellows are still on leave without pay FIVE YEARS ON.
The parallels to Hicks are not lost.
The wait for the accused is deplorable.
Dick is allowed to further the cause of the represented.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Keeping The Enema Bandit in line
Posts: 323
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps a better investment would be for Dick to give $60,000 to these blokes defence instead of some goon who deliberately set out to join a terrorist organisation. But I have to agree with him that it seems to have dragged on for far too long.
Thread Starter
Derek zoolander, you state:
I have heard (admittedly second hand) that the pilots believe they are innocent of the charge and that it has put incredible pressure on them for the last five years. Imagine if you had such a charge over your head and knew that you were going to have to appear in court, in the glare of publicity, for something that you didnt do.
Five years is also far too long. I just cannot imagine what has been used and what money has been spent to delay the hearing for this long. Every pilot should be concerned.
By the way Knackers, Im no supporter of David Hicks. If he did deliberately go to Afghanistan to be part of a murderous regime, if he did intend to murder Australians and if he did provide material support to terrorists, he should be punished.
What gets me mad is that the American law specifically precludes any American from being charged by the military commission process because the American constitution does not allow it. However, we are going to allow an Australian to be tried by this process. If they get a conviction using this flawed process, I am concerned that David Hicks will be turned into some type of martyr which he should never be and this will do further damage to our relationship with the United States.
I believe the people handling the Hicks case in the United States are completely incompetent. I have obtained legal advice from Professor George Williams BEc LLB (Hons) Macq, LLM UNSW, PhD ANU (the Director, Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law and Anthony Mason Professor at the University of NSW) which said that David Hicks can be tried in Australia. The Government says this is not so but will not release their advice. I have a feeling no one wants him to be tried in Australia, because with a proper jury of 14, they may just decide that he is not guilty!
I don't think anyone is losing any sleep over it.
Five years is also far too long. I just cannot imagine what has been used and what money has been spent to delay the hearing for this long. Every pilot should be concerned.
By the way Knackers, Im no supporter of David Hicks. If he did deliberately go to Afghanistan to be part of a murderous regime, if he did intend to murder Australians and if he did provide material support to terrorists, he should be punished.
What gets me mad is that the American law specifically precludes any American from being charged by the military commission process because the American constitution does not allow it. However, we are going to allow an Australian to be tried by this process. If they get a conviction using this flawed process, I am concerned that David Hicks will be turned into some type of martyr which he should never be and this will do further damage to our relationship with the United States.
I believe the people handling the Hicks case in the United States are completely incompetent. I have obtained legal advice from Professor George Williams BEc LLB (Hons) Macq, LLM UNSW, PhD ANU (the Director, Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law and Anthony Mason Professor at the University of NSW) which said that David Hicks can be tried in Australia. The Government says this is not so but will not release their advice. I have a feeling no one wants him to be tried in Australia, because with a proper jury of 14, they may just decide that he is not guilty!
I'm in one of those moods
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: SFC to A085
Posts: 759
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have heard (admittedly second hand) that the pilots believe they are innocent of the charge and that it has put incredible pressure on them for the last five years.
Imagine if you had such a charge over your head and knew that you were going to have to appear in court, in the glare of publicity, for something that you didnt do.
Five years is also far too long. I just cannot imagine what has been used and what money has been spent to delay the hearing for this long.
Every pilot should be concerned.
By the way Knackers, Im no supporter of David Hicks. If he did deliberately go to Afghanistan to be part of a murderous regime, if he did intend to murder Australians and if he did provide material support to terrorists, he should be punished.
What gets me mad is that the American law specifically precludes any American from being charged by the military commission process because the American constitution does not allow it. However, we are going to allow an Australian to be tried by this process. If they get a conviction using this flawed process, I am concerned that David Hicks will be turned into some type of martyr which he should never be and this will do further damage to our relationship with the United States.
. watch this whole thing get bogged down until after the Oz election thing is, most people are smart enough to know that legal appeals to higher courts in the US are a direct result of the insistence of the leaders (ours and theirs) to deny civil justice It seems to me that if the case against Hicks has veracity, their would have been no reluctance to have this resolved much much earlier . As I recall, they have been wobbling around for years vacillating about what he may have done, trying to fit charges .. not to mention the question of accuracy of information supposedly gained under interogation in the military prison ... and how that may be used and tested in the Mil Comm process ...unacceptable there is simply no excuse for our government permitting the US government this folly with one of our citizens .. I am embarrassed as an Ozzie that this has occured in our name, led by our lap dog PM!
I believe the people handling the Hicks case in the United States are completely incompetent. I have obtained legal advice from Professor George Williams BEc LLB (Hons) Macq, LLM UNSW, PhD ANU (the Director, Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law and Anthony Mason Professor at the University of NSW) which said that David Hicks can be tried in Australia.
The Government says this is not so but will not release their advice.
I have a feeling no one wants him to be tried in Australia, because with a proper jury of 14, they may just decide that he is not guilty!
.
His innocence or guilt is irrelevant to Howard and Ruddock . This has always been about whipping up GWoT fear in the general populous .. right or wrong! ... it follows that when public opinions swell, anything to do with public popularity is likely to have the media tarts jumping on any bandwagon if there are votes involved!
... Howard and Ruddock are very cross with the US over this issue don't you know
..... well in the last 5 minutes anyhow ... lets not mention the last 5 years of tacit support for detention without charge though!
.
... you should be making this legal opinion widely known Dick, if you really want justice for this fellow (and presumably the principle in general) .... get into the media and push it hard .... the media could not gloss over the implications of these legal opinions .... particularly if it can be established that the government knew long ago that they could have tried him here, yet chose to ignore that option in favour of solitary detention without charge in a US military prison (remember Abu Grabe)!
Last edited by Scurvy.D.Dog; 22nd Feb 2007 at 23:40. Reason: addition
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oooop Shot Nancy sorry Knackers mate.
You miss my point entirely.
Mr Smith chose to discuss the issue and raise a number of speculative questions that were most probably sub judice, the answer to which was always available to him as above. But that did not seem to be the agenda if you read the previous threads.
He is most certainly correct in questioning the length of time the procedure is taking but he is not entitled to speculate on alleged mischeivous actions by the respondent parties. That there are tedious "procedural" questions is a natural function of the meticulous fair and open operation of our courts.
Particularly for the defendant as it is for the prosecution to prove its case not the defendant to prove its innocence as they are deemed to be so until a jury or the court decides otherwise.
Conflating the Hicks case/agenda with this case is not only IMHO mischeivous but irrelevant. I suspect the pilots involved would not appreciate their case being compared to Mr Hicks'. Were I to be selected for jury duty on the Hicks case I would have to disqualify myself as I suspect would most Australians. In fact I suspect they would have trouble finding an unbiased jury of any sort. Australians at large IMHO are fed up with these Indiana Jones adventurers who scream blue bloody murder when they look like getting rooly trooly shot at or prosecuted.
Furthermore conflating;
so two opinions, but the courts will decide that.
with;
theirs is equally valid as the above, it is for the courts to decide which is more so.
and deducing therefore that;
for one does not follow, for two is idle speculation and for three the charges laid by the US Govt have the ring of truth about them. BUT they still have to be proven and Hicks actual status in regard to his capture established.
Whether there or here will be decided in the proper jurisdiction. I dont believe the Australian people are going to elect a Government on the basis of who brings him home or not, at least not the Australians I know.
You miss my point entirely.
Mr Smith chose to discuss the issue and raise a number of speculative questions that were most probably sub judice, the answer to which was always available to him as above. But that did not seem to be the agenda if you read the previous threads.
He is most certainly correct in questioning the length of time the procedure is taking but he is not entitled to speculate on alleged mischeivous actions by the respondent parties. That there are tedious "procedural" questions is a natural function of the meticulous fair and open operation of our courts.
Particularly for the defendant as it is for the prosecution to prove its case not the defendant to prove its innocence as they are deemed to be so until a jury or the court decides otherwise.
Conflating the Hicks case/agenda with this case is not only IMHO mischeivous but irrelevant. I suspect the pilots involved would not appreciate their case being compared to Mr Hicks'. Were I to be selected for jury duty on the Hicks case I would have to disqualify myself as I suspect would most Australians. In fact I suspect they would have trouble finding an unbiased jury of any sort. Australians at large IMHO are fed up with these Indiana Jones adventurers who scream blue bloody murder when they look like getting rooly trooly shot at or prosecuted.
Furthermore conflating;
I have obtained legal advice from Professor George Williams BEc LLB (Hons) Macq, LLM UNSW, PhD ANU (the Director, Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law and Anthony Mason Professor at the University of NSW) which said that David Hicks can be tried in Australia.
with;
The Government says this is not so but will not release their advice.
and deducing therefore that;
I have a feeling no one wants him to be tried in Australia, because with a proper jury of 14, they may just decide that he is not guilty!
Whether there or here will be decided in the proper jurisdiction. I dont believe the Australian people are going to elect a Government on the basis of who brings him home or not, at least not the Australians I know.
Last edited by gaunty; 23rd Feb 2007 at 01:18.
Thread Starter
Scurvy.D.Dog, you obviously do not understand CASAs administrative fines system. You state:
The administrative fines system is similar to the road system. Imagine if you were a motor coach driver and it was alleged that you drove with your lights off. You could either pay the fine probably $150 or so or refuse to pay it, go to court and ask for the evidence to be produced. This court action would happen in a reasonable time because justice delayed is justice denied.
In the CASA administrative fines system (which I introduced) there is no obligation to pay the fine. If you do not pay the fine CASA has to make a decision whether to go to court or not. That is how it should be.
You ask what makes me think there has been some type of intentional or unreasonable delay in this case. Im using commonsense. How could such a simple case go on for over five years and still not have its day in court. I want someone to explain the reason for the delay. It is grossly unfair, especially when these blokes claim they are innocent.
Jaded boiler, you ask me to comment about the proposed APA takeover of Qantas. I have stated very publicly in the radio media on many talkback shows and in the print media that I believe it is totally against the interest of Australia. I believe it is just utter greed. Someone smart and ruthless can take over Qantas at a huge price, put up the fares, rip out costs in the short term and make a small fortune you only have to look at what has happened to Sydney Airport.
Qantas shares were valued at what the market considered they should be valued at that is even with Geoff Dixon making his very tough and sometimes ruthless management decisions. The people at Macquarie Bank and their associates know that they cant lose by paying 50% more for Qantas than it was valued at on the share market.
If you think Qantas air fares to LA are expensive at the moment, just wait until the consortium takes over. It will be the mug public who pay.
Dont believe anything about this claim of retaining Australian ownership. Most of the money will come from US banks and they obviously will call the shots.
There is just a chance that our present Government will see the electoral damage that such a takeover (if it succeeds) could do, and stop it. After all, the Treasurer prevented Woodside from being taken over as he considered it was important to have it in Australian hands.
Personally I believe Qantas is a fantastic airline one of the best in the world. Even though I do not believe it is perfect, I will do everything I can to prevent the pirates from succeeding.
By the way, if anyone wants a copy of the legal advice written by Professor George Williams, just contact my office either by email or phone and we will email a copy.
better to have their day in court to prove their innocence rather than have to cop a fine system with less opportunity to establish the admissible facts!
In the CASA administrative fines system (which I introduced) there is no obligation to pay the fine. If you do not pay the fine CASA has to make a decision whether to go to court or not. That is how it should be.
You ask what makes me think there has been some type of intentional or unreasonable delay in this case. Im using commonsense. How could such a simple case go on for over five years and still not have its day in court. I want someone to explain the reason for the delay. It is grossly unfair, especially when these blokes claim they are innocent.
Jaded boiler, you ask me to comment about the proposed APA takeover of Qantas. I have stated very publicly in the radio media on many talkback shows and in the print media that I believe it is totally against the interest of Australia. I believe it is just utter greed. Someone smart and ruthless can take over Qantas at a huge price, put up the fares, rip out costs in the short term and make a small fortune you only have to look at what has happened to Sydney Airport.
Qantas shares were valued at what the market considered they should be valued at that is even with Geoff Dixon making his very tough and sometimes ruthless management decisions. The people at Macquarie Bank and their associates know that they cant lose by paying 50% more for Qantas than it was valued at on the share market.
If you think Qantas air fares to LA are expensive at the moment, just wait until the consortium takes over. It will be the mug public who pay.
Dont believe anything about this claim of retaining Australian ownership. Most of the money will come from US banks and they obviously will call the shots.
There is just a chance that our present Government will see the electoral damage that such a takeover (if it succeeds) could do, and stop it. After all, the Treasurer prevented Woodside from being taken over as he considered it was important to have it in Australian hands.
Personally I believe Qantas is a fantastic airline one of the best in the world. Even though I do not believe it is perfect, I will do everything I can to prevent the pirates from succeeding.
By the way, if anyone wants a copy of the legal advice written by Professor George Williams, just contact my office either by email or phone and we will email a copy.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eeerm I'm quick to agree totally with Mr Smith on this one.
There will be only one winner out of this proposal and it wont be the punters nor Australia.
Private equity funding is simply the old pea and thimble trick dressed up as something new.
Buy it, privatise it, strip it, load it up with debt, and sell it back to the long suffering punters trapped in the super funds. And that doesn't include the outrageous fees going in, during and and going out. McBank have a lot to answer for in this country. Count the number of pollies who have jumped from Govt to these sort of boards, its disgraceful.
More civiised countries have an embargo on the time one can shift from pollie/public service to private enterprise, we still live in the age of the Visigoth and Hun. Both sides are as guilty as the other, I can hear the rumble of the tumbrels in the distance.
There will be only one winner out of this proposal and it wont be the punters nor Australia.
Private equity funding is simply the old pea and thimble trick dressed up as something new.
Buy it, privatise it, strip it, load it up with debt, and sell it back to the long suffering punters trapped in the super funds. And that doesn't include the outrageous fees going in, during and and going out. McBank have a lot to answer for in this country.
Count the number of pollies who have jumped from Govt to these sort of boards, its disgraceful.More civiised countries have an embargo on the time one can shift from pollie/public service to private enterprise, we still live in the age of the Visigoth and Hun. Both sides are as guilty as the other, I can hear the rumble of the tumbrels in the distance.
I'm in one of those moods
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: SFC to A085
Posts: 759
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do understand the fine system .... what would be the fine (and presumably the employment implications) in this case?
.
... and for the record (although I have tried to refrain) .. I absolutely agree with both of you regarding the PE buy out .... vile
.
... and for the record (although I have tried to refrain) .. I absolutely agree with both of you regarding the PE buy out .... vile
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Devonport Tasmania Australia
Posts: 1,837
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scurvy, I would like to make a point about your suggestion that innocence does not place incredible pressue on the accused.
Anything that involves litigation of any kind and the prospect of huge legal bills will nearly drive any person over the edge.
Consider the amount of money it could cost you and your family just to prove your innocence, the fact that every call to your attorney is logged and charged to your account even if you are just querying a bill.
There is of course the possibility that if you win, the plaintif can lodge an appeal and if you lose you may have to lodge an appeal.
It is a bloody scary neighbourhood and the law is indeed an ass, as it is set up to ensure maximum return to its purveyors.
I had a recent incident with having to remove a less than honest staff member despite having a bullet proof case and with all evidence from her emails in print, I had to bite the bullet and pay the mole out as that was cheaper than following through and going further in court. Not happy Jan, but that is the way it works.
These guys would just like to have closure. It is a huge weight on their shoulders that should have been well gone by now.
best all
EWL
Anything that involves litigation of any kind and the prospect of huge legal bills will nearly drive any person over the edge.
Consider the amount of money it could cost you and your family just to prove your innocence, the fact that every call to your attorney is logged and charged to your account even if you are just querying a bill.
There is of course the possibility that if you win, the plaintif can lodge an appeal and if you lose you may have to lodge an appeal.
It is a bloody scary neighbourhood and the law is indeed an ass, as it is set up to ensure maximum return to its purveyors.
I had a recent incident with having to remove a less than honest staff member despite having a bullet proof case and with all evidence from her emails in print, I had to bite the bullet and pay the mole out as that was cheaper than following through and going further in court. Not happy Jan, but that is the way it works.
These guys would just like to have closure. It is a huge weight on their shoulders that should have been well gone by now.
best all
EWL
I'm in one of those moods
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: SFC to A085
Posts: 759
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EWL ... no argument .. except 
(as I understand from comments made here), they are being provided 'assistance' (.. as they should) by the association and the company 
... the point being the considered alternative .. if you get my drift without me having to say it (lest it might feed the trolls) 
.
.. I know exactly what you mean though, seen the 'ass' in action many times ..not pretty, perhaps better than the alternative though
(as I understand from comments made here), they are being provided 'assistance' (.. as they should) by the association and the company ... the point being the considered alternative .. if you get my drift without me having to say it (lest it might feed the trolls) .
.. I know exactly what you mean though, seen the 'ass' in action many times ..not pretty, perhaps better than the alternative though
Knackers
How you can make that statement of guilt when the matter has not been expediently tested in an open and accountable court of law, where Hicks may defend himself against the allegations and be judged by his peers?
Justice delayed is justice denied.
Whether Hicks or the Qantas crew it appears to me the same legal principals and rights apply, which we expect in a democratic society.
Jaded Boiler
Well, no.... not totally. If I wished to sell something I owned, whether my house or Qantas shares, I would not want Government to dictate my decision, although I respect Government's right to set conditions.
However if appears from media reports some significant share holders are having second thoughts. The sale of Qantas appears to be far from a "done deal".
"The parallels to Hicks! That's laughable. Hicks deliberately went to Afghanistan to be part of a murderous regime and to murder and oppress people he didn't even know."
Justice delayed is justice denied.
Whether Hicks or the Qantas crew it appears to me the same legal principals and rights apply, which we expect in a democratic society.
Jaded Boiler
"One thing alone will stop it, the federal government fearing an electoral backlash."
However if appears from media reports some significant share holders are having second thoughts. The sale of Qantas appears to be far from a "done deal".
Last edited by Torres; 23rd Feb 2007 at 20:59.
Dick Smith said:
"You ask what makes me think there has been some type of intentional or unreasonable delay in this case. Im using commonsense. How could such a simple case go on for over five years and still not have its day in court. I want someone to explain the reason for the delay. It is grossly unfair, especially when these blokes claim they are innocent.
"
I know bugger all about the legal system, and even less about this case, but from a mug's point of view, perhaps one of the parties is conducting a scientific investigation into the ability of humans to see in the dark or something similar. So the whole thing has to come to a standstill till that's finished.
"You ask what makes me think there has been some type of intentional or unreasonable delay in this case. Im using commonsense. How could such a simple case go on for over five years and still not have its day in court. I want someone to explain the reason for the delay. It is grossly unfair, especially when these blokes claim they are innocent.
"
I know bugger all about the legal system, and even less about this case, but from a mug's point of view, perhaps one of the parties is conducting a scientific investigation into the ability of humans to see in the dark or something similar. So the whole thing has to come to a standstill till that's finished.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Torres
= easy. ROE for combatants in an armed conflict. There are only two sides, theirs and yours, if you are captured or found on their side, trained and armed by them yet, you have quite a different legal problem to the Qantas pilots. This wasn't Iraq this was Afghanistan and direct retaliation for the Al Quaeda attack on the US. I guess next we'll be disputing whether they actually conducted the 9/11outrage.
Nah our Indiana Jones friend has a bit to answer to or maybe he was just a bit confused about life. 5 years is a long time but to conflate his situation with the 5 years of civilian legal process surrounding the Qantas pilots is seriously ingenuous, if not jus horsefeathers.
Oh and it seems the real story of the murder of Balibo 5 is being confirmed. Moral of the story being if you are in a conflict zone for whatever reason and under whatever circumstances you pays your money you take your chances.
I have a number of close friends who operate in some seriously dangerous places where young children dressed up as soldiers carrying (just barely) serious weapons, which were they to fire them in anger, or most probably fright would take out everybody standing nearby. You do exactly what they say and at all times try not to make unnecessary eye contact. These kids have been taken from their villages after the whole village has been shot and made into soldiers.
So how would you try them in a court.
eeerm can't put my finger on the definition but what you just said was.
If the Government says I can't sell it I cant. The responsibility for the decision and or the "rightness" of that action has been moved from you to them. You don't actually have a say except through an examination of the Qantas Sale Act through the High Court or the ballot box.
How you can make that statement of guilt when the matter has not been expediently tested in an open and accountable court of law,
Nah our Indiana Jones friend has a bit to answer to or maybe he was just a bit confused about life.
5 years is a long time but to conflate his situation with the 5 years of civilian legal process surrounding the Qantas pilots is seriously ingenuous, if not jus horsefeathers.Oh and it seems the real story of the murder of Balibo 5 is being confirmed. Moral of the story being if you are in a conflict zone for whatever reason and under whatever circumstances you pays your money you take your chances.
I have a number of close friends who operate in some seriously dangerous places where young children dressed up as soldiers carrying (just barely) serious weapons, which were they to fire them in anger, or most probably fright would take out everybody standing nearby. You do exactly what they say and at all times try not to make unnecessary eye contact. These kids have been taken from their villages after the whole village has been shot and made into soldiers.
So how would you try them in a court.
I would not want Government to dictate my decision, although I respect Government's right to set conditions
If the Government says I can't sell it I cant. The responsibility for the decision and or the "rightness" of that action has been moved from you to them. You don't actually have a say except through an examination of the Qantas Sale Act through the High Court or the ballot box.
"In our country you are innocent until proven guilty. Its up to the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt their case."
Even for a bureaucrat!
Unless of course you work for CASA re-writing the CARs!
I think you mean 'expeditiously', not 'expediently'.
'Expedient' prosecutions, or 'expedient' avoidance of prosecutions, is precisely what you do not want in a civilised democracy based on the rule of law.
The US and Australia are expediently avoiding prosecuting Hicks, because they fear the outcome and need to use him as a political pawn in the interim
The US and Australia are expediently avoiding prosecuting Hicks, because they fear the outcome and need to use him as a political pawn in the interim