Tuesday, July 02, 2024
Another problem prosecutor
In the ACT, Shane Drumgold created still ongoing problems for many people by prosecuting Bruce Lehrmann against police advice. He took the feminist "believe the woman" approach instead of a proper judicial stance.
It now seems that NSW has a similar problem with prosecutor Sally Dowling. Launching a prosecution against someone can itself be a form of punishment so launching a prosection against someone on flimsy grounds in an extremeny irresponsible and reprehensible act. No wonder that even female judges are critical of her
NSW District Court judge Penelope Wass has taken the extraordinary step of making a formal complaint against chief prosecutor Sally Dowling SC, after Ms Dowling raised secret grievances about her to the court’s chief judge in the middle of a criminal hearing.
Judge Wass told the Taree District Court on Tuesday morning that she had made the complaint to the Office of the NSW Legal Services Commissioner, telling counsel she was disclosing it in case they thought it was grounds for her to withdraw from any matters before her currently.
The Australian understands the complaint was filed on Friday.
Last month this masthead revealed Ms Dowling made a complaint about Judge Wass during a sexual assault prosecution, alleging the judge was jeopardising the right to a fair trial by directing witnesses to present their phones as evidence, and threatened in correspondence with Chief Judge Sarah Huggett to “take the matter further” if the directions continued. The communications were not disclosed to the defence.
That was interpreted as a “warning” by Judge Wass, who in the past has criticised Ms Dowling’s office for shepherding “incredible and dishonest allegations of sexual assault” through NSW courts amid ongoing tension between Ms Dowling and the state’s judges.
Ms Dowling’s complaint at the time became the latest missile thrown in a war between Ms Dowling and the judiciary, after five judges complained about processes governing rape complaints, with some believing a pattern is emerging in which prosecutors prefer to take a “believe the victim” stance and push a matter before a jury, rather than dropping impossible cases.
Judge Wass disclosed Ms Dowling’s complaint to Judge Huggett the matter in an interlocutory judgment for R v SF, delivered on May 27.
According to the judgment, Ms Dowling emailed Chief Judge Huggett on May 22 “without the knowledge or consent of the other party of the Crown briefed in the trial” to make the complaint about Judge Wass directing witnesses in three separate matters to hand up their phones and, at times, their passcodes.
“The terms of the correspondence, the fact that it came from Ms Dowling who prosecutes on behalf of the Crown, a party to this litigation, the fact that it was sent to the chief judge only days before I was due to give judgment in two of the three cases mentioned, and because it contains an express warning to me, has meant that, at the very least, I am required to disclose it to the parties in those two cases, and I do so now in respect of this case,” she wrote in the interlocutory judgment.
“The content and the timing of the complaint is a relevant matter. The comments made by Ms Dowling were conveyed to me by the chief judge shortly after they were received, as was in my view appropriate. Indeed, the final remarks by Ms Dowling, as they contained a warning to me, made clear that they needed to be conveyed to me forthwith.”
The three matters were R v Chambers in 2021, R v Stenner-Wall in 2023 and R v SF.Judge Wass, in the interlocutory judgment, noted Ms Dowling did not make any complaint or comment in the Chambers or Stenner-Wall cases when the direction was made for a witness to hand up their phone.
Judge Wass, at the time, said she was preparing a sentence for the Stenner-Wall matter.
She said the direction to have a witness hand up their phone “resulted in a proper disclosure being made to both parties (that had not been made to or by the Crown) and the subsequent entry of a plea of guilty to the relevant counts on the indictment”.
In the Chambers matter, she said, the direction stopped a witness taking her phone to the bathroom with her when she sought an unscheduled toilet break during cross-examination.
Judge Wass said Ms Dowling had included a “warning” that she would “consider steps she considers to be properly available to her to seek judicial review should further directions of this nature” be made in the future.“
I regard such a warning of the contemplated judicial review, although delphic as to what form it might take, as extremely serious, particularly as it was delivered during the course of my consideration of two of the three cases at hand and where it sought to have me take that matter into account in my determination of future cases,” she said.
“Had this opinion been conveyed directly to me at any time, but particularly at this time, I would have regarded it as being highly inappropriate, particularly from an experienced Senior Counsel … particularly when I am so obviously part heard. I wish to say no more about that at present.”
The Australian has in recent months revealed Ms Dowling is facing a bitter dispute with sitting judges and members of her own staff, some of whom say her office consistently puts accused rapists on trial for crimes that will never secure a conviction.
*************************************************
Tax cuts, bill relief and more on offer, but Anthony Albanese and Jim Chalmers just can’t sell it
Reducing inflation now only to make it worse later on is incredibly stupid and counter-productive but typically Leftist. Our best hope is that the voters suss that out
Anthony Albanese and Jim Chalmers couldn’t sell water to a dying man in the desert.
From this week, wage rises, tax cuts and energy subsidies are all going to put more money in people’s pockets.
Yet since the budget, Labor’s primary vote has gone only one way – down.
Either voters don’t buy the bull or Labor’s proclivity for political felo-de-se has deafened the electorate to its more boastful claims on the economy.
And hanging over all this is the spectre of what may be coming. Don’t underestimate the electorate’s ability to sift the flour.
Publicly, the Treasurer is on a positive spin over his cost-of-living relief. Privately, however, he will be sweating bricks for the next six weeks, gripped by fear over what the central bank may or may not do in August.
Treasurer Jim Chalmers says the Albanese Labor government’s cost of living relief, which comes out today, is “substantial, it is meaningful, and it is responsible”.
This is now looming as the central test for Chalmers and the government – both economically and politically.
It will be the pivotal moment that will decide the course of the contest until the next election.
If the key selling point is that people are better off thanks to Chalmers, the underlying truth is that nothing has actually changed. The pain has just been rearranged.
The key question now is not whether more pain is to come or whether the current pain is prolonged. And Labor has clearly identified borrowers as the guinea pigs. This says a lot about its strategic posture.
If the RBA keeps rates on hold, as will be its inclination, then the pain can be blamed on the RBA. This is the political upside for Chalmers.
But if all the state and federal government spending does lead to a rate rise, then it will be Chalmers who owns it. He will have inflicted more pain.
More likely than not, the RBA doesn’t hike. But this will be a close-run thing. And if even if it doesn’t, Michelle Bullock is likely to rattle the sabre.
This doesn’t give Chalmers the clear air he will be seeking.
The political stakes couldn’t be higher for Chalmers or Albanese. And this all feeds into election timing.
If rates don’t rise in August Chalmers gets over a crucial hump.
With the energy rebates from the commonwealth and state coffers feeding into the price index, there is every chance the Treasurer meets his promised target of getting headline inflation back within the 2-3 per cent band.
He will have bought himself a cut in headline inflation with the assistance of state Labor mates.
This is where the political narrative and economic reality collide. From a political perspective, it will be a great story to tell.
People will expect that if headline rates look good, why doesn’t the RBA cut rates.
But as we know, the headline rate is not the determining factor. And this is the nuanced debate Chalmers is clearly happy to have.
It won’t be Chalmers that has to make the argument, the talking points to every other Labor minister and backbencher will do the work.
If it hasn’t dawned on Michele Bullock yet, it soon will. Chalmers is setting her up. Bullock has so far given Chalmers rhetorical cover in her public statements about inflation and the budget.
The RBA board’s statement, however, tells a different story.
There is no equivocation about its view that state and federal government spending is adding to the problem.
*****************************************************
Albanese greatly weakened by the Fatima Payman affair
Anthony Albanese is reaping the Fatima Payman whirlwind as he sowed: an initial weak reaction to the junior WA Senator’s defiant crossing of the floor and the snubbing of her ALP colleagues has only been made worse by a late, frustrated penalty that has gifted the two-year senator enhanced power.
Payman can now dictate terms to the Prime Minister on every vote from a ban on live-sheep exports to Palestine and govern the extent of the damage and distraction Labor is suffering.
Labor’s entire economic re-election plan and answer to the supreme political priority of easing the cost-of-living pressure on households is now being publicly sidetracked and downgraded.
Albanese’s authority, already diminished, is captive to Payman and the Greens who can further undermine Labor unity with a cheap trick any hour in the Senate and is also being challenged by union leaders.
Instead of confronting the Payman problem last week when the 28-year old Muslim Senator crossed the Senate floor to vote with the Greens on a motion contradicting Labor policy on Israel and Palestine Albanese let her off with a slap on the wrist only to face a defiant declaration she would do it all again.
Thus, a political dust-up of lesser import would have been finished by the end of last week, instead it has redoubled its momentum and dramatically spread the fallout.
In Albanese’s first media interview on July 1 he was wished “a happy new financial year” on tax Independence Day when everyone gets a tax cut and the cost-of-living pressure is eased.
But, the ABC wellwishing lasted about 20 seconds before the PM was challenged over the indefinite suspension of the rogue Payman, what it meant for Labor’s Muslim vote, what it meant for a young Muslim woman simply following her heart, what was the impact on diversity within the ALP and the power of the Greens.
Albanese, not wanting to put Muslim voters off-side, said the suspension was not about voting against Labor’s two-state policy on Israel-Palestine but the distraction she was creating about tax policy.
“Well, let’s be very clear. It’s not because of her support for a policy position that she’s advocated,” Albanese said.
“It’s because … today is July 1. It’s a day where we want to talk about tax cuts. We want to talk about our economic support for providing that cost of living relief without putting pressure on inflation,” he said.
“What we have is a process where people participate, people respect each other and people don’t engage in indulgence, such as the decision last week,” he said.
There’s no doubt that on this question Albanese is 100 per cent dead right: in his own interview the PM spent more time talking about Payman, Labor rules and his dog Toto, than tax cuts; every minister who appeared in the media was asked about Payman and; as a clearly frustrated Treasurer Jim Chalmers said “my focus is not typically on internal issues like these, as important as they are – I’m focused on cost-of-living and inflation and the economy”.
Chalmers’ Budget partner, Finance Minister Katy Gallagher, expressed the hope Payman would be returned to the Labor fold as others said it was better to work from within and raise concerns in caucus meetings – as Payman hasn’t – than break Labor pledges of loyalty.
Every vote in the Senate gives Payman an opportunity to enhance her authority at the cost of Albanese, further divide Labor’s position over Israel-Palestine, gift the Greens propaganda and detract from the ALP’s entire economic re-election strategy.
******************************************************
‘Green lawfare’ is now the weapon of choice for Australia's activist class
The anti-industry industry has come a long way from its humble origins in the late 1970s, when Bob Brown went to his local St Vincent de Paul and bought himself a suit. The transition from a gaggle of amateur nature lovers to a professional organisation with salaried staff was a giant evolutionary leap for the environmental movement.
It was the precursor to blocking the Franklin Dam and the first tentative steps into politics and the law. Today, green activism in Australia is a quarter-billion-dollar business that employs hundreds of people. Research published this week by the Menzies Research Centre shows the combined revenue of the top 25 green advocacy groups was $275m last year. The revenue has more than doubled from $113m in 2015. The number of staff on their books has increased from 374 to 880.
Ironically, the report finds that the green activist industry is growing faster than the primary industries and resource sectors it targets. Its goal is not to create wealth but to destroy it. It forms part of the NGO-corporate-industrial complex that has discovered how to profit from the war on carbon, aided and abetted by the government through subsidies and regulation.
The environmental juggernaut of today bears little comparison with the green movement that began in Tasmania almost half a century ago. Its focus has changed from conservation to the ideology of climate change. The movement has become remote and insensitive to the natural environment and developed a narrow-minded obsession with carbon emissions from coal and gas combustion.
The big environmental groups are wholly committed to renewable energy and dogmatically opposed to nuclear power. To the extent that we’re able to trace the source of their funding, much of it flows from investors in the renewables sector whose portfolios would be instantly devalued by the entry of nuclear power.
Activist organisations have become so dependent on green corporatism that they are willing to ignore the destruction of broad acres of natural vegetation for the construction of wind turbines, industrial solar plants, energy storage infrastructure and associated transmission lines.
Climate warriors are more likely to be found in the courts these days rather than tied to the front of a bulldozer in the tropical forests of the Upper Burdekin in far north Queensland. Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek’s approval of the Upper Burdekin/Gawara Baya wind development last month came despite a damning report that warned of “unavoidable significant impacts” on the endangered Sharman’s rock wallaby, the koala, the greater glider, the red goshawk and the masked owl.
Nowadays, lawyers perform much of the heavy lifting for climate activism. The MRC’s research found that Australia is the second-largest forum for environmental lawfare after the US. There are more climate lawsuits per capita in Australia than anywhere else in the world, thanks to a rich array of resource sector targets and an obliging legal system.
The bar for launching court actions in Australia is low for those with funds. Every dollar spent by legal activists is a drain on the profits of businesses forced to defend themselves against adventurous and vexatious claims. The biggest cost to the resource sector is not legal fees, punishing as they are. It is the mounting cost of interest on borrowed money that sits idle while the legal process drags on.
The MRC calculates that in past two years $17.48bn in industrial output has been frozen by legal action. Whether investors will see a return on their capital is at the mercy of the courts. The damage is compounded by the damage to the broader economy.
The MRC calculates 29,784 Australian jobs are at risk in cases before the courts. The loss of taxes and mining royalties will make it harder to fund roads, schools and hospitals and support our health and education systems.
The fiscal impact alone would prompt a clear-thinking government to step in and clean up this mess. The Albanese government, however, is anything but hard-headed about anything related to the environment. It refuses to countenance any reform that might give the Greens party an edge in quinoa-chomping enclaves such as the seat of Grayndler, the fate of which is of more than passing interest to our PM.
It gets worse. In an act of fiscal self-harm, the government is subsidising legal activism that eats into the profits it likes to milk. The 2022 budget included $10m in funding for the Environmental Defenders Office and Environmental Justice Australia, the two bodies responsible for most environmental lawfare in Australia.
In 2015, the EDO had 14 staff and a $3m budget. By 2023, it had grown to a team of 105 staff and a budget of $13.3m. It measures success with a perverse set of metrics. Its 2022 annual report boasts of providing 11,587 legal hours and spending 134 days in court.
In January, the EDO’s tactics were heavily criticised by Federal Court Justice Natalie Charlesworth, who reversed an order preventing Santos from building a pipeline allowing the $5.8bn development of the offshore Barossa gas field. She rejected assertions by three Tiwi Islanders that the pipeline posed a risk to intangible underwater heritage, including Crocodile Man song lines and an area of significance for the rainbow serpent Ampiji, and was not “broadly representative” of the beliefs of Tiwi people who would be affected by the pipeline.
Charlesworth found the EDO had engaged in dishonest “coaching” tactics and the misrepresentation of local Indigenous knowledge. Charlesworth dismissed evidence from the EDO’s expert witness about potential impacts on underwater archaeological sites, finding there was a “negligible chance” of a significant impact on tangible cultural heritage. Charlesworth found a cultural mapping exercise undertaken by an expert witness for the applicants and “the related opinions expressed about it are so lacking in integrity that no weight can be placed on them”.
“I am satisfied that this aspect of the case does indeed involve ‘confection’ or ‘construction’, at least in part, and that it cannot be an adapted account of the kind discussed by the anthropologists,” the judgment states.
Yet despite the loss of the case, the activists are winning. The global demand for liquid natural gas has never been higher, and is forecast to continue to rise until the 2040s. Yet oil and gas exploration activities in Australia have been falling significantly over the past two decades. The number of new offshore wells has fallen from over 50 in 2010 wells to just three in 2023. When your aim is to frustrate and delay, there is no such thing as a wasted day in court.
************************************
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Jim Hansen and his twin
No comments:
Post a Comment