CASA Loses Again
You won't find a 'transcript' of a Magistrates' Court hearing anywhere, Walrus7.
Don't you realise how completely nonsensical all this looks?
You say:
- you've spoken to the gentleman charged
- he indicated he has viewed this thread
- he didn't say to you that anything you had posted was incorrect.
But earlier you said the date was the 18th and then Gupta said it was the 21st. Couldn't the gentleman remember on which date CASA was ignominiously defeated?
You also said 'we don't know if the courts had ordered some things stay out of the public domain.' Didn’t the gentleman know whether 'the courts' had issued such an order? After all, surely the gentlemen would have needed to know what the order was, in order to comply with it. And if there was any order of that kind, why have any of the details - dates and outcome - been revealed on pprune?
If I was 'charged by CASA' and the charges were in fact 'thrown out' by the court, I'd be on pprune in a microsecond, publishing the what, where and when in minute detail, and I would be perfectly entitled and free to do that. Courts don't order people not to reveal that charges against them have been dismissed.
This one still smells like an embellished, third-hand account of half a story, and it's getting smellier by the day.
Don't you realise how completely nonsensical all this looks?
You say:
- you've spoken to the gentleman charged
- he indicated he has viewed this thread
- he didn't say to you that anything you had posted was incorrect.
But earlier you said the date was the 18th and then Gupta said it was the 21st. Couldn't the gentleman remember on which date CASA was ignominiously defeated?
You also said 'we don't know if the courts had ordered some things stay out of the public domain.' Didn’t the gentleman know whether 'the courts' had issued such an order? After all, surely the gentlemen would have needed to know what the order was, in order to comply with it. And if there was any order of that kind, why have any of the details - dates and outcome - been revealed on pprune?
If I was 'charged by CASA' and the charges were in fact 'thrown out' by the court, I'd be on pprune in a microsecond, publishing the what, where and when in minute detail, and I would be perfectly entitled and free to do that. Courts don't order people not to reveal that charges against them have been dismissed.
This one still smells like an embellished, third-hand account of half a story, and it's getting smellier by the day.
Actually, as a (very) experienced aviation lawyer, it sounds to me like a perfectly reasonable account of CASA commencing a prosecution, and the Magistrate finding, for whatever reason, that the charges were not made out and dismissing the prosecution. Creampuff's 'smell' is frankly ridiculous. There are no reported decisions of Magistrate's court proceedings, and transcript can be requested but costs money.
If that happened on the 21st in the Ringwood Magistrates' court, why can't we identify which of the matters on the list for that court for that day was the matter the subject of this thread?
Why would there be any impediment to publishing the details?
Why would there be any impediment to publishing the details?
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Perth
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I was 'charged by CASA' and the charges were in fact 'thrown out' by the court, I'd be on pprune in a microsecond, publishing the what, where and when in minute detail, and I would be perfectly entitled and free to do that. Courts don't order people not to reveal that charges against them have been dismissed.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is another reason everyone is keeping quiet and that is the whole matter may be subject to appeal. People are keeping their heads down and ammunition clean until the appeal period has expired.
Why would the prospect of an appeal prevent the publication of the fact - if it is a fact - that on x date, at y court, z charges against person q were dismissed?
It either happened or it didn't, and publishing accurate details of the decision couldn't prejudice an appeal, could it?
It either happened or it didn't, and publishing accurate details of the decision couldn't prejudice an appeal, could it?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was just a thought Creamie, just a thought. However, it was always a practice of mine not to speak too loudly after a win until the appeal period had lapsed. Rejoyce quietly was the go.
Incidentally I have no knowledge of this particular case at all. However, the thought struck me that the court list you posted may have only been the Victorian criminal list for that court on that day and not contain any Commonwealth matters.
Similarly, the difference in dates could have been due to a hearing on one date and the magistrates decision being handed down on the other. Due to the financial implications there would be little or no delay in handing down a decision.
Incidentally I have no knowledge of this particular case at all. However, the thought struck me that the court list you posted may have only been the Victorian criminal list for that court on that day and not contain any Commonwealth matters.
Similarly, the difference in dates could have been due to a hearing on one date and the magistrates decision being handed down on the other. Due to the financial implications there would be little or no delay in handing down a decision.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Cockatoo Australia
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Settle down, people!
I said it was on the 18th because I misread an e-mail that used the phrase "last Friday". It was referring to a different conversation that occured before the court case. Sorry about that.
A researcher named James Michael has confirmed that the case did indeed happen at the Ringwood Magistrates Court No.7 on Monday 21 July 2008. He is chasing a copy of the transcript for us. When I have it in my hand, I will see what I can do to make it available to you all.
Creampuff, as far as the gentleman concerned not posting here. Until a couple of days ago he didn't even have a profile. He had to register to view this thread. Internet forums aren't his style. And before you ask, no, I don't know his profile name.
Walrus
I said it was on the 18th because I misread an e-mail that used the phrase "last Friday". It was referring to a different conversation that occured before the court case. Sorry about that.
A researcher named James Michael has confirmed that the case did indeed happen at the Ringwood Magistrates Court No.7 on Monday 21 July 2008. He is chasing a copy of the transcript for us. When I have it in my hand, I will see what I can do to make it available to you all.
Creampuff, as far as the gentleman concerned not posting here. Until a couple of days ago he didn't even have a profile. He had to register to view this thread. Internet forums aren't his style. And before you ask, no, I don't know his profile name.
Walrus
I didn't say he had to post anything. My point on that issue was, I couldn't see any reason for not posting the details of the decision.
PLovett has provided some helpful (to me) suggestions as to why the parties may want to refrain from saying anything, and why the details may not be available on the court lists.
I look forward to finding out all of the details.
PLovett has provided some helpful (to me) suggestions as to why the parties may want to refrain from saying anything, and why the details may not be available on the court lists.
I look forward to finding out all of the details.
From page 36 at the link in the first post of this thread:
CASA seem to spend an inordinate amount of time with their prosecution section. You heard from the previous gentleman, from the airlines, the fare-paying people, that there have not been prosecutions launched against them for many years. But in private enterprise, in private GA, prosecutions are rampant. CASA’s prosecution section is out of control.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Walrus 7
As Creampuff put it so well:
Come on Walrus 7 if you know all the details of this case why not post them.
Perhaps it's because your account is exactly what Creampuff suspected -"an embellished, third-hand account of half a story".
The fact is that the Court did NOT throw it out at all as you allege.
What happened ws that the defendant was charged with 11 offences. Most related to maintenace issues - but also included a VCA and a breach of CAR 301 and a failure to endorese a maintenance release.
Far from the court throwing it out, the defendant pleaded guilty to 3 of the charges - the VCA, the 301 and failure to endorse maintenance release.
As a result of the defendant pleading guilty to 3 of the charges the DPP dropped the other 8 charges - nothing unusual about that - and it is entirely a matter for the DPP.
So the defendant was found guilty of the 3 charges but the court discharged the defendant under section 19B of the Crimes Act (C’lth) without proceeding to conviction upon the defendant entering a good behaviour bond. And the Magistrate made it clear that the offences were NOT trivial and believed that there should be higher penalties for some of the offences.
It seems clear that some of the posters on this thread have little idea of what they are talking about or simply like to distort the truth for their own motives. It’s no wonder they are reluctant to post proper factual information = can’t let the facts get in the way of a good story……….
For those interested, here are the relevant parts of section 19B
19B Discharge of offenders without proceeding to conviction
(1) Where:
(a) a person is charged before a court with a federal offence or federal offences; and
(b) the court is satisfied, in respect of that charge or more than one of those charges, that the charge is proved, but is of the opinion, having regard to:
(i) the character, antecedents, age, health or mental condition of the person;
(ii) the extent (if any) to which the offence is of a trivial nature; or
(iii) the extent (if any) to which the offence was committed under extenuating circumstances;
that it is inexpedient to inflict any punishment, or to inflict any punishment other than a nominal punishment, or that it is expedient to release the offender on probation;
the court may, by order:
(d) discharge the person, without proceeding to conviction in respect of any charge referred to in paragraph (c), upon his or her giving security, with or without sureties, by recognizance or otherwise, to the satisfaction of the court, that he or she will comply with the following conditions:
(i) that he or she will be of good behaviour for such period, not exceeding 3 years, as the court specifies in the order;
(ii) that he or she will make such reparation or restitution, or pay such compensation, in respect of the offence or offences concerned (if any), or pay such costs in respect of his or her prosecution for the offence or offences concerned (if any), as the court specifies in the order (being reparation, restitution, compensation or costs that the court is empowered to require the person to make or pay):
(A) on or before a date specified in the order; or
(B) in the case of reparation or restitution by way of money payment or in the case of the payment of compensation or an amount of costs—by specified instalments as provided in the order; and
(iii) that he or she will, during a period, not exceeding 2 years, that is specified in the order in accordance with subparagraph (i), comply with such other conditions (if any) as the court thinks fit to specify in the order, which conditions may include the condition that the person will, during the period so specified, be subject to the supervision of a probation officer appointed in accordance with the order and obey all reasonable directions of a probation officer so appointed.
Well it ain't pending anymore. The courts threw it out,
As Creampuff put it so well:
This one smells like an embellished, third-hand account of half a story
Come on Walrus 7 if you know all the details of this case why not post them.
Perhaps it's because your account is exactly what Creampuff suspected -"an embellished, third-hand account of half a story".
The fact is that the Court did NOT throw it out at all as you allege.
What happened ws that the defendant was charged with 11 offences. Most related to maintenace issues - but also included a VCA and a breach of CAR 301 and a failure to endorese a maintenance release.
Far from the court throwing it out, the defendant pleaded guilty to 3 of the charges - the VCA, the 301 and failure to endorse maintenance release.
As a result of the defendant pleading guilty to 3 of the charges the DPP dropped the other 8 charges - nothing unusual about that - and it is entirely a matter for the DPP.
So the defendant was found guilty of the 3 charges but the court discharged the defendant under section 19B of the Crimes Act (C’lth) without proceeding to conviction upon the defendant entering a good behaviour bond. And the Magistrate made it clear that the offences were NOT trivial and believed that there should be higher penalties for some of the offences.
It seems clear that some of the posters on this thread have little idea of what they are talking about or simply like to distort the truth for their own motives. It’s no wonder they are reluctant to post proper factual information = can’t let the facts get in the way of a good story……….
For those interested, here are the relevant parts of section 19B
19B Discharge of offenders without proceeding to conviction
(1) Where:
(a) a person is charged before a court with a federal offence or federal offences; and
(b) the court is satisfied, in respect of that charge or more than one of those charges, that the charge is proved, but is of the opinion, having regard to:
(i) the character, antecedents, age, health or mental condition of the person;
(ii) the extent (if any) to which the offence is of a trivial nature; or
(iii) the extent (if any) to which the offence was committed under extenuating circumstances;
that it is inexpedient to inflict any punishment, or to inflict any punishment other than a nominal punishment, or that it is expedient to release the offender on probation;
the court may, by order:
(d) discharge the person, without proceeding to conviction in respect of any charge referred to in paragraph (c), upon his or her giving security, with or without sureties, by recognizance or otherwise, to the satisfaction of the court, that he or she will comply with the following conditions:
(i) that he or she will be of good behaviour for such period, not exceeding 3 years, as the court specifies in the order;
(ii) that he or she will make such reparation or restitution, or pay such compensation, in respect of the offence or offences concerned (if any), or pay such costs in respect of his or her prosecution for the offence or offences concerned (if any), as the court specifies in the order (being reparation, restitution, compensation or costs that the court is empowered to require the person to make or pay):
(A) on or before a date specified in the order; or
(B) in the case of reparation or restitution by way of money payment or in the case of the payment of compensation or an amount of costs—by specified instalments as provided in the order; and
(iii) that he or she will, during a period, not exceeding 2 years, that is specified in the order in accordance with subparagraph (i), comply with such other conditions (if any) as the court thinks fit to specify in the order, which conditions may include the condition that the person will, during the period so specified, be subject to the supervision of a probation officer appointed in accordance with the order and obey all reasonable directions of a probation officer so appointed.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i'd love to share the details (but i cant) i know of someone that gave CASA yet another bare bottom spanking a little while ago.
just goes to show what goes around comes around boys. worst thing is you never know when you might run into bloggs again. oops
just goes to show what goes around comes around boys. worst thing is you never know when you might run into bloggs again. oops