The Forum > Article Comments > Why David Hicks must win > Comments
Why David Hicks must win : Comments
By Max Atkinson, published 6/9/2011There is no way that confiscation of the proceeds of crime legislation should apply to Hicks' case.
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
-
- All
Absolute agreement from me Max. You'd think that someone would have had to be found guilty of a crime for 'proceeds of crime' legislation to apply wouldn't you?
Posted by Evan Hadkins, Tuesday, 6 September 2011 11:13:24 AM
| |
I also agree Hicks has not committed a crime and should not have book earnings confiscated.
I also believe Howard, Downer and Ruddock should be arrainged and charged with dereliction of duty and made to pay Hicks Compensation. Maracas Posted by maracas1, Tuesday, 6 September 2011 12:32:38 PM
| |
But he pleaded guilty. Twist and turn all you like, he admitted to committing an offence. 'Think' what you like, Maracas, but he admitted to committing an offence. He copped a plea and got let off, a reduced sentence. End of story.
Not quite: having admitted to committing a crime, should he then get the proceeds for his description of it ? Does that come under the 'proceeds of crime' definition ? If not, what does it take ? Joe Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 6 September 2011 12:42:03 PM
| |
That's a bit harsh, Loudmouth.
>>But he pleaded guilty. Twist and turn all you like, he admitted to committing an offence.<< As I recall, it was an "Alford plea", where the defendant pleads guilty while still maintaining innocence, on the basis that he would be likely to be found guilty. http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/alford-plea/ "In an Alford Plea, the criminal defendant does not admit the act, but admits that the prosecution could likely prove the charge. The court will pronounce the defendant guilty." I'd reckon that from where he sat in Guantanamo Bay, Hicks would have assessed his chances of being found not guilty as being close to zero, hence the lack of a trial. The offence was not tried in Australia either. I'd say the "proceeds of crime" stance is pretty thin, all round. However, the law in Australia seems forever subservient to politics (well, most of the time, Julia...) so I wouldn't hold out much hope for a favourable interpretation just yet. Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 6 September 2011 1:00:32 PM
| |
Maybe you're right, Pericles, but there might be a lot of convicted criminals who claim 'I wuz framed!', 'It wasn't me!' but who still plead guilty, knowing their chances.
Your point about Hicks not being found guilty in Australia may have more weight. I don't know if the 'proceeds of crime' legislation extends to offenses committed outside of the jurisdiction of Australia, but the implications are tantalising: once he is turfed out, and if he seeks refuge in the Caribbean to avoid further prosecutions, Berlusconi could make a decent living selling his unexpurgated memoirs to the Australian public. Come to think of it, so could Ghaddafi. Bit late for Mubarak :) Cheers. Joe Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 6 September 2011 1:22:25 PM
| |
Eminently sensible stuff Max. I'm in full agreement.
Posted by Ludwig, Tuesday, 6 September 2011 1:44:35 PM
|