The Map of Tasmania … Justice Wood sues over super scheme complexity … Looking for judges … In a wink … New ale honours the Ed.
News greets us that HH Helen Wood from the Tas Supremes is suing the Retirements Benefits Fund.
When HHH Wood was a Madge, the Magistrates Act deemed her to be an employee and before that she had been an employee as a crown prosecutor. As such she would have been contributing to the Tasmanian gummint super scheme.
In that sense she is the same as the tea lady at the Launceston General Hospital or a guard at the Risdon Prison Complex.
The judges used to have their own pension fund, without being deemed employees of the state. However that changed in July 1999 when judicial pensions were phased out and replaced with nine percent superannuation contributions, paid by the gummint.
Tassie is the only place in Australia where judicial pensions have been scrapped.
Chief Justice Blowers is the first judge subject to the new arrangements, which he explains here
So when Wood became a judge she would not be eligible for a judicial pension and was no longer an employee for the purpose of her entitlements.
It’s unclear from this distance exactly what the stoush is about. Maybe the RBF is not allowing her to amalgamate the judge contributions with the crown and Madge contributions. Maybe she can’t convert her super entitlements into a pension.
Whatever – it’s messy. The case is on next week and retired federal court judge and native Taswegian Peter (The Bard) Heerey has been called in to preside.
The Bard has just completed a report for employment minister Michaelia Cash, on the conduct of (just resigned) Fair Work vice-president and Tony Abbott appointee, Michael (Loopy) Lawler.
Justice Wood is being represented by Sean (Give-em-Hell) McElwaine. Maybe the government can botch the judge’s case by announcing the appointment of McElwaine to the Supremes as Disco Dave Porter’s replacement.
Hobart’s Mercurial newspaper speculated that at least one other judge is considering following the Porter out the door.
Who could it be? One minute it’s tipped to be Shan Tennent, then no, no, no – that’s wrong. A fresh rumour has it that Stephen Estcourt is keen to open a restaurant. Can’t he do both? – a few judgment with his delicious bouillabaisse on the side.
Talking of serious foodie Stephen Estcourt, have a look at paragraph 45 of his reasons in Dimech v Tasmania (March 2).
Last year Shaun Dimech was found guilty of dishonestly acquiring a financial advantage. Blowers sentenced him to 30 months porridge.
He unsuccessfully appealed the conviction and sentence and one of his grounds was there had been a miscarriage of justice because of an unfortunate transposition of words by the trial judge while explaining to the jury the elements of the crime as charged.
“So, in paragraph 4, I list the things that the Crown need to prove before you may find Mr Guilty – Mr Dimech, guilty of the crime of dishonestly acquiring a financial advantage; that is the crime that he’s charged with in the six final counts relating to the Commonwealth Bank, and each of these items has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. If there’s one that’s not proved beyond a reasonable doubt, then your verdict has to be not guilty.”
Estcourt in the CCA didn’t think was was much in this point, saying it was a Spoonerism:
“I have listened to the recording of that part of the learned trial judge’s summing-up. It was plainly an accidental transposition of words. It might be said to be somewhat akin to the nature of the mistake that the Reverend William Spooner was notoriously known to make …
A slip of such a nature, when listened to in real time, could not by any dint of imagination have prejudiced the jury against the appellant, or caused the jury to believe that that judge either thought or was implying that the appellant was guilty.”
“The mistake was corrected in an augenblick (a word taken into English usage, which once won fourth place in a contest for the most beautiful German word for the reason that, although it means the blink of an eye, the word is too long for its meaning).”
Estcourt’s famous rabbit stew pales into insignificance with this contribution to German etymology. It will be an important entry in our forthcoming collection, Judgment Gems.
Tasmania’s Brewer-General, Leigh Sealy SC, kindly sent the editor two bespoke bottles of ale from his hi-tech Hobart brewery.
For a strange reason he’s labelled this limited edition as Ackland’s Craic. The BG has asked selected people to provide feedback on this brand before it’s released to the market.
The Craic suggests the possibility of exciting new aromas, but in truth it is nothing more than a rebadged version of Nettle’s Best – “for mature gentlemen”.
We tasted Nettle’s best and remarked at the time that it was pungent on the palate with a “penetrating nutty and dry after-taste and an aroma of old slippers”.
Sadly, the Craic does little to improve on that experience.