Skip to content Skip to main navigation

David Mossop steps into the Magistracy

johnboy 23 December 2011 31

david mossop

Andrew Barr has announced the appointment of the barrister David Mossop to the Magistrates Court.

Mr Mossop brings with him 14 years of expertise as a barrister in the ACT with extensive experience in civil proceedings across a range of ACT and Federal courts and tribunals.

He has the localised legal and cultural knowledge of the Territory and the laws he will be applying as a magistrate. His areas of practice at the Bar have included constitutional, administrative, commercial, tenancy and planning law.

Before commencing his career at the bar, Mr Mossop was a solicitor in the ACT and NSW Environmental Defender’s Offices. He also served as an associate to High Court Justice Michael McHugh from 1995 to 1996.

He has a bachelor of science and a bachelor of laws from the University of New South Wales and a master of laws from the Australian National University.


What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
31 Responses to
David Mossop steps into the Magistracy
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
rumtytum 3:52 pm 02 Nov 18

Where did he go to school?

jhartley 10:31 am 04 Jan 12

vg said :

But, as per usual, zero experience in criminal law and another person never heard of in the precincts of the courts

There are already a number of Magistrates with experience with criminal law. David Mossop is highly experienced in civil law, which is useful given the recent increase in the Magistrates’ Court jurisdictional limit for civil matters.

As for your suggestion that he is never heard of in the precincts of the courts, that’s laughable. He is very well known and respected.

In my opinion it’s an excellent appointment, and I know that Philip Walker, the president of the Bar Association is of the same view–see his interview in the Canberra Times.

denkar 10:45 pm 27 Dec 11

Waiting For Godot said :

So let me get this straight buzz819,a fair dinkum referendum which delivered a comprehensive legally binding no vote to the question was ignored and yet they used a plebiscite to introduce self govt in the ACT? PEACHY!

They didn’t even hold a plebiscite. Bob Hawke as PM decided in 1988 that the ACT would have self government, all objections were ignored, the legislation was pushed thru the House and Senate and in April 1989 the first ACT election was held.

Yes thats right the same thing happened with a referendum in 1988 on giving Constitutional validity to local councils,no one bought it, the suggestion gained no majority in any state and something like 3 million yes votes,well thats it game over and the result of a referendum is legally binding.However the Hawke Govt pushed ahead and a few years later we ended up with the Local Govt Act 1993,against the will of the people the true govt of the Commonwealth.Councils have no Constitutional validity therefore no claim at law,they operate ‘ultra vires’ outside or beyond the law if you will.The local govt act 1993 is NSW parliment legislation also not Constitutional and therefore not binding at law,unless the courts are full of govt appointed judges and or magistrates that do not sit for the crown but the Fed/State/and territory govt which are all business entities(take note buzz).

    johnboy 11:23 pm 27 Dec 11

    Denkar, you’re an idiot.

    Has the high court taken up any of yoursaloon bar lawyering?

    Your idea of the law has no basis in practice and I note the validity of self government is outside the topic of this article.

    (If you’re a new player this means it’s over here, I look forward to sane contributions to other subjects)

Waiting For Godot 2:50 pm 27 Dec 11

So let me get this straight buzz819,a fair dinkum referendum which delivered a comprehensive legally binding no vote to the question was ignored and yet they used a plebiscite to introduce self govt in the ACT? PEACHY!

They didn’t even hold a plebiscite. Bob Hawke as PM decided in 1988 that the ACT would have self government, all objections were ignored, the legislation was pushed thru the House and Senate and in April 1989 the first ACT election was held.

buzz819 2:49 pm 27 Dec 11

denkar said :

buzz819 said :

denkar said :

fiddlesticks,i cant see why you think that the ACT is not bound by the rules of the Constitution as is every other state in the land,would you also tell me the referendum result that validated self govt in the ACT.

In answer to your other question, I had a quick tour of the internet to see about the referendum, and found three things.
A referendum is a vote of the entire electorate that has to occur if the government want’s to change something that effects the constitution, if the government wants to enact legislation that does not effect the constitution they have an advisory referendum.

The outcome of a normal referendum has to be upheld due to the democratic society, but the outcome of an advisory referendum does not have to be upheld. This is what happened with the ACT self governance referendum, it was held in 1978, 63% of voters stated that the ACT should remain as it is, in 1988 the federal government decided to go ahead with self governance any way.

So let me get this straight buzz819,a fair dinkum referendum which delivered a comprehensive legally binding no vote to the question was ignored and yet they used a plebiscite to introduce self govt in the ACT? PEACHY!

Due to the fact that making the ACT did not change the constitution, they did not have to follow the result of the advisory referendum that was held. I don’t agree with it, but I wasn’t alive when the referendum was made, I think I was kindergarten when the decision was made to make into self government as well.

Should it stay the way it is, high taxes, registration etc. as there is no other way from the government to really make money? Probably not, but I don’t see any of the politician’s voting themselves out of a job to revert back to what it was.

denkar 12:53 pm 27 Dec 11

mareva said :

denkar said :

Well then i guess its time you acquaint yourself with a little document called the Constitution and in particular sec 72.

No mate.

S 72 is limited to the HCA and courts created by Parliament. the ACTMC was not so created.

It’s simple – the ACT AG makes these appointments. Not the Queen (lol) or whoever else.

A little thing called self governance.

Can you explain to me how it was created?

denkar 12:39 pm 27 Dec 11

buzz819 said :

denkar said :

fiddlesticks,i cant see why you think that the ACT is not bound by the rules of the Constitution as is every other state in the land,would you also tell me the referendum result that validated self govt in the ACT.

In answer to your other question, I had a quick tour of the internet to see about the referendum, and found three things.
A referendum is a vote of the entire electorate that has to occur if the government want’s to change something that effects the constitution, if the government wants to enact legislation that does not effect the constitution they have an advisory referendum.

The outcome of a normal referendum has to be upheld due to the democratic society, but the outcome of an advisory referendum does not have to be upheld. This is what happened with the ACT self governance referendum, it was held in 1978, 63% of voters stated that the ACT should remain as it is, in 1988 the federal government decided to go ahead with self governance any way.

So let me get this straight buzz819,a fair dinkum referendum which delivered a comprehensive legally binding no vote to the question was ignored and yet they used a plebiscite to introduce self govt in the ACT? PEACHY!

breda 11:20 am 27 Dec 11

Actually, it is not just the High Court, it also includes the Federal Magistrates Court and any other courts created under Commonwealth legislation.

Prior to self-government, I assume that the Federal Minister in charge of the ACT would have effectively controlled the appointment of magistrates and judges, as the administrator of the relevant legislation – or possibly the Attorney General, if the legislation was allocated to him under the administrative arrangements.

buzz819 8:42 am 27 Dec 11

denkar said :

fiddlesticks,i cant see why you think that the ACT is not bound by the rules of the Constitution as is every other state in the land,would you also tell me the referendum result that validated self govt in the ACT.

In answer to your other question, I had a quick tour of the internet to see about the referendum, and found three things.
A referendum is a vote of the entire electorate that has to occur if the government want’s to change something that effects the constitution, if the government wants to enact legislation that does not effect the constitution they have an advisory referendum.

The outcome of a normal referendum has to be upheld due to the democratic society, but the outcome of an advisory referendum does not have to be upheld. This is what happened with the ACT self governance referendum, it was held in 1978, 63% of voters stated that the ACT should remain as it is, in 1988 the federal government decided to go ahead with self governance any way.

buzz819 7:03 am 27 Dec 11

denkar said :

fiddlesticks,i cant see why you think that the ACT is not bound by the rules of the Constitution as is every other state in the land,would you also tell me the referendum result that validated self govt in the ACT.

Here we go…

Australian Constitution Act s71. Judicial power and Courts –
The judicial power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Supreme Court, to be called the High Court of Australia, and in such other federal courts as the Parliament creates, and in such other courts as it invests with federal jurisdiction. The High Court shall consist of a Chief Justice, and so many other Justices, not less than two, as the Parliament prescribes.

s72 – Judges’ appointment, tenure, and remuneration
The Justices of the High Court and of the other courts created by the Parliament:
(i) shall be appointed by the Governor?General in Council;
(ii) shall not be removed except by the Governor?General in Council, on an address from both Houses of the Parliament in the same session, praying for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity;
(iii) shall receive such remuneration as the Parliament may fix; but the remuneration shall not be diminished during their continuance in office. etc.

So sections 71 & 72 both relate to the High Court of Australia, nothing more, nothing less, no state, local or district courts are mentioned in it at all.

I wonder, where would you find the legislation in relation to the ACT Magistrates Court, I know, the Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT).

Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT)

Section 7 – Appointment of Chief Magistrate and other magistrates
(1) There is to be a Chief Magistrate and other magistrates.
(2) The Chief Magistrate and other magistrates are appointed by the
Executive.

Section 7AA – Requirements of appointment — magistrates
(1) The Executive must, in relation to the appointment of magistrates,
determine—
(a) the criteria that apply to the selection of a person for
appointment; and
(b) the process for selecting the person.
(2) A determination is a notifiable instrument.
Note A notifiable instrument must be notified under the
Note For the making of appointments (including acting appointments), see
the Legislation Act, pt 19.3. (Goes on to say how the appointment must occur, in writing etc.)
(3) If a magistrate is appointed as the Chief Magistrate, the person stops
holding the position of magistrate.

and section 7A – Eligibility for appointment as magistrate
A person is not eligible for appointment as a magistrate unless the
person is a lawyer and has been a lawyer for at least 5 years.

So denkar, you can get your fiddlesticks and toddle off somewhere else with them, when you have a better understanding of legislation and governance you can start blowing up, until then, back into your cage until someone rattles it.

denkar 1:44 am 27 Dec 11

fiddlesticks,i cant see why you think that the ACT is not bound by the rules of the Constitution as is every other state in the land,would you also tell me the referendum result that validated self govt in the ACT.

mareva 12:15 am 27 Dec 11

denkar said :

Well then i guess its time you acquaint yourself with a little document called the Constitution and in particular sec 72.

No mate. S 72 is limited to the HCA and courts created by Parliament. the ACTMC was not so created.

It’s simple – the ACT AG makes these appointments. Not the Queen (lol) or whoever else. A little thing called self governance.

Pork Hunt 10:33 pm 26 Dec 11

johnboy said :

Well, there’s no crown involvement in the governance of the ACT.

But even in the state and commonwealth governments the Attorney -General makes these decisions and announcements.

You mean to tell me that The Queen of Orstraylya (ER II) is not also the Queen of the ACT ?

denkar 10:24 pm 26 Dec 11

Well then i guess its time you acquaint yourself with a little document called the Constitution and in particular sec 72.

denkar 6:56 pm 26 Dec 11

Nice one boys,sharing the grey matter are we?Has anyone heard of the Crown appointing these guys or not.Thinking caps on,please.

    johnboy 9:20 pm 26 Dec 11

    Well, there’s no crown involvement in the governance of the ACT.

    But even in the state and commonwealth governments the Attorney -General makes these decisions and announcements.

EvanJames 5:30 pm 26 Dec 11

Classified said :

johnboy said :

Erm, since we had governments?

Who else would do it?

I always thought that Canberra magistrates were appointed after a vote was taken amoung the criminals, residents of public housing and Summernats attendees.

poetix 4:20 pm 26 Dec 11

bryansworld said :

denkar said :

since when did it become legal for govt to appoint judges and magistrates?

Some of these silly season RiotAct posts are crackers.

Pull the other one.

bryansworld 3:30 pm 26 Dec 11

denkar said :

since when did it become legal for govt to appoint judges and magistrates?

Some of these silly season RiotAct posts are crackers.

Classified 3:16 pm 26 Dec 11

johnboy said :

Erm, since we had governments?

Who else would do it?

Deref 3:12 pm 26 Dec 11

denkar said :

since when did it become legal for govt to appoint judges and magistrates?

As Johnboy says. How did think it was done?

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2019 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site