In February this year, Perth Magistrate Catherine Crawford found leading live export company Emanuel Exports Pty Ltd and two of its Directors, Michael Stanton and Graham Daws, guilty of breaching the WA Animal Welfare Act, effectively determining by law that a key part of the live export industry is cruel. Despite this, the Magistrate acquitted the live export company on a technicality between Commonwealth and State law. This decision was considered by the WA State Solicitor to have been in error. The State Solicitor subsequently lodged an appeal in the WA Supreme Court.

Now, in a remarkable development, the Minister for Local Government Ljiljanna Ravlich has issued instructions that the appeal be withdrawn. It is highly improper for a government Minister to interfere in judicial proceedings, particuarly once they have commenced.

The live export company and its two directors were on trial for unnecessarily causing suffering and death to thousands of animals. Their guilt or innocence, and any consequences of their actions, should only be determined in a court of law, not by the vested interests of a Government and its Minister, who has now hopelessly compromised herself and potentially the whole Carpenter government. Is this corrupt conduct? Minister Ravlich also demonstrates contempt for the expertise of her own Department and that of the WA Attorney General, which has said that the defendants should not have been "acquitted". Premier Carpenter should intervene without delay, sack Minister Ravlich, and let due process take its course.

The Australian Constitution clearly provides for the separation of powers between Governments, their Executives, and the Judiciary, and Minister Ravlich much be sacked.

Nicky,
Magistrates are not judicial officers they are administrative officers adjudicating on disputes that involve Govt policy and not the rule of law. They are simply highly paid public servants operating the Govt cash register and doing their bit to collect the state's revenue, thats the business of the so called court, nothing else.
The magistrates should not exercise judicial power and effect your substantive rights without your consent and when they do and you don't object and are ignorant of the the next step to protect your self from this exercise of judicial power, you then become a victim of the system. ( Kable)
The Minister has not interfered in the Judicial proceeding as they had never commenced it was simply an administrative process dressed up to look like a valid judicial proceedings.
All of our statutory courts in the States and Commonwealth conduct this scamm but you will never be able to identify this fictitious procedure unless you know exactly what to look for.
I have noticed that you say that an appeal was lodged, so what, its just sitting on the counter at the Registry of the Court waiting to be signed by the authorized officer, sealed with the SEAL of the Court, filed and then issued from the Court. The legal industry in Australia is very technical and it has all of these little quirks with the meaning of words, as Kirby in the High Court said in one of his administrative hearings, it all in the words.
Now do you believe that the Appeal was withdrawn ? I will suggest that it only lodged in the Office of the Registry and given a file number for the OFFICE file and was never FILED and ISSUED from the court in the first place, nothing to withdraw is there. Courts of Law have not existed in this country for a very long time and one has only to read the Cth Judicial-Review-Act to realize that nothing actually gets FILED, only LODGED and we know where that end up. There is more available if interested.

Nicky

I have already appealed to Mr Carpenter over Minister Ravlich's interference with the judicial processes.

It is unbelievable that Mr Carpenter has yet to respond to community complaints over the Emanuel outcome, particularly given Ravlich's continuing poor performance on the front bench.

The WA State School Union passed a motion of non-confidence in this woman during her appalling management of the Education portfolio and the media had this to say about this less than credible politician:

"There have also been ongoing perceptions of political interference, such as when mates of former education minister Ljiljana Ravlich won contracts worth $300,000 from the Education Department."

Then on ABC Country Hour regarding Emanuel Exports:

"A spokesperson for Local Government Minister Ljiljanna Ravlich says the Minister would rather work on improving policy to address the discrepancy rather than committing taxpayers' money to pursue the matter through the courts.

And what policy would that be?

"The State Animal Welfare Act is due to be reviewed this year, but Agriculture Minister Kim Chance told the Country Hour back in February he saw no need to alter the legislation."

I understand regulation of the live export industry comes under the Federal government legislation and as a result, Emanuel Exports escaped penalty in WA. Why then hasn't the Federal government seen fit to prosecute Emanuel for breaching the Commonwealth Animal Welfare Act - assuming there is one?

I fully agree, this woman should be sacked forthwith, however, this outrage is yet another display of arrogance by this incompetent Minister who is clearly a sycophant to the ethics-free live export industry.

Ah there we have it. The same little band of animal activists,
who one minute preach about the evils of farming and eating meat,
now complain when a court decision went against them.

I'm sure that the WA Govt is fully aware that they make up only
a tiny % of the overall population. Enough money has been wasted
on this case. Its time that they accepted the court decision,
not just act like a bunch of sore losers.

Hi all

Young Dan, I'll have to revisit the Kable case and few others to confirm what you're saying, but I'd like to know the perspective you are coming from, since it is everyone's understanding that the WA Solicitor General had commenced appeal proceedings. Magistrates are Officers of the Court though, and are supposed to be free of interference from Government like the judicial process itself. That is the principal issue here; that Ravlich intervened AFTER appeal proceedings had commenced.

Dickie, thanks for that background; I had heard quite a bit about Ravlich but not that much. The problem is that there isn't a National Animal Welfare Act, although the Australian Standards for the Export of Livestock are in theory mandatory and administered (lethargically) by AQIS (Federal Government). I don't think we can expect any action by the Federal Government though, given Tony Burke's slavish pandering to these people. Ravlich needs to be sacked, however. Is there an anti-corruption watchdog in WA?

Yabby, once again (how tedious this gets!) - read the judgment. The cruelty charges under the WA legislation were proven beyond a reasonable doubt (sigh!). There were several days of hearing - then absolutely nothing for an interminable period while Crawford considered how best she could "pass the buck". So in terms of costs, as court cases go, it really didn't cost that much, and nothing like the amount the taxpayer is forced to throw at the live export trade to support it (generally unknowingly, and I suspect mostly against their will)

Cheers
Nicky