The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Presumption of innocence not absolute > Comments

Presumption of innocence not absolute : Comments

By Mirko Bagaric, published 14/5/2012

The flimsy right that is the presumption of innocence can't shield Thomson and can't spare the integrity of parliament.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Hear Hear! Excellent article.
Posted by Sparkyq, Monday, 14 May 2012 8:12:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When it comes to matters of law and or our constitution, opinion ought at the very least be informed. The last time I looked it was not an indictable offence to have sex with a paid sex worker.
Australia is hardly a third world country, where survival may include working in the world's oldest profession; whereas, many who work in it here, do so by choice.
Prisoners in remand have actually been charged with a criminal offence. Thomson has yet to be charged. So, the presumption of innocence still stands, and no matter how many foreigners don't care for it or democracy and the rule of law, remains ironclad in our constitution.
All that is currently proposed is a civil suit, arguably to recover any and all inappropriately used union funds. Mr Abbott is not a judge or executioner, and the coalition benches are not a jury, which currently seems to be invoking mob rule; and or, resembles a lynch mob?
Something that might also apply to the ill-informed, patently politicking Author?
The court of public opinion is not a few legally illiterate radio shock jocks, who basically think for a small public demographic, yet to learn to do it for themselves!
The court of public opinion will have a chance to pass judgement on Thomson at the very next election!
What is on almost daily display here, could come back to haunt many a candidate; given the kangaroo court our parliament seems to have become, and very dangerous ground, given the number of potential skeletons in closets.
Lets not forget that Thomson is not the only one that can be hurt here, but also a completely innocent and trusting wife with two small children to consider; and, family and friends.
If we all had our sins tattooed on our foreheads, we'd likely have a lot less to say about others.
Let he who is entirely without sin cast the first stone. Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Monday, 14 May 2012 9:03:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's time for all monkeys in zoo to learn some table-manners.
They should sit straight, eat with a fork, spoon and knife, wipe their mouth with a napkin at the end of their meal and not lift their tails to expose their back-sides.

After all the public pays to enter and see them, it is not unreasonable to expect them to behave with exemplary respect.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 14 May 2012 9:14:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Our society is so confused about the presumption of innocence. As far as the police and courts are concerned, it amounts to little more than hollow words at best, or an outright lie at worst.

It is often the latter. If you find yourself in trouble with the cops, having done nothing wrong, you’re pretty well screwed unless you can prove your innocence, which is rarely possible.

The presumption of guilt is what really applies most of the time.
Posted by Ludwig, Monday, 14 May 2012 9:28:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“In the end, Thomson is accused of using the hard earned money of union members to have sex with prostitutes. The gravity of the allegation is informed by nature of the position now occupied by Thomson.”
If the accusation is true, at least the services seem to have been paid for on this occasion. For others, such as with “Memphis Trousers” Mal, and “Silver Budgie” Bob, considerable doubt exists whether such services (as reputed) were actually paid for at all, and if they had been it would have been with Australian taxpayers “hard earned dollars” for their Prime Ministerial duties.
If the Parliament arrogates to itself, above the right of the electorate, to determine who - at any particular time - is fit to represent the voters then we are well on the way to losing the “demo” out of “democracy”. The qualifications required for a representative are set down within the constitution, should remain so, and be adhered to.
Posted by colinsett, Monday, 14 May 2012 9:45:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One of the problems with this matter is that the governments own FWA has produced the damning report. Did FWA spend three or so years and a lot of the taxpayers money to produce 1100 pages of fabrication?
Posted by Sparkyq, Monday, 14 May 2012 9:56:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The author writes: "No woman freely chooses to be a prostitute."

How can he possibly know that? He is stating a belief as fact. In my opinion paying a prostitute for value received is a more positive act than giving money to a church which promotes prejudice against 'unbelievers' or covers up child abuse. It is wrong to use union money for purposes other than what the money is intended for, but there are worse things to do with the money to spending it on sex or other forms of pleasure.
Posted by david f, Monday, 14 May 2012 10:03:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agree completely-great article!

Labor has shown such breathtaking contempt for ethics and the dignity of Parliament that it questions the whole foundation of democracy in Australia.
The majority disapprove of almost every act of Gillard and her cronies,yet she just pokes out her tongue-tough!!

This whole affair highlights that what Gillard is saying is "We're in power and I will do whatever it takes to stay there,no matter how wrong and contemptible.

The Governor General on advice,should step in and dismiss Labor.
But of course this wouldnt happen ,they are all left wingers including the son in law.

Its all so incestuous.

Makes me ashamed to be Australian
Posted by mik, Monday, 14 May 2012 11:05:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well said Mirko. It is about character or the lack thereof. Assuming for a moment that Thompson is innocent, that he has been set up; one of the problems I have with that notion is that he is not behaving as though he is innocent, with the most recent of his aberrant behaviour being his stupid assertions to Laurie Oaks.

Bruce Haigh
Posted by Bruce Haigh, Monday, 14 May 2012 11:17:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A vote in parliament against Thompson was defeated because it was not constitutional.
The only ones that can remove Thompson from parliament is the people that voted for him.
The kangaroo court is in cession.
Posted by 579, Monday, 14 May 2012 11:49:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes a report exists; but it is only as good as those who have compiled it. If some evidence and or, witness accounts is excluded, then the report is either incomplete or patently biased?
This matter wouldn't occupy some much public space, but for a hung parliament and Mr Abbott's apparent all consuming desire to occupy the Lodge?
While I find Thomson's explanations unconvincing, he is still entitled to a presumption of innocence and his day in court, which is where this matter will finally wind up and or end.
In any event, Thomson will never ever serve in any public position again, may soon face a divorce; and may have to earn a future income as a taxi driver, a second hand car salesman or some such?
I see others like say Alan Bond, who may have misused or misappropriated many millions of public or other peoples' money, employed many providers of "PERSONAL SERVICES" etc/etc? And, much less harshly judged and or, allowed to go back and run companies etc.
But for a hung parliament, the Thomson affair would get the attention and media space it actually deserves, as opposed to all the puffed up hype, bluster and or politically motivated hyperbole? Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Monday, 14 May 2012 12:23:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu; Appropriate comment mate, well almost; given the collective noun for a group of Baboons, is a parliament. Cheers, Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Monday, 14 May 2012 12:28:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>the collective noun for a group of Baboons, is a parliament.<<

The only animals which come in parliaments are owls, ravens and rooks. Baboons come in troops or flanges.

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Monday, 14 May 2012 12:43:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sadly, for the joke, it is a parliament of owls...

But it is a congress of baboons when it's not a troop.

There are pages of suggestions (most unable to be posted here) for collective nouns for parliamentarians but mine is:

A Privilege of politicians?
Posted by WmTrevor, Monday, 14 May 2012 12:53:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Labour/Greens were the loudest squealars when calling for Peter Hollingwoth blood a few years ago. Guilt by association was enough for them to use the leftist media to denograte a man's character and force him from office. It is these same hypocrites who know are protecting, paying legal fees and acting as Pilate in one go when it comes to cleaners money. Breathtaking hypocrisy! I wonder how the Defence Chief who because of political expedience was made to stand aside by the Defense Minister must feel. His name was made mud only to be found innocent but it did not stop the Labour/Greens from demanding he stand aside. It is unbelievable that we still have abouyt 27% of the population willing to vote for this mob.
Posted by runner, Monday, 14 May 2012 1:38:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I prefer a 'vacuum' of politicians
Posted by Phil Matimein, Monday, 14 May 2012 1:53:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Please excuse my ignorance of the law, but I would have thought Craig Thomson's alleged crime(s) included submitting credit card statements which included payments for questionable or spurious services for payment by the Union. Are we to believe he did not check the charges on those statements to ensure they were validly incurred, were in fact incurred by himself, and were a valid responsibility of the Union, and not a 'personal' expense? Or that he could have been so irresponsible as to not vet those statements at all before submitting them for payment? Or that Union procedures could have been so slack that he (Mr Thomson) never had to vet them at all or to approve them for payment by the Union?

Are most people or organisations so careless with the vetting of their credit card or bank statements? I would have thought not. Should we expect less of a public office holder or Union, when dealing with public or other people's money, than we would reasonably expect of ourselves, a spouse or dependent? Such beggars belief. And, as the head of that Union Branch, would not Mr Thomson be held to also be responsible for the adequacy of the procedures used for vetting the credit card statements relating to all credit cards issued by the Branch?

If such allegations are supported by the FWA report are we expected to accept that a crime (of fraud or misappropriation) has not occurred, but merely an innocent oversight - not once, but on multiple occasions - and that this could be resolved by the mere repayment of any 'personal' expenses by Mr Thomson to the Union, with perhaps a light rap over the knuckles?

Crime, or civil misdemeanor? Justice or joke? Are contributing Union members not entitled to due process, and the parliament and people of Australia not similarly entitled?

Let the facts and evidence determine, but two things seem clear, FWA is a flawed organisation, and the HSU a debacle. Let Mr Thomson have his day in court - anything less would be a gross miscarriage of reasonable expectations.
Posted by Saltpetre, Monday, 14 May 2012 2:15:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SP,

Thomson checked and signed off the prostitutes against the credit card account. If he had taken it as a personal expense and paid it back at the time he would not be in the poo now.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 14 May 2012 2:30:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The right of innocence is real but not in the case of FWA legislation.
Not sure if FWA legislation in relation to embezzlement presumes guilt
like it does in sex harrisment cases.

So some legislation presumes the accused is guilty unless they can
prove their innocence.
Generally I believe it applies to employers who of course in Labour's
opinion must always be guilty.

So all those including politicians are probably wrong when they say
that Thompson is innocent until proven guilty.

In any case it has always been when someone is accused of improper
behaviour they stand down until the matter is settled.
That has been done in parliament in the past, not just the party room.
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 14 May 2012 3:51:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
However, as we are all meant to be equal under the law, it is not clear that Mr Thomson's position as a member of the Federal parliament should have any bearing on due process. Certainly he would have to be made to step aside if criminal charges were laid and he were to be remanded, either in custody or on bail, but this would have had to require his appearance before a magistrate. In the absence of such circumstance, he must be presumed innocent of any charge, and therefore entitled to retain his position in the parliament.

If, however, he were still an office holder in the HSU, it would not perhaps be unreasonable for the Union to require him to stand down on paid or unpaid leave until the matter was satisfactorily resolved.

A person should not be dismissed from office on mere suspicion or allegation, even if it be the highest office in the land - for to do so would be to 'take the law into one's own hands', and therefore contrary to law, as I understand it.

Although we may expect our politicians to remain above reproach, such aspirations should not cause a circumvention of due legal process.

As much as we may feel outraged at parliamentary antics in general, or that any of our parliamentary representatives may have acted imprudently, I don't see how the government or parliament can be found at fault in the handling of this case - except that I feel the government should reasonably have required FWA to have expedited its investigations.
Posted by Saltpetre, Monday, 14 May 2012 4:12:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is little doubt this matter will end up in court? When that day finally dawns the case will likely be thrown out; given the amount of pre trial public judging, there is simply no way for the accused to actually get a fair trial.
It might be also true that Slipper, while still a coalition member, had a much more serious case to answer, regarding claimed expenses? And over a period of 9 parliaments?
Nowhere do we see where he was censored, and none of the posters here, seem to feel in any way aggrieved? The supposed outrage seems very selective and aimed primarily at Thomson?
Were I a member of Parliament I would start to worry, given what is good for the goose is also good for the gander? Particularly when one considers how easy it seems to be, to hack into email and or phone mail/records etc. And or, the existence of quite comprehensive dirt files?
Besides, all that is required to spark an inquisition is a little indiscretion or chance remark made when somewhat inebriated etc. Or indeed, documents very conveniently falling from a briefcase, in sight of the press gallery?
Where was all the public outrage, when Peter Reith was the one in the hot seat over some similar indiscretion?
Perhaps Thomson ought to arrive at the next sitting, with his head shaved and clothed in sack clothe and ashes, just to expose the sheer hypocrisy, that so marks that place now? Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Monday, 14 May 2012 4:50:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thomson is entitled to the presumption of innocence as we all are but I'm left wondering if he voted against the government when they introduced changes to Family Law which in effect removed that right from men accused of DV.

The aim of the law should be to minimise long term consequences on an individual of unproven accusations. Often we don't try to achieve that, if you are charged with a crime and not in a special situation then you have to wear the costs of your own defence even if acquitted. There is no protection for most against flow on consequences of unproven allegations. The family law changes introduced by this government don't appear to have done anything to protect those accused of DV from the long term consequences which can be far more serious than the inability to sit in parliament for a period.

The presumption of innocence is important but it is apparently more important for Thomson than for people less crucial to the governments ability to hold onto power.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 14 May 2012 4:53:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mirko, the lawyer sacked from the refugee review tribunal because he supported torture should be silent on legal issues.

Thomson cannot be charged with any misuse of credit cards because there was no policy to breach.

This is the level of the reasoning of FWA and it should be rejected.

Allow me to repeat something from days ago re Thomson and his “charges”
In Chapter 6 of the Fair Work Report they have 3 paragraphs where they explain their reasoning.
In para 592 they say there was no formal policy on travel, rather an informal understanding that allowed his expenditure.
In para 598 they say there was no policy allowing him to do it.
In para 599 they say his terms of employment did not specifically allow him to do it.
So in 3 paras they say there was no policy anywhere saying he could or could not spend money.
Incredibly they go on to say he “therefore broke the rules”.I do not see the logic chain there. I understand people are upset and there is a moral or ethical question involved but the legal one is murky
Posted by Marilyn Shepherd, Monday, 14 May 2012 5:56:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bruce, you need to do a back ground check on the shenanigans of Kathy Jackson, Thomson's accuser, and her rotten husband before you say Thomson is guilty of something.

And read beyond the ridiculous partisan hacks in the media to the reasonings I have posted.

How is it possible to breach rules that do not exist?

And another little tid bit - Thomson was paid almost half of Jackson's salary, Jackson and her husband have also been accused of rorts and claim their innocence without anyone torturing them.

Jackson is also engaged to a FWA investigator - she is a liar who bankrupted the Victorian HSU after a 15 year battle for power against Pauline Fegan.

The problem with the lazy is they don't bother to research things for themselves, - so much easier for old men and women to titter like virgins behind their Victorian fans at the mention of brothels.

It seems to have escaped notice that sex workers are not criminals, I have friends who were sex workers and they are ordinary women.

But they were in the union and the union paid for their mandatory health checks.

As they still do as far as I know.

So why don't all the whiney cry babies grow up and do some reading instead.

Thomson was also accused of using funds to set up a NSW branch without permission which would be an amazing feat wouldn't it?

He is not involved in the mess with HSU East, those claims only go back to 2008 and he has not been in the union since 2007.

Gordon Wood claimed he was innocent but the media went along with junk science to claim he was guilty.

As they still do with Ali Al Jenabi.

Bruce Haigh in particular should know better.
Posted by Marilyn Shepherd, Monday, 14 May 2012 6:04:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What a sad, breathtakingly simplistic, and tellingly typical attack on a fellow Australian who happens to play a role in maintaining stable government in Australia. Unforgivably for Mirko, it's just not the minority government of his choice.

What gall pretending to speak for sex workers in order to enlist them in his assault on the notion of presumption of innocence.

And how monumentally outrageous to argue that people who've been refused bail by a court process have lost the presumption of their innocence. The need to prioritize court processes for those refused bail, and to address how they serve any custodial time, should not be confused with some foolish assertion that they have forfeited any presumption of their innocence. Mirko you are way off.

To suggest that any parliamentarian should be judged in a House split along party lines is arrant humbug. The conservative side of politics and its media allies, constantly attack basic assumptions of the Westminster Parliamentary tradition, anything to undermine the Government. Sadly they are in fact doing little more than undermining our parliamentary processes. Their contemptible attacks on the Speaker were a direct attack on key conventions.

Watching Christopher Pine and Julie Bishop's disgraceful personal attacks on Craig Thomson is like watching the Parliament being reduced to a lynch mob. It's gross and unseemly to watch such blatant abuse of Parliamentary Privilege.

The totally biased conservative Murdoch media repeatedly calling for Abbott and his market extremists to be put back into government, has shown itself as singularly incapable of putting social policy analysis ahead of tabloid sensationalism - both here and around the English speaking world.

Serious reporting in Australia has been reduced to telling us how bad Julia Gillard looks on any given day in any given jacket and how good Tony Abbott looks on a bike. Anything to deflect from the reality of where Labor's exemplary leadership has taken us over the last four years, a reality recognized by commentators overseas as bleedingly obvious: for all its faults Labor has been outstanding in its economic management and in many areas of progressive reform.
Posted by russellpollard.com, Tuesday, 15 May 2012 2:16:06 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tony Abbott is being sued for defamation - all the honking geese will demand that he is not innocent at all and must step down, won't they?
Posted by Marilyn Shepherd, Tuesday, 15 May 2012 7:03:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The presumption of innocence is a feature of "common law", not "statute law". Guess which type of law we get these days, in almost all forms of legislation?

The presumption of innocence does not exist in Family Law and domestic violence cases, for example. Oh hang on, "balance of probabilities" dictates many magistrates decisions, and that does not presume innnocence either.....

Rusty
Posted by Rusty Catheter, Wednesday, 16 May 2012 12:13:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well there you go Mirko, good thing you don't get a say.

FWA claimed without evidence that Thomson stole or didn't declare $270,000 in funds used for elections to the AEC.
'
FWA were dead wrong.
Posted by Marilyn Shepherd, Wednesday, 16 May 2012 4:42:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Watching Christopher Pine and Julie Bishop's disgraceful personal attacks on Craig Thomson is like watching the Parliament being reduced to a lynch mob'

Maybe but not nearly as sickeneing as seeing a desperate people speaking about higher standards in Government and having its party pay legal fees to protect this man despite the findings (look up the dictionary) of FWA. This feminist led Government has shown the country how low people are willing to grovel in order to cling to power. There obviously are any real men in the Labour party or certainly among the so called independants who have an ounce of integrity. That is what I call sickening. Emasculated men nodding their heads alongside a PM who changes her mind every week. They are shameless which fits well with secular/feminist dogma.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 16 May 2012 5:10:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy