No comment on whether NSW lawyers are police sources … Schmo’s mate the Police Commissioner has solved the Porter case, once and for all … Attorney General adopts multiple positions on the Walama Court issue … Rule of Law Institute planning to expose schoolies to fresh ideas about the courts … Slump on coronial activities … Theodora lays on her hands 

Take, for instance, the boof-headed NSW Minister for Police, Dave (Road Rage) Elliott, groping with a question whether Const. Plod uses lawyers as informers (à la Vic Police). 

The question was placed on notice by shadow AG Paul Lynch: 

1. Does the NSW Police use legal practitioners as human sources (eg informers)?
(a) If so, how many such practitioners are so used? 

2. What policies are in force in relation to such sources? 

3. What steps have the NSW Police taken to prevent obtaining confidential or privileged information and thus avoid unfair trials in relation to the use of such sources? 

Road Rage Dave made a speedy get-away: 

1. The NSW Police Force does not comment on the number, identity or occupation of any human source. 

2. The NSWPF Human Source Management Standard Operating Procedures and the NSWPF Human Source Management Policy. 

3. The NSWPF is bound by disclosure provisions contained within the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1986 and the Evidence Act 1995 and are required to disclose all relevant material that might reasonably be expected to assist the case for the prosecution case for the accused. [Eh?]

It’s traditionally understood that “no comment” means “yes – but we just don’t want to tell you”. 

Then we have Schmo Morrison’s response to a letter from Perth barrister Rod Hooper SC about The Christian Porter’s suitability for high office. 

Last month Hooper wrote to the PM saying that as lawyers have to be certified to be fit and proper people when they get their tickets to trade, why not attorneys general? 

In relation to Porter this is particularly relevant, because not only is he the subject of serious rape allegations, but as AG he has a history of dodgy behaviour, viz: 

Appointing people to judicial office, some of who are unqualified, based on friendship, favours and political allegiance.

Using the leverage of court funding to procure a senator’s vote. 

Authorising legal action against vulnerable people as part of Robodebt collections, even though he had advice the action was unlawful. 

Zealously pursing a secret trial against whistleblowers so that the misconduct of  former Liberal Party ministers would be suppressed. 

Back comes Schmo’s reply, with its well worn heavenly bluster: 

“You raise the matters relating to Mr Porter. My response is guided by the principles that underpin justice for all Australians. 

As you would be aware, the NSW Police have closed their investigation. The Police are impartial, independent experts in these serious and sensitive issues. 

Equality before the law means every Australian should face the same legal processes as any other Australian. On that basis, I see no justification for any judicial inquiry, outside the justice system that might be set up by me or any other politician …”

Blah, blah, blah. 

Hooper wrote back to Schmo, pointing out that that he did not suggest The Christian be subject to an unusual process, rather that the PM should consider the standards that apply to all lawyers when assessing the suitability of someone for the job of first law officer. 

The fit and proper problem might also apply to Madam Cash, who misled the senate and obstructed an inquiry into her conduct relating to the occasion she sooled the Registered Organisations Commission and 30 federal wallopers onto the Australian Workers Union. 

It would seem that Schmo’s view of fit and proper is anyone who doesn’t have a criminal conviction. 

Last month NSW attorney general Mark Speakman SC fronted the Legislative Council portfolio committee with more depressing news about the prospects for the Walama Court. 

The idea for the court is the diversion, with intensive supervision, of adult First Nation offenders away from the prison system – a sentencing process involving community members and elders. 

Treasury and the Department of Justice estimate the Walama Court would cost $4 million a year, with potential savings to the criminal justice system of $22 million over six to eight years. 

The Walama Court is supported by the Law Society, the Bar ‘n’ Grill, the Police Association, the District Court, the Special Commission of Inquiry into the Drug Ice and Uncle Tom Cobley. 

The attorney general has been running warm to tepid to non-committal on the proposal, but at last month’s parliamentary committee meeting he was decidedly waffly.

“I understand the concept of it but at the end of the day it is not an absolute, it is a relative exercise. Is a dollar in the Walama Court going to be as effective in reducing reoffending as a dollar in Drug Court or a dollar in MERIT? That said, reducing reoffending is not the only thing you consider. You would also look at what I will call the effect of community confidence in the justice system and community support for the justice system. 

On the other hand, you have to be careful that people do not think there is some kind of apartheid justice system where people who go through this stream are getting preferential treatment compared with those who are ineligible. 

But on the other hand, where there is a lot of disaffected members of Indigenous communities who do not trust the police and do not trust the courts, one argument for a stream like this or a Youth Koori Court is the increased community cohesion and community support for the justice system that it might engender.” 

There’s nothing like straddling the barbed wire fence. 

“There are currently no plans to resume school excursions in courts …” he claimed on March 15 to a question on notice. 

Funny that. Four weeks later the Rule of Law “education centre” announced, on April 21, that it would be having talks this weeks  with the sheriffs “to organise how students can return safely to the courts”. 

Once they know the numbers permitted to do attend special educational camps, then bookings will resume. 

The Virtual One Day Outs are still available, “a fantastic way to engage with the NSW court system and to prepare for a day at the courts”. 

We shudder to think what these poor pupils will be told. We know that the institute’s conception of the Rule of Rule includes the Tamil’s dictum that forced confessions should be admissible and Robin (Jesus Saves) Speed’s idea that there is no rule of law other than that approved by the Rule of Law Institute – particularly inquiries without the police would be “below the law”.

In the year to December 31, 2020, there were only 77 inquests completed by the Coroner’s Court in NSW. 

Covid, for sure, has slowed things down, because the court didn’t sit for three months during the lockdown. 

What it means is that the backlog is much worse than usual.