I have just been listening to some commentator suggesting that the Patel case will go to the appeal court, & then to the high court. He went so far to suggest that there might be a retrial, in the lower court first. How many trials should one bloke get?

This does seem to be the standard procedure for these things.

So why bother with all this rubbish, spending millions on lawyers, judges & the hangers on, in the lower courts. Let’s just have everything go straight to the high court, or some scaled down version of it, from which there is no appeal. Surely our legal profession can make enough money with just one trial for these crimes

...and spend billions readjusting our entire law and how our entire society operates?. Any idea how many people would be affected by that?. Rhetorical....obviously, you wouldn't.

Yeah, great plan.

Yeah, hang 'em first and have a trial later.

Good one, Hasbeen.

If only Hasbeen...the legal fraternity have had it all set up perfectly for themselves with their Law Society and the Judicial Commission covering their backsides using and retaining archaic legislation and Acts dating back to the 1900's.

Why would Government wish to change their processes and legislation? Most benefit with the exception of taxpayers. Any person who requires legal advice in a one liner just ask me. Been there, done that in a unique case whereby I learned how to win on legal points and the best approach for situations, in addition to assisting many other friends and relatives.

Changing the system? I would love to live and see the day when an honest group of politicians actually get together and commence a project to change the corrupt systems via updating archaic legislation allowing the many current loopholes!

Maybe some older folk can not climb the stairs?

So you want every case adjudicated by a full 5 judge appeal court panel?

The point of the appeal court is to review the finer legal points of the case. Considering previously never applied parts of criminal negligence were employed to convict Patel, the appeal will not only determine Patel's fate, but the consequences of mis diagnosis etc for all medical staff from now on.

For example the neurosurgeon who performed risky brain surgery to remove a tumour (with the consent of the patient) may now face prison if the patient dies. There may be sudden reluctance to take any risk on behalf of the patient, even if the surgery is a lower risk than the disease.

So there is a lot more riding on the result than can sit on the shoulders of a single judge.

People have found a remedy in Victoria to stop Banks getting summary Possession of properties. This is what they are attempting with thousands of Australians.

Because of the Rules of the Magistrates Court in Victoria, a Magistrate here has power to grant an injunction. Since realising this people have tried it a couple of times, without apparent success, however the Commonwealth Bank, has desisted from further attempts to take possession of a Melbourne Property, since they attempted to obtain such an injunction. They again tried in another matter last Friday, and it appears that they are now entitled to approach the Supreme Court here in Victoria, to cite the respondent on Friday for contempt of the court.

By the S 80 Trade Practices Act 1974 and 12 GD of the Australian Securities and Investment Commission ACT 2001 the court was granted power, to issue an injunction, in federal jurisdiction. Their argument is that summary possession is a State granted right, and a Judge sitting in federal jurisdiction, can issue an injunction that prevents a Judgment of a State Court obtained summarily, from being executed.

If there has been a jury trial, it wont work, so it has its advantages. That’s called Anschun Estoppel, and it works like this. If a jury trial is had, it is supposed to be a total bar, to claims not made while the litigants had the opportunity. Because the word court, uncapitalised and and generic, not specific, as in Court with a Judge, appears 21 times in Ch III Constitution, the Rudd government has been dong a lot of housekeeping, and replacing the word Court in Acts with court.

Organised crime got into the Supreme Court in New South Wales in 1970. It has gradually extended its tentacles into all the Superior Courts, and it has been as if the wheels of justice have had a flat tyre, and only roll most expensively, whereas in Victoria some Magistrates are waking up to the fact that they in fact are more powerful than the PM. Look at The Judicial Process on www.community-law.info to see why

we are unique,

Thank you for the kind offer. I am sure it would be much more cost effective enlisting your assistance rather than engaging qualified legal assistance. However I'm sure there is something in some item of that archaic legislation that could put you in the hot water if you practice law without a licence so be careful.

"If only Hasbeen...the legal fraternity have had it all set up perfectly for themselves with their Law Society and the Judicial Commission covering their backsides using and retaining archaic legislation and Acts dating back to the 1900's.

Why would Government wish to change their processes and legislation? Most benefit with the exception of taxpayers. Any person who requires legal advice in a one liner just ask me. Been there, done that in a unique case whereby I learned how to win on legal points and the best approach for situations, in addition to assisting many other friends and relatives..."

Yep wouldn't it be great to simplify the legal process so that it was more affordable for the common man to achieve justice. Or would that lead to the court system being more clogged with pointless cases than it already is.
Change in the legal system is as big a worry as change to the constitution. I simply don't trust the governments. They make change after change to the laws regarding the punishments and rights of people now that are reactionary and therefore questionable.
Unfortunately the system works well enough the way it is and the thought of no appeals court is scary for all. But while on the subject of change let's get rid of state governments, they are expensive, useless and divisive.

Funny how Patel goes to court but Qld coppers (and prison officers and coppers in the rest of Oz) are allowed to kill Indigenous people (Thursday Island and the WA killings just the more recent examples) and no one expects them to go to court, ever.

Could it be because Patel is not a Whitie?

But we do want to make sure that every person who dies during/after surgery does not become a court case. I suspect that is the reason for the Appeal and further interest, quite apart from an appeal being within Patel's rights, and surely that could be any of us, and do we want appeal rights for ourselves, or not?

And maybe Qld Health, and Anna Bligh(t), really wouldn't mind Patel not being guilty, because they (actually, we, the taxpayer)are providing free follow-up care for hundreds of his patients?

As we should be, considering the abject failure of so many in government who failed Bundaberg people.

Actually MJPB each and every Australian is able to represent themselves with their own assistance and SUPPORT. In addition, with the permission of the Judge or Magistrate hearing cases, one is able to nominate a person to speak on their behalf. I have not ever landed in hot water with either Magistrates, the Law Society or Government as there is a great deal more to legislation than the average Australian realises.

BTW: I do not practice "paid" law, as I stated, assisted many friends and relatives [with their evidence and background material known to me on each occasion]. Best wishes.

CJ

Don't you just love the mass mentality ....who needs justice with checks and balances? Judge Roy Bean had it right, perhaps?
'Set up the hanging....give the accused a fair trial...then hang him' all before the bar opens/media dead lines.

Hasbeen
There are differences between opinionated prejudice and reality (thank goodness), the latter is based on facts and thought

The problem with changing the law so we can tar and feather doctor death in the streets, is that then those same laws might be used against one of your own relatives one day.

The kneejerk reaction and accompanying media fuss, all hides the bigger issue- his references were not checked, his qualifications were not checked, his medical practice history wasnt checked. Nothing was checked, because he wasnt applying for Australian citizenship at the same time. They still dont check the background or qualifications of foreign doctors, unless they are applying for citizenship. Friday was the first day in Australian history, that doctors trained in Australia can legally practice in any state. My point is, a doctor from Melbourne or Sydney would have been checked first but a doctor from India/Canada/America wasnt checked and wont be any time soon.

Thank you Peter, in full agreement with points you raise and written/expressed in laymans terms and beautifully.