This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Slippery Pete

Jump to new
bellenuit said:
Interesting take on the Slipper decision by Michael Smith (audio):

http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/201...er-reading-the-ashby-v-slipper-judgement.html
Click to expand...

Other than appeal the decision, which Ashby plans to do, are there other avenues by which this decision could be reviewed? For instance, could another member of the judiciary voice an opinion that Judge Rares acted politically, if he has such an opinion, and force a review of the Judge Rares' decision independent of any appeal?
 

It's funny that people who know as little about the law as you obviously do are saying the decision is wrong.
 
An interesting reply from an assumed knowledgeable person backing Judges Rares decision. This is from a response in Michael Smith's blog. I have added the bolds (what he is responding to) and italics (the response) for clarity.

http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2012/12/the-slipper-case-thrown-out.html

"The judge has portrayed Ashby as the perpetrator rather than the victim. This is a very dangerous precedent. This is akin to blaming a rape victim because she went out at night wearing a short skirt and high heels. "

Wrong.

"Sexual harassment is not a trivial issue. The reasons given for throwing out the case are absurd. The allegations need to be heard on their merits, and only after the allegations have been heard should there be a decision one way or the other."

Read the judgement. Rares didn't think much of Ashby's case, although this was NOT why he made his decision on abuse of process.

The judge went through all the evidence. His judgement was 78 pages long. He considered every fact right from the start.

It was clear that he believed the case had little substance, and that Ashby had not been wronged.

* A medical certificate was provided when Ashby was not sick. He was drinking beer while telling Slipper he had an alleged "bladder infection". No certificate was provided until months later and then the dates were wrong. Justice Rares found this "odd".

* The judge found that Ashby did not ever mention being sick with a bladder condition or aggrieved by Slipper's actions to his friends.

*Ashby did not ever confront Slipper with this sexual discrimination matter, although he had no trouble confronting him on other matters related to his work.

* The Cabcharge allegations included a reference to the matter being taken to the police. The judge found this to be irrelevant to the substantive case and a breach of professional privilege by Ashby's solicitor, especially as this allegation was dropped soon after.

* Ditto for the "polo shirt" and Sydney harbour cruise allegations - they were dropped.

* The judge found Ashby's disdain for Steve Lewis andMal Brough did not gel with his later close and friendly co-operation with them.

* The judge found that "We will get him" DID refer to Slipper and not to finding the hire car driver.

* The judge found that there was no "urgency" involved in the situation, as Ashby claimed as his reason for not producing a "Genuine Steps" statement.

* He found that Ashby and/or Doane supplied Ashby's confidential diaries to Steve Lewis and Mal Brough - called this "a serious breach of trust".

* He found that Ashby supplied Slipper's travel plans and that the initial affidavit was deliberately filed to take place when Slipper could not defend himself (being in transit).

* The judge noted Ashby did not even see a psychologist for two months after claiming damage for mental distress, despite claiming mental distress as the very reason for urgency.

* The judge also noted that the psychologist gave an ambivalent diagnosis, i.e. he had his doubts about Ashby's story.

* He found that the dealings between Doane and Ashby and the LNP re. job opportunities showed they cared more about getting those jobs than prosecuting the case against Slipper on its merits.

* He found that a man concerned with sexual harassment would not volunteer to accompany his alleged harasser, at his own expense, on a 4 week trip to Hungary.

Many more finding were made..., but you should get the drift: the judge's decision was based not on whether Slipper sent "dirty texts". These were considered as irrelevant, and he found Ashby often instigated the exchanges, as well as noting they wouldn't have ever become public without the abuse of process in the first place.

He made his decision on the overwhelming impression he had of Ashby's case and his dealings behind the scenes, going back to early February, with the LNP, plus the relevant applicable case law.

Sorry to all those who believe justice was not served. It was. Todays decision was a comprehensive demolition of Ashby's bona fides, root and branch, neck and crop. Ditto Brough. Ditto Doane.

This is not a matter anymore of opinion. It is a binding judgement, which may or may not be appealed. Ashby lost. Slipper won.

As it has NOT yet been appealed (no papers filed as yet), anyone can comment on it, as you all are doing here. Roxon is on solid ground.

Read the judgement. All 78 pages here: http://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2012/2012fca1411
 
Julia said:
I'd reluctantly concede that Ashby's bringing of the action was motivated partly out of revenge on Slipper and partly for political purposes.
Click to expand...

Julia, you are normally objective so why "reluctantly concede"? Blind Freddie could see Ashby's motivation.
 
Regardless of motivation, shouldn't this have been judged on the evidence to determine whether sexual harassment has occurred? If a case can be thrown out based on motivation without examining the facts of the case where does that leave future sexual harassment victims? I think it fair to say that if you have been sexually harassed by someone it's quite possible (even likely) you would want to see that person discredited, this should not be sufficient for throwing a case out of court. Surely the judge must consider justice not motivation when determining such cases?
 
banco said:
Would you like to point out which parts of Judge Rares' decision where you think he got the law or the facts wrong?
Click to expand...

It was just one man's opinion, and coincidently it was also Roxon's opinion. The law and the facts had nothing to do with it.
 

It's all in the judgement.

26.01 Summary judgment

(1) A party may apply to the Court for an order that judgment be given against another party because:

(a) the applicant has no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting the proceeding or part of the proceeding; or

(b) the proceeding is frivolous or vexatious; or

(c) no reasonable cause of action is disclosed; or

(d) the proceeding is an abuse of the process of the Court; or

(e) the respondent has no reasonable prospect of successfully defending the proceeding or part of the proceeding.
 
24 pages of politically motivated bile, pure politics from the ASF right with the usual BS result...2 face Tony tried to bring down the Govt with the usual noalition dirty tricks....dirty gutter politics from a man without ideas or any political honesty.

Proudly supported on this forum by a sad minority...shame on you all.
 
Is that the worlds smallest violin I hear playing for Labor and Peter Slipper ?

It was those lurid texts to James Ashby that brought him downs as speaker in the end, was it not ?
 
Calliope said:
It was just one man's opinion, and coincidently it was also Roxon's opinion. The law and the facts had nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...

Calliope doesn't get the outcome he wanted, so NOW the law and facts have nothing to do with it?
 
bellenuit said:
Interesting take on the Slipper decision by Michael Smith (audio):
Click to expand...
Yes, he raises points which are echoed in Miss Hale's post below.

Even if there were such other members of the judiciary, I doubt they'd be up for raising their hand to offer an opinion in this politically charged matter.
I hope it will go to appeal.

Macquack said:
Julia, you are normally objective so why "reluctantly concede"? Blind Freddie could see Ashby's motivation.
Click to expand...
That's a fair question Macquack. As I've said, I believe the motivation in bringing the case was not one of pure virginal outrage by Mr Ashby.
However, that doesn't alter the reality of some pretty salacious and (insulting to women) text messages by Slipper. So it seems basically wrong to me that the essence of the case being brought against Slipper has been ignored in favour of his motivation for so doing.

What do you think? Do you believe it is realistic and fair that the essence of the claim, i.e. that Slipper did sexually harass Ashby, should be ignored ?


Very well described. Agree entirely.


Oh, get over yourself, So Cynical. Even you, with your uncritical adoration of this woeful government, surely cannot be suggesting Slipper has not demonstrated himself to be a slimy, gutter dwelling creature.
I'm sure the voters in his electorate will pretty clearly give you their opinion when they get the chance.

And if he's so pure and innocent, why did your beloved government encourage him to stand aside from the speakership. Let's remember just for example his description of female genitalia as "pickled mussels".
Just disgusting. If you really want to see someone like this in an important government role, you are even more deluded than you have thus far demonstrated.
 
drsmith said:
Is that the worlds smallest violin I hear playing for Labor and Peter Slipper ?

It was those lurid texts to James Ashby that brought him downs as speaker in the end, was it not ?
Click to expand...

Just another expertly run smear campaign by a bunch of dogs.

What a grubby lot the Coalition are I think Abbott would sell his ar$e for government he is so power hungry at any cost its scary.

BTW where were the Coalition today?

Cowards, extraordinary none of them can do a simple interview.
 
IFocus said:
Cowards, extraordinary none of them can do a simple interview.
Click to expand...

How do you know whether they were asked?
"7.30" and all the ABC Radio current affairs programs have covered the matter in detail today. If they ever approach someone for an interview and are declined, they say so.
There has been no such statement.
Maybe stop drawing inappropriate conclusions.
 

Might seem wrong but "abuse of process" isn't exactly a new concept in the common law world. The fact that they were insulting to women is irrelevant as far as the court case goes.

Ashby will almost certainly be bankrupted by the costs order against him so I can't see him appealing.
 
Maybe now we can go back to discussing issues of actual political substance in parliament after Christmas rather than pretend it is a law court.

Oh wait, there are still more courtroom discussions that need to be sorted before we can do that.

Perhaps by the end of the next term?
 
Macquack said:
Calliope doesn't get the outcome he wanted, so NOW the law and facts have nothing to do with it?
Click to expand...

Ashby and Slipper are both disgusting characters, but the electorate of Fisher will be the final court of judgment in the case of Macquack/Banco/Slipper/Roxon/Rares versus Mal Brough and decency.

And, Macquack it will not be the outcome you want.
 

Perhaps you need to re-read the judgement.

This case was %100 brought about by a politicly motivated individual with collusion by at least 1 Liberal party member if not more...this case was a total misuse of the judicial process, not only is the Noalition and 2 face Tony misogynistic but they are also homophobic.

What peter or anyone else texts is private, pickled mussel = who cares, its private and not offensive because it is private... what's he suppose to call it? a petunia, a blossoming lotus...perhaps he had a close up look at Bronwyn Bishop in the Liberal party change room and that particular part of her actually does look like a pickled mussel?

:dunno:

Julia said:
How do you know whether they were asked?
Click to expand...
OH LOL my sides are hurting now.

True colors showing Julia?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...