Search results for query: *

I’m not. Good on the chophouse for not raising their prices for 15 months if they haven’t. It just not super clear if the claim is the receipt said the Tomahwak steak cost that, or if a receipt was actually produced. It’s not really relevant to anything, except if the affidavit contains...

Steak dinner was from Jan 2023 wasn’t it? Assuming what you have pulled is today’s prices, it may be easy to verify if they have raised their prices since. That seems more likely than not, but is not a certainty.

No. Actions after the fact aren’t relevant to murder. They may be relevant to sentencing.

And his own family’s

You don’t need to be driving like an “idiot”(in the context you mean) to be charged with Death by Dangerous Driving. People in SA have been found guilty of that offence by missing a stop sign for example. I stress I don’t know what has occurred. There could be far more to it. But given who...

Anything is possible but those are big leaps from what is known, which is very little. It’s also a very big leap from “has a short fuse” in the context of a highly stressful professional sporting environment to intentionally killing his wife and mother of his children.

I don’t know what happened, it’s still possible it wasn’t simply an accident (although there isn’t anything to point to that at this stage), but that’s a very long bow.

The charges actually point to the opposite of it being deliberate. If they had strong evidence of intent at this stage he would have been charged with murder. Drugs or alcohol also do not appear to be at play (assuming the reporting is correct) as if they were, or at least with alcohol, he was...

Pretty sure there is precedent that a judgement can't be made concluding that such a serious offence occurred only on the balance of probabilities.

From the trial. What’s the new evidence that’s actually been “sourced”?

It’s a ridiculous comment. The AFP would have sourced everything channel 10 have. The issue is its evidentiary value in a criminal trial. That’s even if it’s considered relevant enough to be used in a criminal case.

I think they have their wires seriously crossed. Alleged Parliament House rape was in 2019 wasn’t it? Pretty sure it’s 2 months after the story broke. But stand to be corrected.

Not sure the crocs were by the sounds of it. Hard to fathom.

I guess that depends on how the tests are carried out. If the actual test takes a single day and the 8 week timeframe is due to backlog, I agree. If the test itself should take 8 weeks then any attempt to expedite the process could make the test results cannon fodder for the defence.

By purely political I mean there is no actual minimum level of experience or ability to serve in the role. Who serves is at the discretion of the government. Not so much that they will be appointed based purely on political purposes. I haven't checked every act or constitution though. Maybe some...

I'm actually from Adelaide. I hope Porter follows Freo....

Flying what? I never said AG's were always inexperienced. The point is there is no requirement to be a good legal mind. Hell, the requirement for the Cth AG to have a law degree is only custom. But their appointment is a political one. They are not independent of the government and must be a...

The fact he isn't even an experienced lawyer let alone experienced in admin law means just because he needs to seek advice on the legislation doesn't mean the law isn't clear. The fact he is a political appointment means any assessment he makes, regardless of the advice to him, will be...

Yes seriously. Who you are referring to is the Solicitor General. The AG is a purely political appointment. There has been discussion in the past as to whether they even need to have a law degree (I seem to remember a state government having an issue because they had no MPs with a law degree).

Sorry but Why? Rattenbury doesn't ever appear to have even practised as a solicitor or barrister? Let alone in Administrative Law. https://www.parliament.act.gov.au/members/ninth-assembly-members/kurrajong/rattenbury-shane

I'm failing to follow how an embargo changes the definition of document in the act? People/companies embargo documents etc. all the time. It doesn't mean they are at risk of a breach of legislation. Regardless there doesn't appear to be a defence to the section if they were placed under...

Why do you think that is a pearler? It is a perfectly legitimate interpretation of the act and there is a very strong argument that it is the correct one. I mentioned this before when the leak occurred.

I think I saw it written the testing on the hydrater (not sure of spelling) would take 8 weeks. That’s a pretty crucial piece of evidence.

It’s an interesting coincidence. But I think Vasta remanded the bloke years ago? And in this instance I don’t think procedural fairness was even at issue? It was so obvious it happened the whole case was is he entitled to money?

Like I said, act and circumstance. Vasta imprisoned someone wrongly, frivilously, summarily, dirsgracefully. And that isn't the end of the adjectives that could be used. "Another Vasta sets a first in the judiciary" is how I saw someone put it. What happened to Vasta is exceedingly rare. But...

No but depending on the act and circumstance, it does mean immunity from civil or criminal sanctions. I am not saying 100% judicial immunity no doubt applies to him here. But its certainly a possibility.

After the fact. Its too late. Any claim of bias is probably waived. See Vakauta, or Smits v Roach. That's even if apprehended bias could be made out.

Not sure they were entitled to it either. That's why its 4 odd weeks later and charges are still under consideration. It isn't certain the law was breached. That is without taking into account questions on judicial immunity.

Why would he get the full report before anyone else? The legislation only required he be given notice of any adverse findings against him. I think it unlikely Bias can be raised here either (and hasn't been as far as I can tell). It would have needed to be raised prior to the inquiry or very...

I know he made a comment to that effect, but is that in his actual statement of claim in the legal proceedings? Maybe we don’t know yet.