We are living in a new era, therefore we need new laws that will fit in with that age that we are facing.
The Immigration convention of 1951 was made for that era, it does not fit today nor should it apply.
"Terrorism" is a newcomer, laws must be made to cope with this because it could last a long time .
People accused of terrorism must not be tried under laws that existed before such terrorism existed.
Australian laws should be enacted to protect Australian people, not let supposed terrorists off the hook because of outdated laws.

I thought that we were actually fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan to protect our liberal democratic way of life, including rule of law and courts that require proper evidence tested by lawyers, judge and jury. Yet Bagaric wants that overturned to suit his whim, much as terrorists apparently want rule of law overturned to suit them.
I dont know why parents of Bali victims are weighing in. I havent seen any evidence that Thomas had anything to do with Bali terror plots. Have I missed something?
If we call for anyone who is 'suspected' or 'accused' of mixing with terrorists to be simply punished without proper trial, surely we have become the kind of society that we believe terrorists want to create. Tyranical Dictatorship.

Mirko has clearly been sucking off the tit of DIMA and it's corrupted institutions for far too long if he believes this tripe.

Here is a scenario to consider - DIMA make a false travel document claiming a person is born in a different country, get prison guards to escort him on a plane without visas, dump him illegally in a different country and he is tortured and imprisoned for travelling without documents. Who is the criminal here Mirko?

Then we get to the Federal police who have a history of criminal behaviour in Indonesia, with a commissioner who pleaded for immunity from prosecution when called to the senate to give evidence about his filthy illegal people smuggling operations, who was caught up in the scandal of false sickness certificates and now stand by and allow Australian citizens to be tortured and denied the right to a lawyer.

Joseph Thomas did not do anything but DIMA and their toadies in the Feds have been committing crimes against men, women and children for decades.

Mickijo, what has the refugee convention got to do with Joseph Thomas? He is an Australian citizen born and bred so what does immigration have to do with him?

If I was Deakin Uni. I would sack Mirko this time - we cannot have law professors teaching rubbish that would have suited Adolf Hitler but should never, ever fit in Australian law.

Brian Deegan was spot on about this, he was gracious and honest and you should listen to this decent man. Joseph had nothing whatsoever to do with Bali and nor did Bin Laden.

Frank gol, excellent post. Sadly the paranoid ones including tort educated MK, are letting their religious emotions take over, again.

I mightn't like JT or his beliefs, but all he did was meet a powerful man and take some money from the blokes associates. I abhor what those people are now doing, but I don't think JT was fully aware of what he was getting into, at the time.

For once I fully support the court in its decision. JT didn't blow anyone up, fight anywhere, nor did he harm anyone. The only crime he committed was making a couple of bad decisions. Should he be watched, yes, but I believe he'll be very happy to forget his flawed decisions and get on with his life. If he doesn't, I'm all for capital punishment or citizenship lose and deportation.

It never amazes me the zeal with which monotheists rabidly hunt down and condemn anyone, who gives them the excuse to put blame for the problems they cause, onto some other poor soul. Maybe they will accept being charged with collusion when in 5 years time John Howard and Co, are brought before the courts for their war crimes and treason in selling of the countries assets.

We have a catch 22 situation as Sage points out, a corrupt system run by corrupt people, using bizarre language no one understands to give injustice, not logical at all.

No evidence should be obtained by threat or torture, or with out independent verification. That way you solve all problems. If you've really done a crime, in end you will dig your own hole. Until we develop a legal system that removes the power and control from the legal profession and puts it in the hands of the people, we will never get true justice for anyone.

We need a system answerable for its decisions, compassionate with foolish mistakes, but ruthless against blatant crime and barbarity.

Prof, Mirko Bagaric gives an excellent example of the current state our legal system is in, poor us.

From the article: "A long standing rule of evidence is that confessions obtained from suspects as a result of threats or inducements are normally inadmissible. This is even if the reliability of the confession is not in question..."

And how exactly do you establish that?

Surely the whole point is that the reliability of such confessions has been called into question by the way they were obtained. If everything in the confession is independantly backed up, then you don't need it in evidence, do you?

I think we should rely more on the jury. The quality of the evidence should be explicated during the trial. The defence can argue that the evidence is tainted and unreliable. The prosecution can maintain that despite the contingencies the evidence is useful. The jury, advised by the judge, should be able to decide whether the case is reasonable or not.