A very Canberra coup as the Cahill investigation is dropped.

johnboy 2 September 2010 17

The ABC has a piece on the end of the Cahill affair as prosecutors give up investigating whether the former Chief Magistrate Ron Cahill interfered in an assault case involving a high profile Canberran so cosseted by the system than the public cannot be told their name.

Prosecutors have now informed Mr Cahill’s lawyers that there is no reasonable prospect of a conviction and the investigation will be dropped.

Mr Cahill says his reputation has been restored.

“A little concerned that it took so long. I don’t know the reason for that really, I’m a bit mystified. I thought it was fairly straight forward,” he said.

“I don’t believe I did anything wrong at all and still adhere to that from day one.”

And yet a Chief Magistrate was ripped from the bench and then the whole thing made to go away once he agreed to go quietly into the night.

And the public will not be trusted with the truth.

That’s how the big end of this town rolls.

What's Your Opinion?

Please login to post your comments, or connect with
17 Responses to A very Canberra coup as the Cahill investigation is dropped.
jdmal jdmal 12:50 am 04 Sep 10

He didn’t do it

jdmal jdmal 12:47 am 04 Sep 10

That was a joke, u know like when a workman blames his tools, now i’m explaining myself 2 much, i’ll be back 2 say something else about this later

jdmal jdmal 11:09 pm 03 Sep 10

Offence, I mean there wasn’t an offenCe, where’s the spell check on this thing sheesh

BrassRazoo BrassRazoo 7:54 pm 03 Sep 10

Whether or not he is a good bloke wasn’t the issue. Imagine the confected grandstanding at any hint of a cover-up.

mutley mutley 11:10 am 03 Sep 10

My understanding was that the supression of details was more for the benefit of another person involved and not the high profile Canberran.

dtc dtc 9:22 am 03 Sep 10

I think the DPP only takes cases further when it is satisfied there ‘are reasonable prospects of conviction’. That is the standard (legislative?) against which it must decide before pursuing a case.

So you can read nothing into the statement as to the level of evidence, except that it was not enough to support a conviction. Which could mean anywhere from ‘absolutely nothing at all’ to ‘something but not enough’. Either way – innocent.

jdmal jdmal 8:52 am 03 Sep 10

And yes it was a finding of innocence, the law says a person is innocent until proven guilty.

jdmal jdmal 6:28 am 03 Sep 10

“no reasonable prospect of a conviction” means they had no evidence. How on earth does that mean ‘there was an offense’? There wasn’t an offense, they couldn’t prove there was an offense. There was only heresy, but enough to injure a decent mans good reputation, as the majority of people make up thier mind without knowing all the facts, as we have seen here today.

bd84 bd84 10:28 pm 02 Sep 10

“no reasonable prospect of conviction” means: yes there was an offense, but they don’t have enough evidence to make it stand up in a court to get a successful prosecution.

Hardly a finding of innocence.

fgzk fgzk 8:48 pm 02 Sep 10

Cranky “their power has become greater than their ethics”

We are talking about politicians. Do they have ethics?

cranky cranky 8:29 pm 02 Sep 10


That being the case, we have a very smelly situation. Perhaps the federal Minister for Territories calling in the ACC for an opinion on whether a miscarriage of justice has occurred?

A two bob council like ours should never be able to get away with the hatchet job that appears to have been meted out to Ron Cahill. If they can pull down a man as obviously respected as Cahill, their power has become greater than their ethics. This is a one way path downward, and the starkest illustration that our local mob are out of control.

cranky cranky 8:14 pm 02 Sep 10

One can only dream that the Liberal opposition would have the inclination, competence, contacts and pure bloody mongrel to pursue this matter.

    johnboy johnboy 8:17 pm 02 Sep 10

    They’re in it as deep as the government I’m afraid. Wish I could say more.

Clown Killer Clown Killer 7:44 pm 02 Sep 10

It’s pretty difficult to believe that the whole thing wasn’t a an ACT Labor orchestrated ‘pay back’ for Cahill’s outspoken views on the bald-faced incompetence of the A-G.

jdmal jdmal 7:18 pm 02 Sep 10

Cahill was probably the best magistate at the A.C.T Courts, he was fair and genuinely tried 2 help people. He had a distinguished career spanning some 30 years, for him 2 go out that way is typical of our justice system. And then the prosecution didn’t even have anything, where’s his public apology? If he was corrupt this never would have happened at all, it was the corrupt ones that put the knives in the Chief Magistrates back as soon as the subject was mentioned.

Me no fry Me no fry 1:22 pm 02 Sep 10

Growling Ferret said :

From my limited dealings with the former Chief Magistrate, I hold him in far higher regard than I would any ACT Legislative Assembly member, or any other Canberra ‘business person’

Totally agree. I too have had limited dealings with Ron Cahill in an official capacity and also hold him in high regard. I would trust his word over the word of any of the shonks in government or business in the ACT, any day of the week.

Growling Ferret Growling Ferret 9:25 am 02 Sep 10

From my limited dealings with the former Chief Magistrate, I hold him in far higher regard than I would any ACT Legislative Assembly member, or any other Canberra ‘business person’

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Region Group Pty Ltd

Search across the site