Ever since the High Court ruling that the government said forced it to release 148 detainees onto the general public, its worst nightmare was that one or more of them would re-offend. Well one has...indecent assault.

Two others have charged with other lesser offences. Poor Clare O'Neil, who from the moment this dropped on her desk, has looked like a rabbit caught in headlights.

Her big idea was to put ankle trackers on those released. Unsurprisingly the didn't stop the indecent assault, but it did keep the compliant media quiet for a few days, and the media cycles are all that the government really cares about.

Normally these people would have been deported the moment they'd served their sentence. But here we have asylum seekers who have been found to be in mortal danger if they are returned to their homeland. Perhaps they, the criminals, should have pondered that BEFORE committing their crime.

Again, the current government isn't fully to blame for this. The problem lay with the entire political case, including the actual High Court. But the alacrity that the government showed in releasing these people following the High Court decision shows that they were on-board with letting them loose.

It was only when the government found that the population (ie voters) weren't OK with non-citizen criminals roaming the streets, that they suddenly decided 'sumfing' had to be done.

Of course the government and the compliant media are trying really hard to lay the blame on the opposition. Somehow, its all Dutton's fault for not doing what the government tells him to do!! We could ask where are the greens and teals in all this. Answer - in hiding. Not for them the tough issues. If they had the community interest at heart they'd support the government who wouldn't then need Dutton.

Meanwhile the PM, it seems, has also gone into hiding. He's leaving his ministers to carry the can on this. You can't blame him really...after all there are no pretty photo ops in this issue and that's what he exists for following the debacle of the referendum.

mhaze,

Do you agree with indefinite detention at the governments discretion? The High Court unanimously does not, but it seems you do. Australia is a liberal democracy which believes in the rule of law, but its also only one degree from becoming a totalitarian state, as demonstrated by having people like you who are willing to see others incarcerated (disappear) for no other reason than they pose a "possible" threat to the "law and order" of society.

Unlike prisoners, they are free to leave Australia at any time they so choose. It is detention by choice, and they would have better lives than many Australians.

mhaze & Paul1405,
So, what would be your solution regarding criminals in this scenario ?

I'm not a lawyer so my comments aren't really that
relevant in the scheme of things. I was concerned
I have to admit when I first heard about people
with criminal records being released into our
communities - especially sex offenders. Then I read
that they would be monitored with ankle devices.
And thought - "This might work."

Apparently, it hasn't worked so well.

I feel sorry for any government being faced with this
situation. They have to go by the law. But they also
have to think of community safety. I'd hate to be in
the Minister's shoes.

I think this one - the courts are going to have to deal
with. Blaming the PM or the government is not very
productive. This is a matter where the law must be
adhered to - just or not. Unless of course the law
can be changed for the betterment of all concerned.

If it was up to me - I'd not release these guys into
our communities. I'd find a way to keep them locked up or
give them a choice of being deported.

How the heck did these guys get into our country in
the first place with their criminal records and
were allowed to stay?

From what I understand - the Minister wants people
with criminal records to stay in detention if there
is a possibility that they will offend and have their
cases reviewed every three years.

Surely the laws of the High Court's decision can be
changed? Both the government and the opposition should
work on this matter together instead of finger-pointing.
They should both try to ensure that our communities are
kept safe.

Paul wrote: "Do you agree with indefinite detention at the governments discretion? "

Nothing I wrote would suggest that I'm in favour of "indefinite detention at the governments discretion?". That's something that's done in the sort of regime you support. My post was more about criticising the government's headless-chicken response to the High Court ruling.

While I'm not in favour of endless detention I'm also not in favour of non-citizen criminals being allowed to roam the streets.

What should have been done then and now?
1) The government should not have rushed to release all 148 of these criminals. The High Court's ruling related to one person and they didn't initially release their reasons. The government could have easily said they'd wait for the release of findings before releasing anyone and take that time to address the issues they are now running around like decapitated chooks trying to resolve. But, I suspect, they were initially thrilled with the ruling. They could release the inmates, blame the HC, suffer a day or two of mildly bad publicity and get brownie points from those they really represent - the elitist left.

2) offer these criminals an option - return to your homeland or anywhere else that'll take you OR remain under close supervision. Most asylum seekers who come here claiming to be under threat of death if forced to return home, aren't. Its just something the refugee mafia have taught them to say.

3) Organise for the released criminals to be housed as close as possible to the HC judge's homes. The elite relish the idea of virtual signalling without consequence. The idea is to allow these people to roam the streets of the plebs and then ridicule the plebs for their xenophobia when they object. Let the judges feel a little of the effects of their decision.

Remember, these people aren't citizens. They'll never be citizens. They'll be burden that the community carries forever by virtual of the fact that they ,managed to sneak into the country and convince someone they were genuine asylum seekers. We owe them precisely nothing.

"Blaming the PM or the government is not very productive. "

I wasn't blaming the government for the problem. In fact I specifically blamed all sides. What I do blame the government for is their inept response.

They, and especially the two ministers concerned, are caught between a rock and a hard place. They know that the community don't want these people out and about and they especially don't want them out when they so quickly reoffend. But equally, the refugee mafia, who are the people the ALP really don't want to upset, are determined to use this as a stalking horse for a more liberal refugee regime.

So what to do? Well the government's bright idea is to pass the whole thing off to the courts. That way the government can wash its hands of the issue. That Dutton et al are going along with that shows that they are also in favour of getting the problem out of the political arena asap. No one, ALP, Liberal or Teal wants to be blamed for recidivists sexually assaulting women. Best pass it to the courts.

Again I'm not criticising the PM for the problem, just for his response to the problem. He didn't cause it but he's trying to stay as far out of the spotlight as possible and letting the two hapless ministers carry the can. Pretty much what we've come to expect from him.

"How the heck did these guys get into our country in the first place with their criminal records and were allowed to stay?"

They didn't come with criminal records, they committed their crimes while here. I can't speak for all of them but it seems most came during the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd debacle of a government when the borders were, for all intents and purposes, open. They came, were given asylum, committed their crime, were gaoled and now don't want to go home, preferring to live on the taxpayer teat for the rest of their lives. Not a bad gig.

It’s not their criminal past we should worry about, it’s their ideological intend once successfully based here !

mhaze,

I asked you a question, there is nothing you wrote that suggests you oppose it either. But to say outright; "That's something that's done in the sort of regime you (Paul) support" Where's your evidence I support such regimes. For a fella who believed Christ was crucified at Christmas, then blames the birth of a grandchild is well, what can I say. Then a knuckle-dragger would post this nonsense to a complex High Court ruling based on legal argument. "released criminals to be housed as close as possible to the HC judge's homes". Fella, do you talk all of the time out of your backside?

Dear Paul,

Did you know - that his post was about
criticizing the government's response to the
high court ruling. A "chicken response - at that"
And - that's not casting any blame on the
government (sarc.).

How can anyone argue with that logic.

Paul,

I made a mistake on the Christmas thing and owned up. You made a mistake on the Howard conscription thing and couldn't run away fast enough. I prefer my method.

Foxy, let me try to explain in simple language. I wasn't blaming the government for CAUSING the problem, but I was criticising them for their RESPONSE to the problem. Is the nuance too difficult to follow?

Clearly the government is under enormous pressure. A-G Dreyfus exploded at a journo today who had the temerity to ask if they were going to apologise for endangering the citizenry. When even the compliant media turns on them you know its bad.

mhaze,

Surely Gung-Ho Johnny wouldn't wait to be conscripted to go off and fight the dreaded Vietcong! Between the years 1960-1975 Little Johnny could have enlisted and done his duty for Queen and Country, at anytime! But like that other LIBERAL PARTY coward 'Pig Iron' Bob Menzies, Howard failed to enlist, pissed off to London instead!

Paul,

You said he avoided conscription. I proved he didn't. You pissed off rather than own up. I prefer my method.

Thanks mhaze for the thread. Kudos.

I understand that mhaze is as he claims - only
criticizing the government's response to the
High Court order. Their "chicken" response as he
puts it. And he's not criticizing the government
at all - merely their "chicken" response. It's all
a matter of semantics. Got it.
Government's "chicken" response - bad.
Government not bad.

No blame heaped on here.

A government going by the law - is doing a "chicken"
response. Got it.

"No blame heaped on here."

No blame for what caused it. Plenty of blame for the reaction.

I'm sorry this is too hard for you to follow Foxy, but we do have to move on. Please try to keep up. I know its distressing for you when the government is validly criticised and you can't come up with anything to defend it.

Moving on:
A fourth person has now been detained.
Albo is trying to stay as far away from this as he can, even sending in Dreyfus to try to protect the hapless ministers and intimidate the media. Past experience shows that when a PM fails to come to the defence of ministers as Albo has here, ministers will feel less obligated to come to the defence of the PM when needed. Not a good look.

There was a suggestion a while back that Shorten was counting numbers, but, given the current debacle over the NDIS, Albo is probably safe on that front, for the time being.

"There was a suggestion a while back that Shorten was counting numbers," by whom mhaze, YOU. You simply create a falsehood in your minds eye, and then declare it to be true. Well done old son! Provide something to back that up!

Notably, the yellow-bellied village idiot didn't enlist for service either. What a raging hypocrite.

Labor is stuffing up left right and centre it is almost as though they want the liberals back in government.

Well the current debacle as regards the non-citizen criminals might be the government's worst nightmare come true for now, but much worse is on the horizon.

The national account figures came out Wednesday and it was bad all around. Even the ABC couldn't hide it.... "Wednesday's National Accounts were an ugly set of numbers by any measure.")

Just to hit the highlights, they showed that, in the September quarter, the economy grew by an anaemic 0.2%. But the population grew by 0.7% meaning that the average Australian saw a decline in their GDP of 0.5% in a three month period.

Worse still, any grow was due almost entirely to increased government spending and a mini-boom in the mining sector.

OTOH, household disposable incomes increased by a mere 0.1% in the quarter and a 1 per cent over the past year. That's before inflation. After inflation household disposable incomes FELL by 1.&% in just three months. Household living standards are down 5.6% over the year!!

There's a lot more bad news in the numbers but that's the highlights.
2024 is shaping as being a bad year for the country and the government

Yes mhaze inflation has been terrible especially on certain items. I've found ways of minimizing it and perhaps even moving it backwards- but not everybody casts their minds back to the times of the depression- and even before to how people survived in the 1800's. It's good for people to force themselves to think about problems and come up with alternatives to resources that are normally available at the thoughtless flick of a switch. People that burn everything around themselves from their resources to their relationships to their communities- then complain that nothing works- fools. They put their trust in leaders that don't look after their interests- even more foolish. Interesting times are here. Adapt for survival or not.

shonkyminister,

Maybe Labor wants the Liberals back in government, maybe not! Australians who suffered from NOALITION incompetence and criminal behaviour certainly don't.... With more years of Robodebts literally killing people, Sports Rorts, Car Park Rorts, Land Rorts and another trillion dollars of NOALITION debt! No thanks!

So the high court made a decision which caused the release of many potentially harmful persons in to the community.
Did they realise the 'follow-on' effect of such a decision?
Surely they would have 'thought ahead' to this eventuality?
It does seem there is a sense of 'irresponsibility' lurking here somewhere?

Could the government have simply changed the term of the 'prisoners' 'confinement' instead?
Made it definite instead of indefinite?
That would have given them breathing space, and time to organise a proper response.

My understanding is that the 'prisoners' were in Australia because their own countries refused to have them back, and no other country would take them either?

IF,

The High Court is concerned with the law, and the law only, as it should be. Your three questions are irrelevant, if you are applying them to the unanimous decision of the judges in this case. If there are short comings in the law then its for politicians who must decide how to remedy the situation. BTW, the laws involved in this particular case have been on the statute books for about 20 years.

"The High Court is concerned with the law, and the law only, as it should be."

The High Court was unanimous in their findings. Paul thinks that's the end of it.

The High Court was unanimous in their findings that Pell was innocent. Paul completely rejects that.

Nothing like consistency eh

Whether or not it is the law, the effect of a change to, or a re-evaluation of a law, needs to be taken in to account.
And any possible (adverse?) outcomes notified to those who administer the law?
They need to be able to 'get up to speed'?
To foist it on them suddenly is not helpful?
It can lead to strange situations.
So yes, more thinking by someone should have accompanied the change by the high court.
They must have realised their decision would allow perhaps undesirable persons to mix freely with the public?
So surely more thought should have preceded it?
Perhaps that were the case, but we are not privy to the full truth?

The nightmare pertains to the question of how one court, 20 years ago, allows indefinite detention, but a new court denies it.

Activist judges decide on their own feelings, not the law. Governments are not careful enough when they appoint judges.

And, it's all very well for the Coalition to jump up and down. During its 9 year reign, they were appointing as many activists to the High Court as Labor ever did.

"Governments are not careful enough when they appoint judges." What's been said is governments should be appointing judges who rather than apply the law, will be complaint with the governments political policy. Of course ttbn favours an extreme far right radical government appointing their own bunch of Roland Freisler's to the judiciary.

mhaze,

The High Court did not find Pell to be innocent. The High Court found that the Victorian Court of Appeal did not properly consider the evidence that was inconsistent with the complainant's account, and that it failed to explain how the jury could have found Pell guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Syoksya,

"The High Court did not find Pell to be innocent."

Well yes, he was always innocent. Innocent until proven guilty. The HC found that he wasn't proven guilty, therefore he was innocent.

mhaze,

No, in a court of law, "not guilty" is not the same as "innocent." They have distinct legal meanings. Innocence refers to the actual state of not having committed a crime, and implies that the person did not engage in the wrongful act. "Not Guilty" a legal finding by a jury or judge in a criminal case, and means that the prosecution has not met its burden of proving the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Further to this, you erroneously conflate the presumption of innocence with a finding of innocence. These are two distinct concepts in law. The presumption of innocence is a starting point and a shield protecting individuals from being treated as guilty before their guilt is proven. A finding of innocence is the final outcome, a formal declaration of legal innocence based on the evidence presented in court.

Syoksya,

In Aus/English law, there is only guilty or innocent and one is innocent until proven guilty. Pell was found innocent, Bill Shorten is similarly not guilty of rape. Albozo is not guilty of corruption etc.

For left whingers, conservatives are always guilty even when proven innocent. Fortunately, their opinion is worthless.

shadowminister,

I was referring to Australian law. What I said applies to Australian law. Thanks.

Hi Syoksya, welcome to the Forum.

You have to excuse shadowminister, he once made the delusional claim here, that he was a legal man of letters, among other things. Giving "learned" legal opinions on all sorts of matters, like the Politician Porter (LIBERAL PARTY) was in for $10+ million in compensation from the ABC, a groveling apology from the ABC and 100 ABC staff sacked to pay for it all. He also claimed Porter would be PM one day. He also believes he is running a $100 million business in New Zealand, or some such thing.

Good Morning Syoksya,

Welcome to the forum.

Cardinal Pell got off on a legal technicality. He was not
found innocent. But there are still people who believe that
he was innocent. The same as some who believe that former
US President Donald Trump made America great
and that he'll do it again.

They also believe that crticizing the government's response
to the High Court decision in releasing the
people from detention - is not casting blame on the government
and so it goes.

Again - welcome to the forum.

It seems that to them to believe that following the
high court's decision in the case of Cardinal Pell
was a good thing. Whereas the government following the
high court's decision in the case of the detainees
was a bad thing. A bit of a double standard here.

Hi Foxy,

On a lighter note, we had 110, up from about 80 last year, homeless, vulnerable and community folk, pensioners mostly from the local area, for our yearly sit down Christmas Lunch last Monday. A hot meal of chicken ham, roast veg, pudding and custard etc, catered for by the local RSL. Our focus now is on 'The Christmas' Hampers' for distribution in the week before Christmas. last year about 160, this year we are expecting to distribute more like 200 with a value of around $16,000. The main items will include tinned ham, Xmas cake, Xmas pudding long life custard and much more.

PS, A generous benefactor donated 48 puddings last week, that's around $350 in cost. She bought 2 full cartons from Coles. The generosity of some folk is amazing. A school donated an estimated $6,000 in value of items they raised from parents and friends. Again amazing. These are only a couple of examples in what has been an outpouring of generosity ONCE AGAIN, from individuals, businesses and government.

PPS, We are hoping once again that the very generous logistics business in Brisbane, one of the largest, is this year again donating 100 children's back packs, stuffed with goodies, valued at $100 each, that's $10,000! Our Coordinator has contacted them, but hopefully like last year it was only in the last week before Xmas they came in with such generosity.

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

Hi Paul,

I admire all the hard work that you guys do to help
others. I wish you every success in your endeavours.

We've got some health issues at present. But we're
managing.

Here's wishing you and yours many Happy Hours during
this Festive Season and Many Happy Days in the New Year.
Enjoy every moment!.

" Whereas the government following the
high court's decision in the case of the detainees
was a bad thing."

Again Foxy, we have to sympathise with you that this is all too hard for you to follow. I'm NOT criticising the government for acting on the HC's decision just criticising what that action was. I appreciate this is all going over your head.

Poor old Foxy is suffering from the politician's logic. The government had to do something therefore its wrong to criticise them for doing something no matter how useless that something was...
http://i.imgflip.com/4hdcg8.jpg

oops...over the head again.

Foxy,

Stop lying, Pell did not get off on a legal "technicality". The high court unanimously threw the case out of court because of insufficient evidence which is a blight on the Victorian judges that ruled otherwise.

Otherwise, Shorten got off on the same legal technicality.

Hello Syoksya, Foxy - hope all is well in your neck of the woods. Thanks for the legal "definitions" earlier in the thread...as a legal person I am still, 21 years after studying law, trying to unpack what the definition of what a "reasonable person" is, along with the 72 (currently) recognised gender descriptors. There are of course, as most would realise, 2 systems of justice operating in Australia. Both at the state/territory jurisdictional level and to a lesser degree, within the Federal (High Court). The first 'system of justice' is for those who are able to provide adequate funds and this with connections, whether they be political, social or personal. The 'second system' is for those who are unable to provide funds to secure adequate representation through Kings Councel, well versed lawyer/representation etc. On rare occasions, the latter may find pro bono representation, but rarely indeed. For the year I practiced in law, the long hours on case loads, often past midnight, as single parent and junior partner, it meant representing in the Local/Magistrates Court what I will refer to as: "Latte quaffing Tossers in Armani/Carla Zampatti suits". At the end of the day, & in my late 40's, it wasn't what I'd ultimately decided would be a career path. Throughout time, many a "guilty person" has been hanged for a crime they did not commit. Law/justice/jurisprudence its vagaries and foibles, will no doubt convict many more "innocent" people as time marches on. Fortunately the sciences and particularly genetic profiling in the solving - by advances in forensic science are catching and convicting some of the least savoury amonst us.

Shadow Minister,

http://theconversation.com/how-george-pell-won-in-the-high-court-on-a-legal-technicality-133156

'Otherwise, Shorten got off on the same legal technicality.'
What has a legal technicality got to do with right and wrong?
Answer: it promotes confusion through interpretation and nullifies intent.
You won't find such technicalities in state v indigenous because 'think of a way to make him innocent' will never apply in this, and other lower socio economic cases.

Pell was found not guilty because the offence was impossible at the
time as he was at the front of the Cathedral
and the room said to be involved was in use by others.

Pell is dead, and despite some peoples fervent hope/belief, Pell like them is not coming back. Sure Pell got off in the second highest court in the land, the High Court, but was found guilty of being a paedophile in the 'Court of Public Opinion' of which we are all jurors.