ARREST!!! Australia - Allison Baden-Clay, Brisbane QLD, 19 April 2012 - #21

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Watsonian Institute said:
Ah. Not sure if that should actually solve any contempt issues, and not sure a judge will consider it. Sub judice is real, and one thing anyone involved in any aspect of the legal process can say with total authority is that judges do not take contempt lightly.

I'm totally perplexed as to why this aspect of law, and defamation law, is such an issue for some people to reconcile: the law is the law (is the law). It's not a personal interpretation of such; it just is what it is.

But, as I previously posted, this case will be very interesting to watch from this point in time.

One thing I would offer as a tip: we should begin to take notice of the distinct difference in the way this case will be reported from now on, and take that as advice to guide how we all publish comments online, regardless of the site we might be on.

Cheers
Click to expand...

Out of interest, why will this case be any different to all the others gone before it?
 
CJ60 said:
The alleged murderer should have thought of these girls before he allegedly killed Allison.
Click to expand...




GO CJ60 hehehehe......it has been a.:rollercoaster:ride.......(Lifting wine glass and eating pretzels)
 
Jillie said:
:banghead:I can't believe that Channel 2 STILL hasn't mentioned GBC - this is their 7.00 o'clock news and it is like nothing has happened!! MAN!
Click to expand...

If ABC TV is your CH2: It was their #1 story with McHutcheon at Indooroopilly police station.
 
ozazure said:
http://www.immi.gov.au/living-in-australia/choose-australia/about-australia/five-freedoms.htm#a
Click to expand...

The High Court in Lange stated that the protection of freedom of communication in the Constitution is not absolute, and that “t is limited to what is necessary for the effective operation of that system of representative and responsible government provided for by the Constitution.”


http://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/4529/do-we-have-the-right-to-freedom-of-speech-in-austr.aspx
 
robynandbessie said:
Could all of the bush lawyers please go back to the bush. I have spent my life in law enforcement and find all of these so called 'legal rules' being listed in this forum just ridiculous.

We actually have freedom of speech in this country. If you are not a witness nor involved in any practical way in the case you can express an opinion. Defamation is also not easy to establish as there has to be an intention to defame and a departure from the truth. Do you think the person charged in this case will be launching civil actions against a multitude of commentators? Pleeeease.

Just ensure you abide by the rules of this forum. Stop lecturing on legal principles that either don't exist or don't apply.
Click to expand...

Thank you and well said.
 
Watsonian Institute said:
Ah. Not sure if that should actually solve any contempt issues, and not sure a judge will consider it. Sub judice is real, and one thing anyone involved in any aspect of the legal process can say with total authority is that judges do not take contempt lightly.

I'm totally perplexed as to why this aspect of law, and defamation law, is such an issue for some people to reconcile: the law is the law (is the law). It's not a personal interpretation of such; it just is what it is.

But, as I previously posted, this case will be very interesting to watch from this point in time.

One thing I would offer as a tip: we should begin to take notice of the distinct difference in the way this case will be reported from now on, and take that as advice to guide how we all publish comments online, regardless of the site we might be on.

Cheers
Click to expand...
The day I take my cue from the media as to how to behave I will move to Syria or Libya or Zimbabwe
 
SydneySleuth said:
OMG! I just logged in and was so shocked to read the latest developments. Ive clearly been living under a rock all afternoon!! Shocked because I really thought it would take months to nail that revolting excuse for a human being. It's hard to feel elated, all I feel is deep sorrow for those poor little girls and ABCs family. It sickens me to think he has been prancing around saying "business as usual".
Great job QPS. I hope this oxygen thief rots in hell.
Click to expand...
Just logged on too. Wow! Progress in the case. It will take me a while to catch up.
 
Given what we all have been a witness to this week with Lindy Chamberlain and the 30+ years that she has lived as a topic of innuendo and speculation, and of her final and well-earnt vindication, does anyone really think that the police in this case will have lightly, and without due thought to the repercussions upon three innocent lives, would have charged GBC with anything at all??

I think it is doubtful that the Queensland Cops have anything but a totally watertight and airtight case with everything but everything in place.

Plus I might also say, forensic evidence gathering and DNA typing has moved on a hellava lot since 1980.
 
AvQlAqTCMAA25YC.jpg:large


http://twitter.com/couriermail/status/212835775673413632/photo/1
 
robynandbessie said:
Could all of the bush lawyers please go back to the bush. I have spent my life in law enforcement and find all of these so called 'legal rules' being listed in this forum just ridiculous.

We actually have freedom of speech in this country. If you are not a witness nor involved in any practical way in the case you can express an opinion. Defamation is also not easy to establish as there has to be an intention to defame and a departure from the truth. Do you think the person charged in this case will be launching civil actions against a multitude of commentators? Pleeeease.

Just ensure you abide by the rules of this forum. Stop lecturing on legal principles that either don't exist or don't apply.
Click to expand...

If you are going to accuse people of lecturing on things they don't know about perhaps you could do the same. Australia has no explicit freedom of speech laws however in the 90's it was ruled that we have the freedom to express opinion on politics and politicians in general. It does not extend to other issues where politics are not involved.
 
Please tell me WI after BBG and starting at UQ (if your OP was high enough) studying law what else have you been doing??
 
Strangeworld said:
Freedom of speech does not exist in Australia (legally). This is an American right, not an Australian right.

But in saying that, I do agree we all should express our thoughts and feelings, but be wary of pushing the boundaries too much.
Click to expand...

This is just getting silly. No, we do not have a Bill of Rights. Contempt of Court is about case participants, or about people breaching an order of the Court, which from time to time impacts on media releases.

Australia does in effect have freedom of speech because there are so few limits on comments, apart from such things as the Discrimination Act etc. But what I am simply saying is that some of the legal principles being touted here just do not exist. I am a lawyer with experience in large and high profile criminal and civil cases. I do not like public discussion being unnecessarily curtailed by people who really do not know the law. Just keep discussing the case freely using common sense..which most people in this forum appear to do. There is absolutely nothing to stop me saying that I think the police have got it right.
 
On my 1,000 post...for Allison's beautiful daughters, Allison's parents & family & Allison's best friend Kerry-Anne....

To face the future, sometimes a prayer will do...xx

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5f5MTY-S6iY"]Sometimes a Prayer Will Do-Secret Garden-Tracey Campbell - YouTube[/ame]
 
That's because none of the 'freedoms' in law can be absolute, they are all limited.

For example:
Freedom of religion does not allow human sacrifice (section 116 of the Constitution).

Freedom of speech does not include the freedom to defame or incite violence.

It's important to remember that the Constitution protects the freedom of political communication, it's not a general freedom of speech as in the US first amendment.

Strangeworld said:
The High Court in Lange stated that the protection of freedom of communication in the Constitution is not absolute, and that “t is limited to what is necessary for the effective operation of that system of representative and responsible government provided for by the Constitution.”
Click to expand...
 
Beautiful Marlywings...........................xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 105 more.
Total: 1,520 (members: 106, guests: 1,414)

Online statistics

Members online
106
Guests online
1,414
Total visitors
1,520
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
599,466
Messages
18,095,716
Members
230,862
Latest member
jusslikeme
Back
Top