Slippery Pete

[McLovin]

Are you saying allegations about any crime (no matter how serious) is deemed political, then the actual case will never be heard?

If so, that is unbelievable!

This doesn't seem like the Australia I grew up in...

First of all, this was not a criminal case it was a civil case, sexual harassment is a civil offence. Ashby v Slipper, not R v Slipper. The Justice has every right to ascertain the bona fides of the applicant. Otherwise the courts would be clogged with vexatious litigants.

Secondly, the case was thrown out because it was seen as a misuse of the court. When you read the judgement and the evidence presented it's pretty clear that Ashby's primary motivation was to further his own and Mal Brough's political career.

Thirdly, it's a dangerous precedent to set. Allowing people to sue for no other reason that smear someone else's reputation (however smeared that reputation already is). Refer: vexatious litigation.

 

[sails]

First of all, this was not a criminal case it was a civil case. Ashby v Slipper, not R v Slipper. Because it was a civil case, the Justice has every right to ascertain the bona fides of the applicant. Otherwise the courts would be clogged with vexatious litigants.

Secondly, the case was thrown out because it was seen as a misuse of the court. When you read the judgement and the evidence presented it's pretty clear that Ashby's primary motivation was to further his own and Mal Brough's political career.

Thirdly, it's a dangerous precedent to set. Allowing people to sue for no other reason that smear someone else's reputation (however smeared that reputation already is).

Fair enough on some of it...

However, how could it further Brough's career? Slipper resigned from the Libs and Brough was pre-selected to stand in his place. Polling shows slipper has 2.7% support. Brough would have romped it in easily, so for this to be politically motivated on his part remains a total mystery to me.

 

[Julia]

First of all, this was not a criminal case it was a civil case. Ashby v Slipper, not R v Slipper. The Justice has every right to ascertain the bona fides of the applicant. Otherwise the courts would be clogged with vexatious litigants.

Secondly, the case was thrown out because it was seen as a misuse of the court. When you read the judgement and the evidence presented it's pretty clear that Ashby's primary motivation was to further his own and Mal Brough's political career.

Thirdly, it's a dangerous precedent to set. Allowing people to sue for no other reason that smear someone else's reputation (however smeared that reputation already is). Refer: vexatious litigation.

So could you discuss the actual difference between criminal and civil? It's an area about which I'm pretty ignorant and I suspect others are also.

If this action was inappropriate, what means would Ashby have of having his claim of sexual harassment addressed?
viz my earlier analogy.

 

[Ves]

So could you discuss the actual difference between criminal and civil? It's an area about which I'm pretty ignorant and I suspect others are also.

If this action was inappropriate, what means would Ashby have of having his claim of sexual harassment addressed?
viz my earlier analogy.

Common Law is based on precedent - ie judgments in previous court cases. These cases involve someone claiming damages against someone else. In Australia we are heavily influenced by the (historical) precedents set under the English Law system.

Criminal law is based on statutes. Statutes are the written law of society (Commonwealth, State etc). In this case you are prosecuted under the law. As far as I know there are different jurisdictions, and depending on which law you breach, the jurisdiction that covers that law will take up prosecution against you.

 

[McLovin]

So could you discuss the actual difference between criminal and civil? It's an area about which I'm pretty ignorant and I suspect others are also.

Criminal offences (rape, murder, burglary etc) are considered crimes against society or the state. They are prosecuted by State or Commonwealth governments through the DPP "Regina v ....". They can be either codified in legislation or be common law offences. Most states, and the Commonwealth have removed common law offences. Obviously, common law still works in practice through the binding of lower courts by the decisions of higher courts.

If you commit a civil offence, then whoever has been wronged can sue you for damages.

That girl from DJ's who sued McInnes is a good example. The police had nothing to do with it because a criminal offence had not been committed. In the case of Slipper, the Commonwealth DPP's only interest was in the Cabcharge dockets.

If this action was inappropriate, what means would Ashby have of having his claim of sexual harassment addressed?
viz my earlier analogy.

He can appeal.

 

[McLovin]

Common Law is based on precedent - ie judgments in previous court cases. These cases involve someone claiming damages against someone else. In Australia we are heavily influenced by the (historical) precedents set under the English Law system.

Criminal law is based on statutes. Statutes are the written law of society (Commonwealth, State etc). In this case you are prosecuted under the law. As far as I know there are different jurisdictions, and depending on which law you breach, the jurisdiction that covers that law will take up prosecution against you.

The distinction is between criminal and civil law. Common law is just case based law, it can be civil or criminal.

 

[noco]

Fair enough on some of it...

However, how could it further Brough's career? Slipper resigned from the Libs and Brough was pre-selected to stand in his place. Polling shows slipper has 2.7% support. Brough would have romped it in easily, so for this to be politically motivated on his part remains a total mystery to me.

Yes, I agree Sails, he would have been home and hosed without the aid of Ashby.

Who would have wanted that Slippery Pete back in with his record of cab charge misappropriation hanging over his head.

The Labor Party have tried to blow it up out of all proportion.

From what I recall from the past, Ashby went to Brough for advice and as far as I recall Brough told him to take it to the police,

I hope Brough makes an appeal against the decision.

 

[banco]

Yes, I agree Sails, he would have been home and hosed without the aid of Ashby.

Who would have wanted that Slippery Pete back in with his record of cab charge misappropriation hanging over his head.

The Labor Party have tried to blow it up out of all proportion.

From what I recall from the past, Ashby went to Brough for advice and as far as I recall Brough told him to take it to the police,

I hope Brough makes an appeal against the decision.

As he's not a party Brough would have a rather hard time appealing the decision.

 

[Ves]

The distinction is between criminal and civil law. Common law is just case based law, it can be civil or criminal.

Thanks - you're right. Wrong terminology on my part.

 

[McLovin]

As he's not a party Brough would have a rather hard time appealing the decision.

Yes, but this is a kangaroo court, so anything goes!!!

 

[Calliope]

When you read the judgement and the evidence presented it's pretty clear that Ashby's primary motivation was to further his own and Mal Brough's political career.

The "judgement" hinges solely on one man's opinion, that of Rares. "It's pretty clear" that his "primary motivation" was to cast a slur on the credibility of the Liberal leadership and destroy Brough's political career.

A less biased judge would have been content with just throwing out Ashby's case, but no, he had to go down the Roxon path.

 

[MrBurns]

The "judgement" hinges solely on one man's opinion, that of Rares. "It's pretty clear" that his "primary motivation" was to cast a slur on the credibility of the Liberal leadership and destroy Brough's political career.

A less biased judge would have been content with just throwing out Ashby's case, but no, he had to go down the Roxon path.

He certainly did showing clear bias.

 

[Julia]

I read that part of the judgement. How about considering an analogy: say a woman experiences sexual harassment from her superior in the workplace. She has the capacity to not fall apart in hysteria as a result, so does not display visible distress, but believes it is her right to have the matter addressed. She brings an action such as Ashby has done.

Can this equally be thrown out because the judge could say she was motivated e.g. by her dislike of her boss?

Of course you can hate the person you are suing. A better analogy would be if a woman in a large company experiences sexual harassment and then tells her brother to make a large short investment in the company as they think when the allegations come out the share price will take a large hit. In the meantime she's text messaging everyone about how much money her and her brother are going to make. To make it even closer to the Ashby case her lawyer includes in the court documents irrelevant material about possible auditing problems at the company.

You are creating an overly complicated situation here. Why not just answer my original hypothetical scenario as above?
Just indulge me and pretend it's a real situation. Heaven knows, it happens every day in the workplace.
What should the harassed employee do?

 

[Ves]

You are creating an overly complicated situation here. Why not just answer my original hypothetical scenario as above?
Just indulge me and pretend it's a real situation. Heaven knows, it happens every day in the workplace.
What should the harassed employee do?

The whole point of taking someone to court over a civil law matter is to seek damages. How could you take a case to court where you could not (or would not want to) prove that you were 'damaged' (in such terms as you require compensation from the other party) in any way? What are you trying to gain by doing so?

Your example does not seem to give enough information in this respect???

 

[banco]

You are creating an overly complicated situation here. Why not just answer my original hypothetical scenario as above?
Just indulge me and pretend it's a real situation. Heaven knows, it happens every day in the workplace.
What should the harassed employee do?

Based on the fact scenario you give it wouldn't be thrown out as an abuse of process. The fact that she hated her boss and didn't show any visible signs of distress would probably come up in the proceedings particularly if it was a he said/she said case ie "she's lying she's had a vendetta against me".

There was a recent case actually where two Commonwealth Bank executives were sued for sexual harassment and the judge found that the applicant was a pathological liar and ruled against her.

http://www.theglobalmail.org/feature/sex-lies-and-banking/163/

 

[McLovin]

The "judgement" hinges solely on one man's opinion, that of Rares.

Yeah, and? Juries are virtually non-existant in civil trials. So pretty much every civil case hinges on one man or woman's decision. I know that you may like to think this is some great travesty of justice, but it's just business as usual.

If he wants to appeal to the full bench, let him. The lawyers will make a packet.

My own opinion: Slipper is a pretty seedy sort of guy, Ashby doesn't seem much better. No wonder he worked for him for so long.

 

[Calliope]

Yeah, and? Juries are virtually non-existant in civil trials. So pretty much every civil case hinges on one man or woman's decision. .

Exactly. It was just the luck of the draw for Slipper. However, in the Federal Court, the chances of drawing a conservative judge are pretty slim.

 

[banco]

Exactly. It was just the luck of the draw for Slipper. However, in the Federal Court, the chances of drawing a conservative judge are pretty slim.

You've yet to point what part of the judgement is factually wrong or any errors of law. I assume you are incapable of doing so.

 

[Knobby22]

You've yet to point what part of the judgement is factually wrong or any errors of law. I assume you are incapable of doing so.

Yes, good point.
Calliope, show us where you believe the judge erred in his judgement and so on what basis the appeal can take place.

 

[McLovin]

Exactly. It was just the luck of the draw for Slipper. However, in the Federal Court, the chances of drawing a conservative judge are pretty slim.

And let me guess, this issue of bias exists all the way up to the High Court. Why do super righties always try and play the victim?