ADFA shower case closed

Mr Gillespie said :

Proboscus said :

Mrs_Potato_Head said :

Mr Gillespie said :

Then why do some men feel the need to sneak around (by whatever means) to see a women’s loveliest bits in the first place, hm?? I mean why are there separate men’s and women’s shower facilities, toilets, etc.

Ever asked yourself that, Mrs Potato Head??

If you ask me, it smells of Victorian repression, and it still lives on today. And using the law to reinforce that repression, what do you expect? Total celibacy??

You’re a grub.

+1

Can you back your case up with evidence instead of a “+1” for saying I’m a grub??

Should we just ask Erin Molan?

Proboscus said :

Mrs_Potato_Head said :

Mr Gillespie said :

Then why do some men feel the need to sneak around (by whatever means) to see a women’s loveliest bits in the first place, hm?? I mean why are there separate men’s and women’s shower facilities, toilets, etc.

Ever asked yourself that, Mrs Potato Head??

If you ask me, it smells of Victorian repression, and it still lives on today. And using the law to reinforce that repression, what do you expect? Total celibacy??

You’re a grub.

+1

Can you back your case up with evidence instead of a “+1” for saying I’m a grub??

HenryBG said :

Mrs_Potato_Head said :

I agree that most men would love looking at women’s bodies.

Sadly with the obesity epidemic now sweeping the land, this is becoming less and less true as most women’s bodies have become grotesque and disgusting.

A dozen Melbourne Bitters turns a dog into a fox.
Want to borrow my beer goggles?

Mrs_Potato_Head said :

Mr Gillespie said :

Then why do some men feel the need to sneak around (by whatever means) to see a women’s loveliest bits in the first place, hm?? I mean why are there separate men’s and women’s shower facilities, toilets, etc.

Ever asked yourself that, Mrs Potato Head??

If you ask me, it smells of Victorian repression, and it still lives on today. And using the law to reinforce that repression, what do you expect? Total celibacy??

You’re a grub.

+1

Nifty said :

A few hours after Officer Cadet Fayyaz was caught filming a female colleague in a shower at the ADFA residences a potentially relevant piece of ACT legislation, the Workplace Privacy Act 2011, came into full effect.

This was a private member’s bill, proposed by the Greens’ Amanda Bresnan MLA (it is referred to at #82 on their recent list of achievements).

Was the unnamed victim of Mr Fayyaz’s prurience simply unlucky that a more relevant law than the one on which the Police and DPP had to rely was not yet fully operative?

Unfortunately not.

Firstly, the Act is completely silent on unauthorised covert surveillance by a workplace colleague on a frolic of his (or her) own.

Secondly, it explicitly excludes the possibility of a sting operation by an employer, such as ADFA, to detect behaviour like Mr Fayyaz’s in what the Act (section 41) describes as a “prohibited non-work area” such as a toilet facility, change room, shower or other bathing facility. Now THAT would be a crime.

Go figure.

There is, of course, the possibility of an offence against section 4 of the Listening Devices Act 1992, but only if the unnamed other cadet happened to be showering with a friend. For this to apply, the hidden mobile phone would have to be capable of recording the ensuing conversation as well as filming the shower scene.

Officer Cadet Fayyaz says he deserves compensation for what he obviously regards as an unjust ordeal. No doubt those stalwart defenders of human rights, Canberra’s plaintiff lawyers will do their utmost for him, for a share of the proceeds. But if he is permitted to resume his illustrious military career, as he apparently would also like to do, I have only one recommendation for his erstwhile comrades at arms.

That is, make sure you get your own, expert* legal advice before you take the law into your own hands.

*

Free advice as proffered by Mr Gillespie probably doesn’t qualify.

I’m not normally a fan of it, but this is one case where retrospective legislation is absolutely called for.
There’s no law under which a dishonest little pervert can be charged? Make one, and make it stick. This is why we have government – make decisions and do stuff.

Mrs_Potato_Head said :

I agree that most men would love looking at women’s bodies.

Sadly with the obesity epidemic now sweeping the land, this is becoming less and less true as most women’s bodies have become grotesque and disgusting.

NoImRight said :

HenryBG said :

dungfungus said :

Makes one wonder how David Eastman got convicted.

Eastman had to work very, very hard to secure the DPP a conviction on that one, considering the complete lack of evidence tying him to the crime, the volumes of evidence suggesting who really did it, and the fact the Italian police had, and still have, suspects of their own for this murder.

Spoken with the true expertise of someone whose research consists of rumours and mates who “know”.

Name one single piece of evidence tying Eastman to the murder.

I always thought Mr G was a nutter, but his latest posts are so out there (mocking the death of Katie Bender, the crap on this thread, plastic bags etc) that I have come to the realisation that he is not some nutter, he is a reasonably intelligent, very bored, public servant who gets his kicks from submitting ridiculous posts.

Only way to slay such a beast is ignore them.

Mr Gillespie said :

Then why do some men feel the need to sneak around (by whatever means) to see a women’s loveliest bits in the first place, hm?? I mean why are there separate men’s and women’s shower facilities, toilets, etc.

Ever asked yourself that, Mrs Potato Head??

If you ask me, it smells of Victorian repression, and it still lives on today. And using the law to reinforce that repression, what do you expect? Total celibacy??

You’re a grub.

Mr Gillespie said :

Then why do some men feel the need to sneak around (by whatever means) to see a women’s loveliest bits in the first place, hm?? I mean why are there separate men’s and women’s shower facilities, toilets, etc.

Ever asked yourself that, Mrs Potato Head??

If you ask me, it smells of Victorian repression, and it still lives on today. And using the law to reinforce that repression, what do you expect? Total celibacy??

You have got to be trolling. Lack of random capitalisation and limit to two question marks per statement doesn’t quite seem crazy enough for this to be a real opinion

Mr Gillespie said :

Then why do some men feel the need to sneak around (by whatever means) to see a women’s loveliest bits in the first place, hm??

It’s quite simple. Any man who sneaks around trying to view or photograph naked women without their knowledge and consent is a pervert and a disgusting human being.

Mr G, based on your posts in this and other threads, fit that description perfectly.

For your own sake, but particularly to protect the community from you, I urge you to get some psychiatric help.

Mr Gillespie said :

Then why do some men feel the need to sneak around (by whatever means) to see a women’s loveliest bits in the first place, hm?? I mean why are there separate men’s and women’s shower facilities, toilets, etc.

Ever asked yourself that, Mrs Potato Head??

If you ask me, it smells of Victorian repression, and it still lives on today. And using the law to reinforce that repression, what do you expect? Total celibacy??

I think there are separate facilities because people like you exist.

Mr Gillespie said :

Then why do some men feel the need to sneak around (by whatever means) to see a women’s loveliest bits in the first place, hm?? I mean why are there separate men’s and women’s shower facilities, toilets, etc.

Ever asked yourself that, Mrs Potato Head??

If you ask me, it smells of Victorian repression, and it still lives on today. And using the law to reinforce that repression, what do you expect? Total celibacy??

I didnt know if you were serious or not before but clearly a troll.

poetix said :

Sounds like the law needs to be redrafted to cover this loophole (which is something you shoot through, isn’t it)?

Do i detect the odd innuendo or two? I would suggest we need to go one step further by undertaking a comprehensive review of all current criminal laws and sentencing with the objective of bringing them in line with 21st century community expectations and standards.

Then why do some men feel the need to sneak around (by whatever means) to see a women’s loveliest bits in the first place, hm?? I mean why are there separate men’s and women’s shower facilities, toilets, etc.

Ever asked yourself that, Mrs Potato Head??

If you ask me, it smells of Victorian repression, and it still lives on today. And using the law to reinforce that repression, what do you expect? Total celibacy??

Mr Gillespie said :

dpm said :

Little_Green_Bag said :

Good to see this case thrown out. Everybody’s seen a naked female and no, it isn’t anything special. Nobody was harmed, except for the gentleman in question who had his name splashed over the media and became a target for the feminist lobby and the politically correct. Hopefully this will send a message to females to stop being so precious and to cease abusing the legal system with their nonsensical and trivial nonsense.

Hahaha! Good to see MrG has another alias! Good choice of name too MrG, but your obsession with shopping bags kinda gives you away! Hahaha! 😉

Maybe it’s a sign that I’m not the only one who believes this faceless “young woman” is too precious for her own good. All she could have done really was to sort it out with Mr Fayazz in private (costing the taxpayer not a single cent) instead of expending the publicly funded resources of first the police, then the prosecutors (DPP), then court time, for a case that has proven to be nothing more than a waste (the court’s opinion, not mine)

Oh and Mrs Potato Head, perhaps you need to rethink what a “pervert” is, and wake up to the reality that men NATURALLY enjoy looking at women’s bodies (DUUHHHH!!!!)

I agree that most men would love looking at women’s bodies. Fortunately most men don’t sneak around, secretly planting video recording devices to capture images of naked women without their consent.

Little_Green_Bag said :

Maybe it’s a sign that I’m not the only one who believes this faceless “young woman” is too precious for her own good. All she could have done really was to sort it out with Mr Fayazz in private (costing the taxpayer not a single cent) instead of expending the publicly funded resources of first the police, then the prosecutors (DPP), then court time, for a case that has proven to be nothing more than a waste (the court’s opinion, not mine)

Oh and Mrs Potato Head, perhaps you need to rethink what a “pervert” is, and wake up to the reality that men NATURALLY enjoy looking at women’s bodies (DUUHHHH!!!!)

hmm, patronising, condescending, victorian … do I smell a member of the armed forces family?

bean said :

Well I must be missing something.

He admitted leaving a recording device in a unisex shower, and pleaded not guilty on the grounds that he didn’t intend to leave the phone behind to record the next person. The charges were dropped because what he was charged with, is not illegal in ACT.

So what happened? Leaving aside for now the question of whether he was innocent or guilty, did someone lay the wrong charge, or is this a legal loophole in the ACT?

On the precedent that has now been created by the court, he could now leave a bomb in the same place of the phone, press the timer switch, leave the scene and when the device detonated killing whoever was in the shower his lawers could claim innocence because he wasn’t present when the device expoded? Come on, pull the other leg!

A few hours after Officer Cadet Fayyaz was caught filming a female colleague in a shower at the ADFA residences a potentially relevant piece of ACT legislation, the Workplace Privacy Act 2011, came into full effect.

This was a private member’s bill, proposed by the Greens’ Amanda Bresnan MLA (it is referred to at #82 on their recent list of achievements).

Was the unnamed victim of Mr Fayyaz’s prurience simply unlucky that a more relevant law than the one on which the Police and DPP had to rely was not yet fully operative?

Unfortunately not.

Firstly, the Act is completely silent on unauthorised covert surveillance by a workplace colleague on a frolic of his (or her) own.

Secondly, it explicitly excludes the possibility of a sting operation by an employer, such as ADFA, to detect behaviour like Mr Fayyaz’s in what the Act (section 41) describes as a “prohibited non-work area” such as a toilet facility, change room, shower or other bathing facility. Now THAT would be a crime.

Go figure.

There is, of course, the possibility of an offence against section 4 of the Listening Devices Act 1992, but only if the unnamed other cadet happened to be showering with a friend. For this to apply, the hidden mobile phone would have to be capable of recording the ensuing conversation as well as filming the shower scene.

Officer Cadet Fayyaz says he deserves compensation for what he obviously regards as an unjust ordeal. No doubt those stalwart defenders of human rights, Canberra’s plaintiff lawyers will do their utmost for him, for a share of the proceeds. But if he is permitted to resume his illustrious military career, as he apparently would also like to do, I have only one recommendation for his erstwhile comrades at arms.

That is, make sure you get your own, expert* legal advice before you take the law into your own hands.

* Free advice as proffered by Mr Gillespie probably doesn’t qualify.

HenryBG said :

dungfungus said :

Makes one wonder how David Eastman got convicted.

Eastman had to work very, very hard to secure the DPP a conviction on that one, considering the complete lack of evidence tying him to the crime, the volumes of evidence suggesting who really did it, and the fact the Italian police had, and still have, suspects of their own for this murder.

Spoken with the true expertise of someone whose research consists of rumours and mates who “know”.

dpm said :

Little_Green_Bag said :

Good to see this case thrown out. Everybody’s seen a naked female and no, it isn’t anything special. Nobody was harmed, except for the gentleman in question who had his name splashed over the media and became a target for the feminist lobby and the politically correct. Hopefully this will send a message to females to stop being so precious and to cease abusing the legal system with their nonsensical and trivial nonsense.

Hahaha! Good to see MrG has another alias! Good choice of name too MrG, but your obsession with shopping bags kinda gives you away! Hahaha! 😉

Look up ‘Captain RAAF’ for a giggle…

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Deckard said :

DrKoresh said :

Good to hear you don’t have any problem with me filming your female rellies on the dunny. ‘Cause it’s great footage.

You’re assuming Mr Gillespie doesn’t already film his female rellies on the dunny.

gross….but now you have said that, he probably does.

:vomits

Watch out – he films that too.

Mrs_Potato_Head said :

A ridiculous precedent has now been set as yet another pervert gets the tick of approval from our judicial system.

No it hasn’t. Precedents are not set in the magistrates court.

dungfungus said :

Makes one wonder how David Eastman got convicted.

Eastman had to work very, very hard to secure the DPP a conviction on that one, considering the complete lack of evidence tying him to the crime, the volumes of evidence suggesting who really did it, and the fact the Italian police had, and still have, suspects of their own for this murder.

dpm said :

Little_Green_Bag said :

Good to see this case thrown out. Everybody’s seen a naked female and no, it isn’t anything special. Nobody was harmed, except for the gentleman in question who had his name splashed over the media and became a target for the feminist lobby and the politically correct. Hopefully this will send a message to females to stop being so precious and to cease abusing the legal system with their nonsensical and trivial nonsense.

Hahaha! Good to see MrG has another alias! Good choice of name too MrG, but your obsession with shopping bags kinda gives you away! Hahaha! 😉

Maybe it’s a sign that I’m not the only one who believes this faceless “young woman” is too precious for her own good. All she could have done really was to sort it out with Mr Fayazz in private (costing the taxpayer not a single cent) instead of expending the publicly funded resources of first the police, then the prosecutors (DPP), then court time, for a case that has proven to be nothing more than a waste (the court’s opinion, not mine)

Oh and Mrs Potato Head, perhaps you need to rethink what a “pervert” is, and wake up to the reality that men NATURALLY enjoy looking at women’s bodies (DUUHHHH!!!!)

A ridiculous precedent has now been set as yet another pervert gets the tick of approval from our judicial system.

Anyway, related to the case, it’s interesting that acquittal “was based on the fact Fayyaz left the shower room before the female cadet arrived”.

So, unless he came into the shower with a stool, reached over her head, opened the vent and pressed record – while she was in there showering – all is OK? Does anyone think someone who might be secretly trying to record someone else might not do it this way?
Once again, our legal system is awesome!

Little_Green_Bag said :

Good to see this case thrown out. Everybody’s seen a naked female and no, it isn’t anything special. Nobody was harmed, except for the gentleman in question who had his name splashed over the media and became a target for the feminist lobby and the politically correct. Hopefully this will send a message to females to stop being so precious and to cease abusing the legal system with their nonsensical and trivial nonsense.

Hahaha! Good to see MrG has another alias! Good choice of name too MrG, but your obsession with shopping bags kinda gives you away! Hahaha! 😉

Deckard said :

DrKoresh said :

Good to hear you don’t have any problem with me filming your female rellies on the dunny. ‘Cause it’s great footage.

You’re assuming Mr Gillespie doesn’t already film his female rellies on the dunny.

gross….but now you have said that, he probably does.

:vomits

NoImRight said :

Mr Gillespie said :

Good. Sanity prevails for once. The justice system can’t be abused that easily….

You were there?

Yep, you can see him in the background of the footage, rubbing a (banned) plastic shopping bag over his naked body while dreaming of Erin Molan.

Other states have introduced laws specifically to cover this. They generally are called something like ‘secret intimate filming’.

I think the problem here is that the ACT has not introduced a law like this and the prosecution has to work around that by using existing laws that were never designed to cover this type of thing.

There must be an internal pool in the court system on who can let off the most cnuts each year. With a special extra prize for snubbing your nose at the public.

Makes one wonder how David Eastman got convicted.

Looks like ADFA might show more sense than our courts:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/defence-to-review-pakistani-cadets-adfa-enrolment-20120725-22qeg.html

DrKoresh said :

Good to hear you don’t have any problem with me filming your female rellies on the dunny. ‘Cause it’s great footage.

You’re assuming Mr Gillespie doesn’t already film his female rellies on the dunny.

This is all very simple.

Fayyaz admitted a number of things. That it was his phone and that he placed it in the grill above the shower. That he set it to record. None of this was in dispute.

But the DPP charged this guy with this offence: a person committing act of indecency IN THE PRESENCE OF another. The act was in her presence, but the defendant was not. Go and read the provision. THE PERSON (defendant) had to be in her presence. But these two were never in each other’s presence, at the material time.

The problem is that police/DPP got the wrong charge. There are lesser offences that would have been appropriate.

The other problem is that we don’t have legislation in the ACT to cover acts such as filming someone covertly. The legislature hasn’t caught up.

THE OTHER PROBLEM is that this dirty little prick ever did this in the first place.

bean said :

Well I must be missing something.

He admitted leaving a recording device in a unisex shower, and pleaded not guilty on the grounds that he didn’t intend to leave the phone behind to record the next person. The charges were dropped because what he was charged with, is not illegal in ACT.

So what happened? Leaving aside for now the question of whether he was innocent or guilty, did someone lay the wrong charge, or is this a legal loophole in the ACT?

Now we might just be getting some where. Without access to the full transcript and relying upon the accurate 3pm radio reporting, I would hazard the person may have been charged with the wrong offence. Should that be the case, someone in the DPP might be bracing themselves for a reaming. Legal studies 1.01…were all the proofs of the offence met? “In the presence of’ would be a proof that has to be met.

Was the radio reporting correct that the alleged offender was now considering suing all and sundry for besmerching his good reputation? Perhaps someone should tell him to pull his head in and count his lucky stars.

Nice little precedent the Magistrate has set there. Defence lawyers for perverts may be having a little fun in the shower themselves tonight after this exciting little tidbit to help them with future cases.

I seriously hope there are more reasons than what is outlined at the top of this page, otherwise our society is doomed to hell.

Sounds like the law needs to be redrafted to cover this loophole (which is something you shoot through, isn’t it)?

HenryBG said :

These facts having been established, he gets off because, “…the act of indecency was not committed because when Mr Fayyaz had started recording, the alleged victim was not present…”

Somebody should have told this to the defence lawyer acting for the recently convicted Sydney busdriver who was caught filming ‘upskirts’.

Ahhh mental illness is rife in the judiciary. Question is why are we training a pakistani all our miliitary tactics when it is known that the pakistani inter-services intelligence people are in bed with taliban groups?

devils_advocate said :

HenryBG said :

Pathetic. Our legal system is really, really warped in favour of the dishonest and the degenerate.

No, it simply relies on a presumption of innocence, and guilt having to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It’s the worst possible system, except for all the others.

So we’re forced to presume him innocent, despite the following facts:
– It was his recording device
– he left it in the shower
– it was hidden in an air vent
– it was aimed to capture the person showering
– it was actively recording

These facts having been established, he gets off because, “…the act of indecency was not committed because when Mr Fayyaz had started recording, the alleged victim was not present…”

I wonder – would Mr Fayyaz, Senior, be some big cheese in the military/government of the terrorist-supporting country called Pakistan……

Mr Gillespie said :

Comparing a recording device to a loaded shotgun is a bit like comparing mountains to molehills. This case (like the other hysterical sex camera cases) are a blatant waste and abuse of public/police/legal resources. The matter should have at most be dealt with internally, if not just between the 2 parties. Mediation costs NOTHING.

Good to hear you don’t have any problem with me filming your female rellies on the dunny. ‘Cause it’s great footage.

Canburnian said :

I do wonder how you can set up a camera to film yourself showering, and then forget to remove the camera? Unless of course it contained footage of himself showering beforehand and he is that stupid, in which case I wish him luck with his studies….. he is going to need it.

More puzzling was the need for him to hide the camera from himself. I wonder if he tries to hide his own vegies from himself by putting them underneath his steak? Slimy little cnut.

Nah, I’d say good luck to him.

The court is not satisfied he filmed the little loudmouth in the first place.

For all we’d know, he really could be innocent!

This guy is a piece of shit! Can’t believe he is threatening to sue! Hope he loses his case if he puts it and is forced to pay the costs of the defendant.

Chop71 said :

Mr Gillespie said :

johnboy said :

Mr Gillespie standing up for peeping toms everywhere.

Get over it. Case is closed, now you can expend police resources on REAL crime, like burglaries, arson, drug pedalling, murder, etc.

I’m sure if it was our daughter filmed in the shower and the pics went viral, you may re think your view of real crime.

I hate it when my daddys fight.

Chop71 said :

Mr Gillespie said :

johnboy said :

Mr Gillespie standing up for peeping toms everywhere.

Get over it. Case is closed, now you can expend police resources on REAL crime, like burglaries, arson, drug pedalling, murder, etc.

I’m sure if it was our daughter filmed in the shower and the pics went viral, you may re think your view of real crime.

He’s worried about the implications for his stalking of local news readers.

Mr Gillespie said :

Good. Sanity prevails for once. The justice system can’t be abused that easily….

@Mr Gillespie: Would you mind expanding on your comment, as it’s unclear what you’re trying to say.
– do you mean you think the Cadet was innocent and should not have been charged,
– or you think he was guilty but the offence is trivial and an abuse of the justice system,
– or you think the police shouldn’t interfere with the military,
– or something else?

I do wonder how you can set up a camera to film yourself showering, and then forget to remove the camera? Unless of course it contained footage of himself showering beforehand and he is that stupid, in which case I wish him luck with his studies….. he is going to need it.

HenryBG said :

Pathetic. Our legal system is really, really warped in favour of the dishonest and the degenerate.

Er no. It’s about the presumption of innocence, and a right to have criminal charges determined by a competent, independent and impartial court after a fair and public hearing.

The lesson for the DPP and the AFP from this case is that those charged with enforcing the law, do so in accordance with what the law actually says, and not what they think it says.

Good to see this case thrown out. Everybody’s seen a naked female and no, it isn’t anything special. Nobody was harmed, except for the gentleman in question who had his name splashed over the media and became a target for the feminist lobby and the politically correct. Hopefully this will send a message to females to stop being so precious and to cease abusing the legal system with their nonsensical and trivial nonsense.

Well I must be missing something.

He admitted leaving a recording device in a unisex shower, and pleaded not guilty on the grounds that he didn’t intend to leave the phone behind to record the next person. The charges were dropped because what he was charged with, is not illegal in ACT.

So what happened? Leaving aside for now the question of whether he was innocent or guilty, did someone lay the wrong charge, or is this a legal loophole in the ACT?

Mr Gillespie said :

johnboy said :

Mr Gillespie standing up for peeping toms everywhere.

Get over it. Case is closed, now you can expend police resources on REAL crime, like burglaries, arson, drug pedalling, murder, etc.

I’m sure if it was our daughter filmed in the shower and the pics went viral, you may re think your view of real crime.

WillowJim said :

I would love to know the Mr Gillespie story.

It would undoubtedly be riveting but be sure to prepare yourself for possible disappointment just on the off chance that i might be wrong!

Mr Gillespie was the chick in the video?

I would love to know the Mr Gillespie story.

Spiral said :

Mr Gillespie said :

Good. Sanity prevails for once. The justice system can’t be abused that easily….

Presumably you know more anout this case than I’ve seen publically released. On the surface it seemed an open and shut case and the creep should be on his way back to Pakistan. It looks like yet another case of the ACT legal system sticking up for scum.

Presumably there is more to it than what I’ve seen, so what is the correct story?

For God’s sake, stop feeding the ugly troll.

HenryBG said :

Pathetic. Our legal system is really, really warped in favour of the dishonest and the degenerate.

No, it simply relies on a presumption of innocence, and guilt having to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It’s the worst possible system, except for all the others.

Comparing a recording device to a loaded shotgun is a bit like comparing mountains to molehills. This case (like the other hysterical sex camera cases) are a blatant waste and abuse of public/police/legal resources. The matter should have at most be dealt with internally, if not just between the 2 parties. Mediation costs NOTHING.

johnboy said :

Mr Gillespie standing up for peeping toms everywhere.

Get over it. Case is closed, now you can expend police resources on REAL crime, like burglaries, arson, drug pedalling, murder, etc.

What I’d like to know is why has this case been publicly aired in the first place?? All publicity does is stir up a hornet’s nest!

I hope whoever prosecuted this case is made to wear the court costs!

Pathetic. Our legal system is really, really warped in favour of the dishonest and the degenerate.

Mr Gillespie said :

Good. Sanity prevails for once. The justice system can’t be abused that easily….

???

I don’t have the details of the case so there must be more to it than meets the eye, because on the reasons offered for the dismissal, it would seem that if I installed a loaded shotgun in a similar location primed to go off in say 10 minutes, and after 9 minutes a victim walked in, I could not be charged with murder because the act of setting up the gun was not done in the victim’s presence. OK so that’s an extreme position to take but it beggars belief that someone who knowingly plants a recording device is somehow not culpable simple because the victim was not present at the moment the recording device was set to record. If that is the legal position then the journo who planted a recording device outside Nicole Kidman’s house and left it there was not guilty either. Think of the can of worms this might open. You want to record someone but scared of the listening devices act? Just make sure you switch on your recording device early and leave the device unattended while your subject is being recorded. Then when they try and apply the law, point out that your subject wasn’t present when you pressed record and hey presto! you’re off scot free.

Mr Gillespie said :

Good. Sanity prevails for once. The justice system can’t be abused that easily….

Presumably you know more anout this case than I’ve seen publically released. On the surface it seemed an open and shut case and the creep should be on his way back to Pakistan. It looks like yet another case of the ACT legal system sticking up for scum.

Presumably there is more to it than what I’ve seen, so what is the correct story?

Mr Gillespie said :

Good. Sanity prevails for once. The justice system can’t be abused that easily….

You were there?

Good. Sanity prevails for once. The justice system can’t be abused that easily….