Bluto back in the saddle … Did Lord Eldon miss an earlier authority which derailed his constitutional challenge? …. Marmalade by appointment to Sir Anthony Mason … AG’s Freedom From Information strikes again
Banana Benders were rejoicing at the return to work on Monday (June 29) of Chief Justice Bluto Carmody.
He promptly took the reins at QCAT, not the Supremes. He was supposed to take a month off from May 18 on bad back duties, but the leave extended for a further 11 days.
Back troubles did not stop him stepping in as acting governor while Daphnis was away – too medicated to write judgments, but not too medicated to be governor.
Now Bluto has become the Sepp Blatter of the Qld Supremes. One day he says he’ll go on “just terms” if the government promises to finish his “reform” agenda.
Only days later, The Bowen Hills Bugle floated the idea that he is reconsidering his plans to resign “as his supporters plan a public campaign to back him in the job”.
His major backers are the hacks at the Bugle, led by Bovver Boy Des (White Burgundy) Houghton who has been sticking his clodhoppers into Court of Appeal president, Margaret McMurdo.
The Bugle said on June 15 (paywall) that the CJ’s backing “comes from a steady stream of lawyers and the public wanting him to shelve resignation plans”.
The paper dug out of retirement aged adornment to the law, former dizzo judge Brian Boulton, who thought Blutes should stay because he’s “no silver tail”.
Errr, that was it. No other supporter was cited. Reporting from the Bugle at its most devastating.
On June 26 the paper fired-up with another rambling editorial instructing judges, lawyers and other citizens to rally being Timbo if he does decide to stay at the wheel.
It then turned its blunderbuss on the “rest of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal”.
“Queensland has been embarrassed by the behaviour of these judges and we have suffered ignominy as a result of these goings on.”
The local bar n’ grill raced to the rescue, declaring:
“This kind of slur on the attitude, professionalism and performance of the judges of this state has no proper role in any public discussion about the administration of justice in the state. It is unwarranted and inaccurate.”
The masses are also placing bets on which of the Supreme Court judges is the “fat fuck”, referred to by Carmody in the taped conversation secretly recorded by senior judge administrator, John Byrne.
Needless to say, the speculation is at fever-pitch given the numerous options as to judicial porkiness.
Things seemed to have ground to an impasse. The government is unable to hand over a pile of shekels to fulfil the “just terms” condition, the Bugle is blaring, Timbo is back at “work” and ignominy reigns.
Staying in Brisneyland for a bit, we find Lord Eldon taking a dive in one of the most important constitutional challenges in a generation – if not longer.
The Volvo-owning silk was incandescent with dismay to receive a speeding ticket, making him liable for a penalty when, apparently, he was not in change of the galloping machine.
The car was detected photographically doing seven kilometres an hour over the limit.
Eldon, who trades under the name of Anthony John Hunter Morris, thought legislation that resulted in him getting a ticket was a breach of the Kable doctrine because it impermissibly required the Madges Court to “proceed on a factual premise which is untrue in fact”.
The alleged untrue fact arises because, here, the person “in charge of the vehicle” is not the offending driver.
Holmes, Gotterson and Morrison JJA found that the legislation does not require the Madges to make a finding as to the identity of the actual driver. There is no intrusion on the judicial function by requiring a fiction to be found as a fact.
To determine the identity of the driver, if need be, is not a problem under the Act.
For a major constitutional argument to be dismissed by Qld Appeals in eight pages, 26 paragraphs, shows the sharpness of the argument.
Paragraph 24 refers to a 2008 CA decision, which had already decided the deeming issue:
“In remains to note that the competency of the Queensland parliament to enact deeming legislation in the form in which s.114(1) [Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995] is enacted, was affirmed by this court in Saunders v Bowman. In that case, Keane JA (with whom de Jersey CJ and Douglas J agreed) remarked:
Did Lord Eldon miss the one directly binding authority against him?
Maybe this is so – after all, he’s a Volvo owner.
Fresh batches of marmalade have been bottled by Sydney brief Gabriel Wendler and are now being smeared on toast at some of the best breakfast tables in the nation.
Jars of cumquat and Seville varieties have been rolling out of the Wendler kitchens, bearing the fetching Mason mug shot.
There can be no finer endorsement of a quality product.
Hard on the heels of the FOI brush-off from Soapy Brandis’ department in Canberra refusing further information about the non-missing briefcase containing details of alternative job offers for Gillian Triggs, comes more distressing non-access news.
The Freedom From Information people at Soapy’s administrative brains trust have refused a request for details of fees the government paid to Sydney brief Richard Cobden SC for his work in redrafting the Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill – which passed both houses, was assented to and became an Act just a few days ago.
The legislation amends the Copyright Act to enable copyright owners to clamp down on people who don’t feel like paying for downloads or streaming of exciting content.
Under the Act people who hold the copyright can apply directly to the Federal Court for an injunction to “disable access to an infringing online location”.
The original draft of the legislation met with widespread unhappiness, so the redraft was farmed out to Cobden, whose expertise in this area is greatly esteemed by Soapy.
The Transport Workers Union sought access to documents relating to “invoices, bills and/or costs for services rendered by Richard Cobden SC of Nigel Bowen Chambers to the Attorney General’s Department and or Solicitor General’s office since December 2, 2013 to April 14, 2015”.
The knock-back came from assistant secretary Andrew Walker with reasons that could not be more overwhelming. If details of Dickie Cobden’s fees were disclosed it would:
If those reasons are not dazzling enough, what of the public interest exemptions?
Even though the FOI Act lists public interest factors in favour of disclosure and no factors against disclosure, nonetheless it was thought that legal service providers might not bid for Commonwealth work if their negotiated rates became public.
Finally, in the interests of being exhaustive, disclosure of Cobden’s pay packet “is of limited use in promoting effective oversight of public expenditure”.