Former solicitor general has city gaff on the market … Allan Myers up close … Drowsy procrastination out west … Wooden hammers for British judges … Tamil Watch
According to news on the rialto, former solicitor general Justin Gleeson has listed for sale the family home at Sydney’s Walsh Bay with intentions of moving closer to an eastern suburbs beach.
It’s one of those newish three bedroom terraces in Pottinger Street, advertised as having “city convenience with lifestyle tranquility” – not far from the well known street-still-life of a car crushed by an enormous rock.
It’s been digs to Justin and his wife Dr Bernadette Brennan for 15 years, purchased for a squeak under $2.4 million and now with expectations of at least $4.8 million.
BTW, Bernadette’s recently published bio of Helen Garner is a masterful critique and surely will find a place on all good bookshelves.
The city gaff “presents as a statement in sophisticated urban living”. Let Chervonne Papworth and Caroline Selka from Belle Property take you on a tour …
Australia’s richest barrister gave an interview to Anders Furze from the University of Melbourne’s The Citizen, an online organ produced by the Centre for Advancing Journalism.
The super-successful Allan Myers is worth around $650 million, according to BRW’s rich list. He has an eclectic mix of investments from the Polish brewery Grupa Zywiec to the Swiss Norinvest and an American manufacturer of refrigeration compressors.
He kicked in a personal donation of $10 million to the university’s Believe campaign and a trifling $58,500 to the Liberal Party last year.
Starting life as the son of a butcher from the western Victorian town of Dunkeld, he has much in common with the small town, big success of Robert Menzies, who was the previous most recent person appointed chancellor from outside the university’s council. Myers says:
“That’s an interesting point. I’m not sure why that is.”
Here are the takeouts from Allan Myers’ chat with Furze:
We’re all so focussed on life in the big smoke that it’s refreshing to get a news bulletin about bungling prosecutions from the bush.
The Western Advocate took our fancy with a story last month on yet another adjournment of a case that is now over seven months old and had been before Bathurst court seven times.
Michael Nick Saban had been charged with wounding with intent to cause grievious bodily harm and common assault following an incident at Gormans Hill last September.
He’s been in custody ever since, but when the case came on before Madge Michael Allen, the ODPP asked for another adjournment.
Crucial stuff still wasn’t ready, like the DNA evidence and transcripts.
Madge Allen wasn’t impressed, saying the practice note had “well and truly been breached”.
“This is slack on the part of the police.”
With all their resources, the Plods still haven’t been able to get their act together. It’s back before the court for the eighth time on May 1.
Amendments to the Prisons and Courts Bill in England and Wales will see the introduction of gavels in British courtrooms.
This is an important breakthrough for the pro-gavels lobby which argues there are benefits in judges banging a wooden mallet in a style and method perfected by the American judiciary.
The amendments to the Bill were put forward by the cross-party Legal Heritage Committee of the House of Lords and are said to be based on an academic paper from the US, which found:
“Litigants in civil cases overwhelmingly reported that the decisive smack of wood on wood signalling the conclusion of proceedings brought a sense of finality to the litigation, and a sense of closure for the parties.
Nothing says ‘funct off’ – or functus officio to give the Latin term its full spelling – quite as effectively as the loud retort of a gavel constructed of prime West Coast cedar wood or New England maple.”
According to the UK Incorporated Council of Law Reporting a 2014 consultation by the Ministry of Justice Panel on Procedure (POP) resulted in an “inconclusive” outcome on the question of gavels.
However, a new survey following the Brexit vote found support for the “iconic wooden hammer” had increased.
The proposed new clause to the Bill includes the following provisions:
You’d think that if you came across an organisation called Transparency International your first instinct would be that it might not be a wholehearted supporter of secrecy.
But no, Chris (The Tamil) Merritt, scribbling zealously in The Australian came out and declared that in the event there is a federal anti-corruption commission then Transparency International’s default position is for private hearings.
The first whiff of this appeared on April 7, where The Tamil lumped Transparency International Australia into other views opposed to public hearings.
“The inquiry into the case for a federal anti-corruption commission has revealed strong concern about vesting such a body with the power to hold public hearings and initiate its own prosecutions.
The Law Council of Australia and Transparency International believe these powers, which are the hallmarks of the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption, should not be the core features of a national integrity commission …
The Law Council’s proposal to make private hearings the default position is in line with that of Transparency International.”
Four days later he was at it again, telling us that the chair of Transparency International Australia, former appeal judge Anthony Whealy, is not in favour of open ICAC-type hearings:
“One of the most interesting aspects of Anthony Whealy’s plan for a federal anti-corruption agency is what it does not contain. His plan … has eschewed the public hearings that have become the hallmark of the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption.”
Whealy was deeply puzzled by this because it is complete nonsense. It not the position of Transparency International, as the former judge patiently and gently went about correcting The Tamil in this piece on April 21.
“Recently the Law Council of Australia made a submission to the Senate select committee on a national integrity commission. The submission suggested that private hearings in commission investigations should be the default model. The submission suggested that this was also the view of Transparency International Australia.
To similar effect, Chris Merritt in The Australian of April 7 has suggested that TI Australia favours public hearings only where there are exceptional circumstances. These statements do not represent TI Australia’s formal position on the issue.”
What The Tamil had done is to conflate a discussion paper on an appropriate design for an anti-corruption commission with an assumed policy position of Transparency International.
The discussion paper was prepared in advance of the National Integrity conference in Brisbane last month. The conference was hosted by TI but the discussion paper was part of an Australian Research Council Linkage Project – all of which would have been known to The Tamil because the front cover of the paper said as much.
It contained a number of views, including those of academics Gabrielle Appleby and Grant Hoole who posed the risks associated with public hearings and suggested that they only take place “in narrow instances”.
Misreporting is often the consequence of rabid journalism that is informed by a tireless obsession.