17 November 2009

Cahill investigation gets serious

| johnboy
Join the conversation
34

The Canberra Times brings word that police have gone so far as to seize the notes and recorder of the CT’s Noel Towell as they investigate whether Chief Magistrate Ron Cahill “attempted to pervert the course of justice”.

“Two police officers attended the newspaper’s Fyshwick office yesterday afternoon, and seized items belonging to journalist Noel Towell which they believe could be evidence in relation to the investigation.
Detective Superintendent Chris Sheehan and Sergeant Allison Williams left with Towell’s digital recorder and notebook.
Towell, who is the newspaper’s legal affairs reporter, had recorded and transcribed an interview about the matter with Mr Cahill last week.”

This is a story with the potential to really shake the smug coterie who think they run this town.
Hopefully the public is eventually allowed to know what’s going on.

[initially posted 14 Nov 2009, 13:02]

UPDATE 17 Nov 2009
Ron Cahill has resigned citing heath issues and escaped further investigation, more details in the ABC report Cahill resigns, commission abandoned.

Join the conversation

34
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

In a bizarre twist, Saturday’s Canberra Times reports that the ACT DPP has complained to the ACT Law Society about the professional conduct of the solicitor for the well known Canberra public figure.

It seems Bernard Colleary has written to the Victorian Deputy Chief Magistrate, Peter Lauritsen, urging him not to disqualify himself from the case, and that it be heard ASAP. “Bernie the Attorney” duly ‘filed and served’ his correspondence. However, it seems to have got right up the nose of the DPP, who views it as “inappropriate”; and has dashed off a billet doux to the Canberra ‘Bureau de Spank’.

But while the DPP fiddles, Rome burns. When it comes to its core business of convictions, the ACT prosecutors just can’t take a trick. This week the DPP lost yet another major ACT Supreme Court jury trial. Rather than tilting at windwills, the DPP needs to lift its main game urgently – that of successfully prosecuting cases beyond reasonable doubt.

CK how is the AG responsible for something the Chief Magistrate is alleged to have done and which was reported to him by two other Magistrates? Where is the evidence that Corbell has been engaged in a malicious vendetta against the judiciary on behalf of Stanhope? At least back your emotional statements with some rational argument or fact. I agree that this Govt is a bunch of amateur hacks – but then again what ACT Govt hasn’t been?

The full story of this sad episode will now never be known which is unfortunate because it is a matter that should have been subjected to a rigorous and public examination. The issue of how judicial officers prepare for cases, what information they access and how this impacts on the way they administer the law goes to the heart of our judicial system. It is a shame these important issues will not be given the public airing they so desperately need.

And Mike Crowther – tell you what – when Mr Cahill’s foot is actually amputated I will be among the first to send him a get well card. I personally like the man very much but that doesn’t mean I have the blinkers on regarding what has been alleged in this case. Good people can make mistakes too and those in important roles often make bigger mistakes / misjudgements by virtue of the trust, authority and responsibility with which they are entrusted.

OMG!!!!!! this is BIG

Clown Killer1:29 pm 18 Nov 09

CSRI, it’s my understanding that Corbell is the Attorney General for the ACT. The buck stops with him. If there’s a problem with the way justice is administered in the ACT he’s ultimately responsible – a task that he as been easily distracted from while pursuing malicious vendetta’s against the judiciary on behalf of Stanhope.

colourful sydney racing identity12:06 pm 18 Nov 09

Clown Killer said :

This whole sorry saga is yet another example of the incompetence of the Stanhope labor government and the ongoing fiasco caused by Corbells inability to manage his portfolio responsibilities.

how exactly?

He hasn’t quite “escape further investigation” yet – what the ABC story leaves out is that the AFP is still investigating under suspicion of “perverting the course of justice”.

Mike Crowther11:16 pm 17 Nov 09

“If you want to consider Mr Cahill’s resignation from the perspective of a clever tactical move you may be closer to the money.”

Damn clever bugger getting that foot amputated what?

Clown Killer9:56 pm 17 Nov 09

This whole sorry saga is yet another example of the incompetence of the Stanhope labor government and the ongoing fiasco caused by Corbells inability to manage his portfolio responsibilities.

There better not be any fawning valedictories in the Canberra Times tomorrow. It’s like Nixon resigning to avoid impeachment.

“Looks like a deal has been done, so we might never know the truth of the matter.”

I don’t know about a deal being done, hard to see what kind of deal was available given a criminal investigation was already well underway and a Judicial Commission had been formed. That said it is very unlikely the full circumstances will ever be known – but not through any lack of effort by the government.

If you want to consider Mr Cahill’s resignation from the perspective of a clever tactical move you may be closer to the money. Under the ACT Judicial Commissions Act 1994 there are very relaxed rules regarding the information / evidence that may be considered by a Commission. It is (quite rightly) a much lower standard than that required of evidence presented in a criminal Court. Perhaps Mr Cahill felt his alleged actions in this matter would not withstand the type of scrutiny to be expected in a Judicial Commission hearing. By resigning he has killed off the Judicial Commission as it can only conduct its business in relation to serving judicial officers.

This leaves the criminal investigation being undertaken by the police. Meaning the only way the full circumstances of the matter will ever be revealed to the public is if Mr Cahill is charged with an offence – and if that happens the public will only ever see the information that meets the evidential standards of the criminal Court. Anyone who has ever been involved in the judicial system knows that what is presented in Court and what happened at the time of an alleged incident rarely bear much relation to each other.

I think the side issue is the supression order and the real issue is: Is it OK for a magistrate (or any other court officer) to provide a brief of information to a visiting magistrate on an upcoming case? Is this standard operating procedure when magistrates are called in to our courts? Do our magistrates just turn up each day and get presented in court details etc of each case as it appears?

If it isn’t standard then a reasonable person might believe that some form of influence was being exerted by Mr Cahill. This would of course depend on the contents of the brief provided.

Time will (might) tell….

If Mr Cahill wants to take them on, doing so as a private citizen would have some advantages.

Article is here:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/17/2744775.htm

Looks like a deal has been done, so we might never know the truth of the matter.

The smug coterie are starting to drop like flies.

a lot is two words10:30 am 17 Nov 09

he resigned this morning citing long running medical problems.

Mike Crowther12:01 am 17 Nov 09

Tattler40. My bet is that Cahill will be found to have done nothing out of the ordinary in this case. I post here regularly and will have to wear it if I’m wrong on this.

If his behavior was appropriate, (and I am absolutely convinced it was), then the only issue left is the appropriateness of the A.G’s actions. And pigs will fly before they ever see a judicial inquiry. If you have better information, why not put it out there with your name on it rather than throw accusations of paranoia from behind a newbie’s moniker?

Clown Killer11:15 pm 16 Nov 09

This whole business has the unmistakeable stench of Stanhope’s pathetic, vindictive malice all over it.

I thought Jack Waterford’s article was a bit smug and ‘I know something you don’t know’.

But then I haven’t got a clue what this is all about.

“The man is still restrained from public speech by his holding office. I’m damn sure it wasn’t him who tipped off the media that his office was to be ‘raided’.”

Sorry, but I am struggling to understand how Mr Cahill’s statements to the Canberra Times and his lengthy interview with Ross Solly on ABC radio immediately after the Police executed a search warrant on the Magistrates’ Court demonstrate how his office prevents him from speaking publicly on the issue.

Where and when has it ever been stated that the media were tipped off about the so-called police ‘raid’ on his office?

This type of conspiracy theory nonsense says much about the paranoia of the writer and contributes nothing to the overall debate regarding the appropriateness of a senior judicial officer’s behaviour – which is the real issue.

Mike Crowther5:09 pm 16 Nov 09

I disagree abc. I think the sideline is the suppressed case. (Which if done to protect a vulnerable victim I heartily endorse). The real issue is whether a soon-to-retire judicial officer was planning to dump a bucket on the Governments handling of justice in the territory. Is this a trumped-up pre-emptive strike on the man’s character? The man is still restrained from public speech by his holding office. I’m damn sure it wasn’t him who tipped off the media that his office was to be ‘raided’. Regardless of the findings of the Judicial inquiry, and any post retirement observations made by Ron Cahill will be countered by the government as the sour-grapes ranting of a bloke who ended his career under ‘some sort of a cloud’. (Supported by the general public’s poor memory and dislike for detail)
The fix is well and truly in on this one.

Footloose said :

Does any of this have anything to do with the following whole bunch of crazy? >
the-riotact.com/?p=6853

No it doesn’t… maybe in the long battle between Corbell and the judiciary as a sideline… but directly …… no.. post number 9 above details the matter very well… just minus the name.

There’s only one degree of separation in Canberra – don’t they know this by now? I’ve heard about this from a friend of a friend as I am sure loads of people have.

Seems this is rather bordering on the ridiculous that is has come so far.

Does any of this have anything to do with the following whole bunch of crazy? >
the-riotact.com/?p=6853

Don’t worry your pretty little heads. The little people don’t need to know why the chief magistrate is under investigation. Nor do they need to know who the identity of the “prominent Canberran” who is now a defendant.

Hmmm, what to believe – the editorial independence of the CT or a ruling-class coverup?

moneypenny26129:00 pm 15 Nov 09

Suppression orders seem to be increasingly anachronstic things in the digital age. For example, you had the Victorian suppression orders that stopped the first series of Underbelly being broadcast there because one of the minor players in the Gangland Wars was being tried at that time. Fat lot of good that suppression order did in keeping the accused person’s identity secret, because Victorians happily BitTorrented the TV show anyway. More recently, there was the Trafigura incident in the UK, where Twitter and the Internet unravelled a “super” suppression order that tried to stop The Guardian reporting particular parliamentary questions. (If you don’t know what I’m talking about, this surprisingly informative column from The Punch is a good starting point).

Anyway – on the topic in hand – in September this year journalist Noel Towell, on behalf of the Canberra Times, applied for the narrowing of a suppression order (made previously by Chief Magistrate Cahill) in a case involving an alleged physical assault against a teenage girl by her adoptive father. The decision on the Times’s application is on the public record, here.

The teenage girl is described by the presiding magistrate as “emotionally vulnerable and somewhat fragile”. The evidence described in the magistrate’s decision is, I think, compelling about that. The Canberra Times wanted to be able to identify “the fact that the father had been charged and consider the effect this has had upon the organisation where he works”. The magistrate refused to amend the suppression order because he was gravely concerned about the girl’s welfare should her father’s identity and in turn her own be publicly revealed.

Now, Canberra may be a big enough small town to have several separate court cases on the simmer concerning the Chief Magistrate, a so-called prominent public figure and a vulnerable child. But, the involvement of The Canberra Times seems a rather close coincidence to me – what with recent police inquiries at the newspaper’s offices.

I have not read Jack Waterford’s column. But how do his facts compare?

In another coincidence, the magistrate who made the decision on The Canberra Times’s application seems to be one of the complainants against what Chief Magistrate Cahill emailed to the visiting Victorian magistrate.

It’s all BS

I suspect JB that you also know less than half the full story.

Very rare that I would agree with Waterford but on this occasion he has written a very balanced piece presenting the facts that can be reported in a very reasonable way. Suppression Orders are relatively infrequently issued and always after careful consideration of all the relevant issues by the judicial officer making the order. Just because the media and the gossips amongst us want someone named does not mean they should be.

Well if the judicial commission doesn’t publish all the relevant names and details then it will be an establishment white wash.

Deadmandrinking6:21 pm 15 Nov 09

Having met Mr Cahill and finding him to be an excellent bloke, the secrecy surrounding this frustrates me to no end.

NickD, you don’t know the half of it. And I’m sorry I can’t tell you it. But that’s not my call.

Waterford’s column did a great job of explaining what was going on and why the suppression orders are in place – in short, it’s because the trial in question concerns the abuse of a young person who’s considered to be at serious risk of self-harm, and there’s a high likelihood that if any details were reported the child could easily be identified and he/she would harm themselves. I was concerned about the level of suppression before I read the article and fully supported it by the time I finished it.

The number of suppression orders issued by courts is really out of control. You can bet everyone at the Canberra Times and half of Canberra’s legal community knows what’s going on but they can’t actually publish it.

Waterford’s ‘Addendum’ column in todays CT is probably as close as the public will get to being told the story.

Apparently less to do with the ‘well known person’ as the fact a ‘young person’ is involved as well.

But apparently a very well and widely known person. Still dificult to see what form of ‘suspect action’ could be displayed by Cahill’s correspondence.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.