Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Excellence in Public Sector consulting

David Mossop steps into the Magistracy

By johnboy 23 December 2011 30

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
30 Responses to
David Mossop steps into the Magistracy
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
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!

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site