Cont

AJP: Fortunately mistakes like this are rare; which is one of the reasons they make the news. Can you cite a case like this for me? I mean with the exact details of what the judgement was and what the reasons for release were. Because the chances are, you’re either making this up completely, or you’re thinking of a case in which the details weren’t reported accurately by the media.

There have been plenty in the Media recently, especially anything to do with Pedo’s. As far as making it up & what the media reports is all we have to go on because we (the Public) are not privy to the rulings as a rule.

<<As long as you can put up the cash Lawyers will appeal, appeal, appeal or come up with some 16th. Century Precedent no one has ever heard of.>>

Recently, in Brisbane a Lawyer got caught doing something & they called his wife to testify. He called on some Ancient Law to protect himself which has now caused into doubt thousands of Court rulings. Why didn’t he do that for other people he’s represented? As regards Appeals. Look at the recent Druggie case in Bali & the Rape of that little boy in Brisbane. Appeal, appeal, appeal.

Cont

I was charges with 3 Counts of Serious Assault with Grievous Bodily Harm. I was on the witness stand & the Prosecuting Barrister asked me a question. Now if I answered yes I was in deep $hit yet, if I answered No, I was in deep $hit. You see both answers were right & both answers were wrong & I was only able to answer Yes or No. Luckily the Judge sensed this and allowed me to explain this when I took the stand. I made a complete & utter fool out of the Barrister. Oh, I won. Three days in Court & the Jury was out for two & a half minutes. Mind you the Judge in his Three & a half hour summing up sort of helped. Things like, “These three lying Ba$tards” or words to that effect. I didn’t have a Defence Lawyer, well, the one they gave me just kept saying, “Save the Courts time, plead guilty & you’ll just get a Fine.” I paid for winning later, because, the Prosecutor ended up being my Platoon Commander in the Army Reserve & the CO of the Unit was his Boss.

Jayb,

Interesting and it does help a lot to have the judge or side or just doing his job. I too had a similar experience, (although not so serious),as a prosecution witness, of a high powered QC firing questions with the intention of fouling me up and I answered 'Yes' to a question that I'd previously answered 'No' to.
He instantly pounced, but I said that my 'Yes' was to his previous question and that he was getting ahead of me.
I stole a covert glance at the Judge and he appeared to be almost smiling, so I got in first and apologized to the Court for any apparent levity but that I was serious.
The Judge merely said to proceed and the questions became noticeably slower.
Later the QC started using words that were long, ambiguous and not at all common, I glanced at the Judge and he said to the QC, "I don't know if you are confusing the witness but you are confusing the Court, so please use words that we can all understand".

Made my day!

Jayb,

That had nothing to do with the death penalty.

<<Yes I do. When my 2nd wife & I separated we sat down & divided everything we owned between us…>>

More importantly, though, it doesn’t prove that that’s all “justice problems” are.

<<Yes & they should use it on the Law Fraternity often...>>

But it’s 16th century precedent. According to your logic, it therefore cannot, or should not, apply by mere virtue of its age. You used the same logic to pass sociological perspectives off as “quackery”.

<<Let’s not get pedantic. But that’s a Lawyers Stock & trade isn’t it. Pretending that you don't know what people mean.>>

I knew precisely what you meant, I even demonstrated that in the fact that I replied anyway. And there was no pedantry. Such subtle switching of what one is referring to is a deceitful tactic commonly used on OLO. Just take a look at Is Mise’s responses to me.

<<There have been plenty in the Media recently, especially anything to do with Pedo’s.>>

What is a specific example, though? I requested the exact details because usually when I look into a judicial/parole board decision that sounds ludicrous to me at first, I find that it makes sense once you read the ratio decidendi and obiter dicta. Even if the end result was unfortunate.

Sometimes society pays a price for a fair justice system, and unfortunately the armchair experts who propose their arbitrary and draconian solutions as an answer don’t realise the type of society we’d have as a result of their asinine suggestions.

Anyway, did you also take into account the different type of paedophiles? The less serious offending paedophiles actually have one of the lowest recidivism rates of all offenders (21%).

<<… what the media reports is all we have to go on because we (the Public) are not privy to the rulings as a rule.>>

You can sometimes find court transcripts and case briefs that summarise a case and the reasons for the decisions.

Continued…

…Continued

Either way, this isn’t an excuse for forming ignorant opinions, it would just mean that you’d be forced to reserve judgment until you had the full details.

<<Recently, in Brisbane a Lawyer … called on some Ancient Law to protect himself which has now caused into doubt thousands of Court rulings.>>

That sounds familiar. What was the case law and how it wasn’t the precedent relevant anymore. Did the judge throw it out because of its irrelevance to modern times; and if not, what was his reasoning for considering it?

<<As regards Appeals. Look at the recent Druggie case in Bali & the Rape of that little boy in Brisbane. Appeal, appeal, appeal.>>

All appeals are reviewed first and if there’s no case, they’re not heard. Furthermore, if someone continues to file meritless appeals, then the court can block them permanently - them and their lawyer. In Queensland, this can be done by applying the Vexatious Proceedings Act (2005). I’m sorry, but your “Appeal, appeal, appeal” claims have about as much merit as an individual declared a “vexatious litigant” and only demonstrate your ignorance on the subject.

Everyone has an opinion on the legal system and yet no-one knows a damn thing about it. Things are the way they are for bloody good reasons. People always have their idea of how it should be with absolutely no appreciation whatsoever for the consequences of what they propose.

Our legal system (unlike Indonesia’s) has been formed (and is still being continuously refined) by taking an evidence-based approach. The notion that someone or some people just woke up one day and thought, “Hey, let’s make the legal system really dumb for no good reason”, is laughable, but this is what most would prefer to think rather than entertain, just for a moment, the possibility that maybe, just maybe, there’s something they’re not aware of.

As for your story regarding your personal experience, all I can say is that it’s a good argument against the Chinese model that you want for Australia. Just imagine if you’d lost.

Too bad. Bang!

Funny thing about using precedents in a Court Case. The Barristers discuss the Precedents & the Members of Jury to be used, with the Judge in his Chambers a few days before the Case is heard. The first day of Preceding's is a farce just to get it on Record. When the Judge calls for Precedents & they stand up & call them out & the Judge says Yes or No. It's all just for show. Same with the Jury, they don't even look up from their notes.

Discussion with a half drunk Barristers Private Secretary who was one of my Diggers in the ARES in the Mess after Dismissals.

What's the Saying, "Justice must be seemed to be done."

I take it AJP that you are going to be an Ambulance Chaser when you Graduate. Just asking.