'The Guardian' bemoans the fact that the mooted toughening up on visa conditions could mean a "fivefold rise in deportations".

As our Prime Minister has a penchant for saying, 'How good is that'?

Not too good at all.

It depends on the Courts decisions.

Take a look at this creep - who appears
to have got off scott free.

He's a convicted sex offender and he's set to remain
in Australia after winning an appeal in the Federal
Court against our Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton's
order to deport him.

British Citizen David Degning has a strong criminal
record and was convicted in 2013 of sexual intercourse
with a person with a cognitive impairment.

You can read more at:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-02/dutton-deportation-order-on-uk-sex-offender-lost-appeal/11064714

And The Department of Home Affairs has been instructed to
pay this creep's legal costs.

Are these Judges from another Planet ?

Individual,

Scary stuff.

Hi there FOXY & INDIVIDUAL...

Now you know why coppers sometimes throw up their hands in despair? The idiocy of our Legal system.

Dear O Sung Wu,

I can't even begin to imagine how frustrating it
must have been for you as a police officer to
witness such inane acts under our legal system.
I can't imagine doing the job that you guys did
and what you had to put up with in your time.

Beyond stress.

I wonder if the courts are responding to pressure from the government
because they do not want to build more gaols ?

Dear Bazz,

But then why didn't they just deport this criminal?
It makes no sense. Peter Dutton was right to want
the man deported.

The pressure would be from State Governments to courts, not on Dutton.
Anyway it is higher courts refusing deporting.

Isn't it time we, the voters appointed these Judges & get rid of them when the need arises ? A Nation-wide e-petition should do the trick !

No Judge should be above the three highest ranking Ministers of a Govt !

No minister is above legislation. Courts do what's written down even when it's an ass.

Hi there FOXY...

That's what many of us want to know '...why didn't they just deport this criminal...'? It would seem to many of us; the AAT appears to be against Australia's interests when they continually reverse many of the decision's made by the Minister. Especially when there are antecedents of continued offending 'against the person.' I wonder how they'd react if a member of the AAT's family were attacked? Take care.

Migration Act. section 501 of the Act to “cancel” a person’s permanent visa . The minister considers the most serious offences to include crimes of violence, offences involving injury to or corruption of young people, sex offences against children, and trafficking in or distribution of drugs.

Dutton has to obey laws which he was part of making.

No minister is above legislation.
nicknamenick,
Agree, but three of them should be !

"Sir , you have breath test of .98 doing 216 kmh through town".
"That's just me but".
"Eh?"
"Look, mate, there's 3 of us doing the road race OK . 3. "
"oh , that's different. Off you g.."
(brrrrrmmmm)

Our local real estate lady went to put her car in after the part for her window arrived.
A Copper, not a Police Offer obviously, pulled her over & asked her to wind her window down. When she told him that she can't because the part only just got in to fix it. he put a non-compliance sticker on her windshield & booked her !
So, the moral of the story ? Some decent people become Police Officers & the not so just remain plain coppers.
Some decent people become Judges & the not so become people who screw up the Justice system.

individual
check this out .
Migration Act. section 501 of the Act to “cancel” a person’s permanent visa . The minister considers the most serious offences to include crimes of violence, offences involving injury to or corruption of young people, sex offences against children, and trafficking in or distribution of drugs.

and this :
Rex non debet esse sub homine, sed sub Deo et sub lege, quia lex facit regem.

nixknamwnick,
That all sounds warm'n fozzy but reality dictates differently. Kings don't worry me, its the over-educated, under-comprehending BA holders that are the root of so many problems in today's society. They've become like an Army fighting anything that is sane !

Nick,

"Rex non debet esse sub homine, sed sub Deo et sub lege, quia lex facit regem."

Well, not these days, or since democratic principles - sanctioned by the law and Parliaments - limited the power of a monarch. That quote sounds like it came from Charles I - his Divine Right of Kings stuff - and he didn't do too well out of that.

Joe

Peter Dutton is a BA of Business and he passed the law. Ned Kelly didn't and deported himself unlawfully.
The monarch is under the law , whether he's King John, Jo Bjelke- Petersen or King Charles III of Gum Trees and Bandicoots.

I did four years of Latin, but I haven't a clue what Joe and nick said. Old age and matching memory I guess.

Ttbn,

I think it means "A king does not owe his crown to the people, but to God and the law, and it's the law which makes a king." And vice versa, back in those days.

Handy for absolute monarchs but a bit out of date. Leave that sort of thing to Xi Jinping or Putin. Or revolutionary socialists like Kim Jong Un.

Joe

Rex non debet esse sub homine,
king is not sub-human, not subscribing to homos, not under men.

sed sub Deo et sub lege, quia lex facit regem .
But is under the Law which is what gives him his day-job.

A Minister of the Crown is not serving the electors but she serves the monarch : from minus, minor "less," hence "subordinate". If the king is below the Law then his minister is more so underneath the Law.
Q . If the speed limit is 100kph , what is the speed-limit?

ttbn,
He most likely did what I did, look it up in Google translation. I would have loved to learn Latin but the old Latin Dictionary wasn't enough but that's all I could afford.
My old Carpenter friend put many UNI educated to shame with his command of Latin & general knowledge. RIP Dave !

"Leave that sort of thing to Xi Jinping or Putin. Or revolutionary socialists like Kim Jong Un."
They are above Law and their opinion directs decisions. If Dutton does what he thinks should be done, then that is lawless. And speed limits are nothing

individual,

The only things I was any good at in school were English and Latin. Neither have been any use to me for the past 76 years. In fact, all that the knowledge has meant to me is frustration with the rapid deterioration of English usage, and the fact that the study of Latin would have helped many English-abusers with a better understanding of their language.

Xi and Putin are not "above the law"; they are the law. Both men are dictators, even though there is now a semblance of democracy in Russia.

The one who is a real threat to Australia, Mr. Xi, is the worst and most dangerous Chinese leader since Mao Zedong, and even there, he is getting away with things Mao could not. Because of this there is, thankfully, a gradual backlash against Xi occurring in China. While it is not up to the standard of that in the West - Xi 'still has the power to 'disappear' opponents - it is growing.

G'day there TTBN...

I wasn't exceptionally bright at anything at school. But being in the coppers made me appreciate the use of 'the Latin.' With my minimal understanding of the language, it's instrumental in describing many of the legal principles and doctrines, to such a point, one tends to get used to many of the standard Latin terminologies used in the law.

Often described as the 'dead language,' in my opinion I believe it's far from dead, and there's an individual beauty contained within many of its texts. What do you think TTBN, you would know far more about it than I?

OSW,

I wouldn't say that I would know more than you do. You know a hell of a lot of things I don't through your police experience. Anything I know was self-taught after I left school.

I would say that the ancient Romans are dead, but their language is not. As you say, Latin pops up in legalese all the time. Often, it is easier to use Latin than it is English (not every day conversation, of course). Many English words derive from Latin.

I have to say, though, that people who throw Latin phrases into everyday life tend to come over a bit up themselves. No reflection on Joe or nick; it's not habitual with them. I don't do it simply because I've forgotten most of it.

I don't know who learns Latin these days - lawyers, doctors?

Hi there TTBN...

To answer (in part) your question, who uses Latin these days, Doctor's & Lawyers? I'm not entirely sure about the Medical Profession, but according to my Neice who's just completed her Articles not so much within the Law either, these days? Apparently, those within the legal profession have become more PC and hope to scrap most Latin principles and doctrines. I guess we can't expect anything else, can we?

Interesting ttbn, I was exactly the opposite. Although leader of the school debating team, I hated English literature, Geography & History with a passion. If it didn't have numbers & symbols it was for the birds. Despite this difference, we have come to similar views of the world.

I could never quite understand that while I could steer an aircraft or a racing car to within a millimetre or 2 of my chosen path, I could never steer a pen or pencil anywhere near as accurately, hence hated writing or drawing. It is so frustrating when you know exactly what you want to do, but the damn body just won't give what you want.

The skills we do, & do not have, & why is an interesting subject, & how they effect our attitudes is even more interesting.

We three probably learnt more after we finished formal education. It doesn't seem to be like that now: too much useless and often dangerous indoctrination during school, and nothing worth knowing after.

There's a lot of the 'Dunning-Kruger' effect around these days whereby people fail to recognise their own incompetence because they 'went to uni'.

Puti is the Law?
Law: "ordinance, rule prescribed by authority, regulation"; literally "something laid down, that which is fixed or set" .
Russia and China have written laws so Putin and Xi can't be that Law. Their orders are above the Law when these are contrary. Dutton has written power for deportation under lawful conditions. The Courts and Tribunals have lawful right to enforce Law where Dutton got it wrong. If he can grab you on the street for dropping paper and give you 50 lashes, you'd deserve it and I'd pat his back but tell him he was unlawful and then get flogged myself.

You blokes were lucky you had an education before education got hijacked by the insipid !!