Not sure what this means but it is an interesting rabbit hole.
3 Likes
Small wins and big losses for big Ben.
Small win:
Huge loss:
3 Likes
Does he appeal the appeal Lehrmann-style?
Nup, that’s end of the road. I doubt the Privy Council in UK will want to hear it.
1 Like
‘special leave refused with costs’
“The problem for [Roberts-Smith] is that, unlike most homicides, there were three eyewitnesses to this murder,” the Full Court said.
Kerry paying for this one, or Ben’s new mate Gina?
Shots fired!
3 Likes
The High Court would not grant leave for the Privy Council to hear it anyway. Avenues to appeal there are closed.
2 Likes
Every now and then you have to step back and marvel that a full court just described the acts of this man as ‘murder’ and yet there are, as far as I’m aware, no criminal charges against him. I get that it’s civil in this context but blimey, what a funny world. It’s a tit for tat defamation bout, on par with a celeb chef having it out with their tv network over book rights or some ■■■■.
6 Likes
Yeah, I know, I was joking. That avenue closed long ago.
Not sure Australian courts have jurisdiction?
I dunno how it works.
You’d think at the very least he should be stripped of his rank.
I feel like…that would be a very reasonable and honourable thing to do, and it feels kind of shameful that it hasn’t happened.
But I’m speaking from a position of ignorance. No doubt there are some weird rules that prevent it.
1 Like
He’s not in the armed forces anymore. It would be heard in the Federal Court.
The Federal Court can judge a murder charge on foreign soil?
Edit: and that doesn’t really address the other thing. But like I said, maybe I’m on a wrong ‘un there. The Australian Army is…all of his…prestige. Are they doing anything?
Edit: edit: And sure he’s not in the armed forces anymore, but this is all about what happened when he was. Seems weak at best and…complicit at worst that they haven’t done anything.
“Australian courts: Cases involving war crimes committed by or against Australians, or crimes committed on Australian territory, can be prosecuted in Australian federal courts.”
ie, because he’s Australian, the Federal court can hear it. Or if they don’t, the ICC can decide to prosecute, if they choose to do so.
1 Like
Well that’s freaking weird.
I don’t think it happens very often that there are three witnesses to murder and the appropriate court says…what? What do you expect us to do?
It’s up to the AFP and its prosecutors to present a case.
The only question is, why is it taking so long?
3 Likes
He’s no longer in the ADF so the Defence Force Discipline Act (the DFDA - the legal system used within Defence to charge and convict crimes) no longer applies to him. My understanding (I’ll apply the “Sam Lane defence” here - I’m no lawyer) is that the AFP dropped their investigation as the evidence gathered under the Brereton Investigation was through “coercive powers” to get testimonies, which then can’t be used in a criminal case. Personally, I find this astonishing, as why use that method to gain evidence if it means you can’t use said evidence if you find something worth prosecuting?
3 Likes
Because the Brereton Report is trying to get people to speak freely to fix a culture, which they might less readily do if their evidence is used in criminal prosecutions.
2 Likes
OR because they don’t want to do criminal prosecutions. They want to pretend they are acting but make sure that they don’t get into a messy process that could drag in upper ranks.
Look at Robodebt and the machinations Brereton’s so-called “National anti-corruption commission” has jumped through to ensure no-one is actually held to account.
2 Likes
That makes sense, although I wasn’t thinking along those lines as I know Defence did separate enquiries about culture/behaviour reform which has led to significant changes in SF selection and unit internal structure.
Karma’s a ■■■■■.
7 Likes