cods wrote on Dec 22
nd, 2015 at 9:30am:
Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Dec 22
nd, 2015 at 8:31am:
Next time you cop an unfair speeding fine and get the courts to settle it for you on the basis of your new fancy car's GPS and black box... and the court finds you guilty anyway... get back to me.
this is not about SPEEDING TICKETS...
what on earth is wrong with you?...
cant you tell the difference between child sexual abuse
and a bloody speeding fine?????
It's about the severe doubt that exists with our current courts and their handling of legal rights, though I fully expect that you have no idea of the concepts involved.
Traffic allegations are the root cause of some serious deficiencies in jurisprudence, since they are universally dealt with via 'guilt on accusation' and without solid proof in the very vast majority of cases.
This quite illegal handling of these 'minor' issues results in the lowest courts in the land adopting the attitude that any and all allegations can be rightly dealt with on the same basis, and this becomes a serious problem when the allegations involve criminal issues.
That is one clear reason why I advocate that the lowest courts in the land should not handle criminal matters at all.
You can add to that the handling of 'domestic violence orders', which require zero proof and are on the basis of ' a complainant feels' , i.e. 'guilt by accusation' -a situation that I warned the Law Reform Commission would result in an overall lowering of the standard of proof in those courts, for the simple reason that over-use of that 'standard' would lead to the loss of perspective on the part of 'magistrates'. This was precisely one reason for the introduction of these 'laws' as they are - to lower the standard applied in practice by 'magistrates' across the board through over-use of a lower (lack of) standard, and thus attack basic Legal Rights.
Again this is why I advocate that the lowest courts in the land should not handle these things, since as the first port of call for the extraordinary majority of cases, they MUST abide by the Rule of Law exclusively. To do otherwise is to bring down the Rule of Law.
Then there is the spectre that any finding on these flawed bases in those lower courts will result ONLY in an appeal to a higher court - in which one should expect a JUDGE to perform better than a 'magistrate' - being restricted to as few avenues of appeal as possible, and certainly without any consideration of any blatant flaws in the lower court. Such flaws can only be addressed in the highest courts in the land, something beyond the financial capacity of most accused.
On top of that, I will add the following - the undeniable reality that in the lowest courts in the land, there is a rush to judgement in favour of any complainant without reference in any real way to the Rights of the accused, leads to an overall lowering of the standard of proof and of the protection of those Rights in ALL courts, by a process of osmosis. When any court is fully aware that the lowest courts in the land have a near 100% strike rate against the accused - how far is it a leap to suggest that they ALL assume that any accused is guilty - and in that category I include juries and not just judges.
How many times have you heard Joe Yobogan say:- "He wouldn't be on trial if he wasn't guilty!" Say you haven't, and I call you a liar. Imagine Joe Yobogan sitting on a jury then.
THAT is why I advocate a Royal Commission into the Magistracy, the Judiciary and into Jurisprudence.
Thank you for raising this question in the House and allowing these very serious and very real issues to be aired properly for a change.
Is Robert Hughes guilty? I have no idea - but I have doubts, the same as I have doubts about certain other persons accused many years after the events alleged.
And where there is doubt.... there can be no conviction, and certainly not on emotion.
Forum
Pages: 
At last - Robert Hughes goes down and out! (Read 9536 times)
