Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Get a new bike from $50 per week

Eastman loses another lawyer

By johnboy 13 November 2013 27

The ABC reports that in his quest to have at one time hired every criminal lawyer in Australia David Eastman has lost another one as the inquiry into his murder conviction rumbles on.

Mr Willee QC was Eastman’s third senior counsel since the inquiry was ordered in September last year.

The defence team is now in the hands of Mark Griffin who has asked for some delay to allow him to catch up with the case.

Eastman told the court, via videolink from Canberra’s jail, that he had total confidence in Mr Griffin QC.


What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
27 Responses to
Eastman loses another lawyer
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
IrishPete 11:39 am 15 Nov 13

Dilandach said :

IrishPete said :

Dilandach said :

Robertson said :

Dilandach said :

Just a pity that the system is content with pissing money up against the wall for this case. What is the point of going through it all really?

I’ll tell you exactly why: so long as Eastman is behind bars for this crime he likely didn’t commit, the Italians who likely did commit it and the AFP cops who were in cahoots with them, are getting off scot-free.

Which is why he should be medicated, have him help his own case. If he’s guilty or innocent, let justice be done. Instead we get this circus that everyone seems content on continuing. Wasting time and money.

How many times do I have to say he can’t be medicated?

IP

That’s your qualified medical opinion that it *can’t* be done?

No, it’s not a medical opinion it’s a legal fact. You can only be forced to take medication while detained in a hospital or in the community under a Psychiatric Treatment Order (and if you still refuse under the PTO, you must be taken to hospital for it to be administered). Even if kept in a hospital, after a not very long period of time (I think it might be 10 days) the Tribunal must approve the treatment. Good luck winning that legal argument with Mr E before 2020.

IP

Dilandach 10:22 am 15 Nov 13

IrishPete said :

Dilandach said :

Robertson said :

Dilandach said :

Just a pity that the system is content with pissing money up against the wall for this case. What is the point of going through it all really?

I’ll tell you exactly why: so long as Eastman is behind bars for this crime he likely didn’t commit, the Italians who likely did commit it and the AFP cops who were in cahoots with them, are getting off scot-free.

Which is why he should be medicated, have him help his own case. If he’s guilty or innocent, let justice be done. Instead we get this circus that everyone seems content on continuing. Wasting time and money.

How many times do I have to say he can’t be medicated?

IP

That’s your qualified medical opinion that it *can’t* be done?

IrishPete 8:58 am 15 Nov 13

BimboGeek said :

Also in some jurisdictions the process begins adversarial but if the judge isn’t impressed he can ask questions, do independent research and so on. I believe Honkaz does this but law school was over 10 years ago so now I might be the one with crossed wires now.

Still, it’s a good idea. The winner shouldn’t always be the guy with the better lawyer.

They’d have chucked you out of law a school for that final comment alone.

The only winners in the adversarial system are rich lawyers.

IP

IrishPete 8:56 am 15 Nov 13

miz said :

Deref, you don’t want the inquisitorial system. Really. The test of guilt is way lower, namely ‘the balance of probabilities’. At least, and for all its faults, we have the ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ test. I know which one I’d go for if I was charged with an offence.
I learned this at Uni, BTW – we had a German lecturer who never failed to tell us how much better our system was because of this.

Whereas if I was a victim, I would want a system that held people to account, unlike the vast majority of rapists and child abusers who are acquitted or not prosecuted because our adversarial system stacks the deck in their favour..

Silvio Berlusconi with his army of lawyers would never have been convicted n Australia. That seals it for me.

IP

BimboGeek 10:22 pm 14 Nov 13

c_c™ said :

miz said :

Deref, you don’t want the inquisitorial system. Really. The test of guilt is way lower, namely ‘the balance of probabilities’. At least, and for all its faults, we have the ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ test. I know which one I’d go for if I was charged with an offence.
I learned this at Uni, BTW – we had a German lecturer who never failed to tell us how much better our system was because of this.

It’s not that simple. Germany’s standard of proof is quite abstractly defined, but still favours the defendant. On the other hand France, which is a civil law system employing inquisitorial trials for criminal proceedings does use the “beyond reasonable doubt” standard.

Adding to the complexity, the Police in various countries have different standards for when they can investigate someone, and in Germany it’s apparently quite strict.

Lecturer was probably getting his wires crossed a bit, because civil and common law both have dual meanings in legal parlance.

Also in some jurisdictions the process begins adversarial but if the judge isn’t impressed he can ask questions, do independent research and so on. I believe Honkaz does this but law school was over 10 years ago so now I might be the one with crossed wires now.

Still, it’s a good idea. The winner shouldn’t always be the guy with the better lawyer.

c_c™ 10:08 pm 14 Nov 13

miz said :

Deref, you don’t want the inquisitorial system. Really. The test of guilt is way lower, namely ‘the balance of probabilities’. At least, and for all its faults, we have the ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ test. I know which one I’d go for if I was charged with an offence.
I learned this at Uni, BTW – we had a German lecturer who never failed to tell us how much better our system was because of this.

It’s not that simple. Germany’s standard of proof is quite abstractly defined, but still favours the defendant. On the other hand France, which is a civil law system employing inquisitorial trials for criminal proceedings does use the “beyond reasonable doubt” standard.

Adding to the complexity, the Police in various countries have different standards for when they can investigate someone, and in Germany it’s apparently quite strict.

Lecturer was probably getting his wires crossed a bit, because civil and common law both have dual meanings in legal parlance.

miz 8:26 pm 14 Nov 13

Deref, you don’t want the inquisitorial system. Really. The test of guilt is way lower, namely ‘the balance of probabilities’. At least, and for all its faults, we have the ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ test. I know which one I’d go for if I was charged with an offence.
I learned this at Uni, BTW – we had a German lecturer who never failed to tell us how much better our system was because of this.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site