10 Matching Annotations
  1. Last 7 days
    1. A former union boss jailed over receiving a coal exploration licence from his friend, former NSW Labor minister Ian Macdonald, was an "entrepreneur" who found a "willing buyer" in the disgraced politician, a court has heard.

      This is a flawed proposition and both misleading and deceptive in relation to the subject matter, considering its prominence in a court media report of proceedings which largely centre on the propriety or otherwise of an approvals process.

      Using a market analogy mischaracterises the process involved in seeking and gaining approval for a proposal based on an innovative occupational health and safety concept.

      In this case, the Minister was the appropriate authority under the relevant NSW laws.

      And while Mr Maitland could indeed be described as a "entrepreneur", the phrase "willing buyer" taken literally in the context of the process to which he was constrained, could contaminate the reader's perception of the process as transactional or necessitating exchange of funds a conventional buyer and seller relationship.

      Based on evidence already tendered in open court, it's already known Mr Maitland sought both legal advice on the applicable process as well as guidance by officials and other representatives with whom he necessarily engaged.

      But the concept of finding a "willing buyer", taken literally at it's most extreme, could suggest Mr Maitland was presented with multiple approvals processes and to ultimately reach his goal, engaged in a market force-style comparative assessment of the conditions attached to each of these processes to ultimately decide on which approvals process to pursue.

      Plainly, this was not the case. Mr Maitland had sought advice on the process and proceeded accordingly.

      The only exception that could exist in relation to the availability of alternative processes could be a situation silimilar to the handling of unsolicited proposals by former Premier Barry O'Farrell over casino licenses which were not constrained by any of the regular transparency-related requirements including community engagement, notification or competitive tender.

      Again, this situation does not and could not apply to the process applicable to Mr Maitland's proposal.

      The misleading concepts introduced from the outset in this article also represent an aggravating feature of the injustice to which Mr Maitland has been subjected.

      To be found criminally culpable in a matter involving actions undertaken in an honest belief they were required in a process for which Mr Maitland both sought advice process and then at no stage was told anything that would suggest his understanding of the process was incorrect, contradicts fundamental principles of natural justice.

  2. Feb 2019
  3. Jan 2019
    1. CBC Gem Premium Services Subscription Conditions

      "Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States Ruth Bader Ginsburg died on January 29, 2019 at 2:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. Justice Ginsburg died of complications related to the thoracic injuries she sustained in November, 2018."

  4. Apr 2018
    1. If the Imputation is defamatory per se, necessary mens rea will be presumed - The principle laid down here, shifts the onus to prove to the defendant if the imputations are prima facie defamatory, and releases the burden from the complainant to prove that the allegations caused harm to his reputation

    1. The law of defamation is a culmination of a conflict between society and the individual. On one hand lies the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, on the other is the right of individual to have his reputation intact. How far does the liberty of free speech and expression extend" And when does it become necessary for the law to step in to safeguard the right of the individual to preserve his honour. THE law of defamation seeks to attain a balance between these two competing freedoms.

      In every society there needs to be a balance between the right to speech/expression and the right not to be defamed.

    1. The John Thomas vs Dr. K. Jagadeesan clears two concepts:

      1. If imputations are prima facie libellous or per se defamatory, the complainant need not establish that the imputations had indeed defamed or damaged him/her
      2. If a definite company, association or group of persons are defamed, any of the aggrieved director or office holder can feel aggrieved by the offence.
  5. Oct 2016
  6. Sep 2016
    1. “routine burden of citizenship”

      New York Times Editorial

      Justice Thurgood Marshall's dissent was more faithful to the evidence: ''A group of white citizens,'' he wrote, ''has decided to act to keep Negro citizens from traveling through their urban 'utopia,' and the city has placed its seal of approval on the scheme.'' Despite a national commitment to equality, blacks were being kept quite literally in their place.

  7. Feb 2014
  8. Sep 2013
    1. while we take our solemn oath at the beginning of each year that we will hear impartially both accusers and accused, we depart so far from this in practice, that when the accuser makes his charges we give ear to whatever he may say; but when the accused endeavors to refute them, we sometimes do not endure even to hear his voice.2

      An observation on human behavior. A cry for the importance of impartialness in the court.