Skip to content Skip to main navigation


Skilled legal advice with
accessible & personal attention

Magistrate Mowbray, you don’t read what you sign?

By johnboy 1 September 2006 36

It seems there’s a Canberra angle on the vindictive application of a control order on the Melbourne man acquitted of terror offenses, Jack Thomas.

The order was signed over the weekend by a Federal Magisrate, Graham Mowbray, here in Canberra.

The Australian now reports that Magistrate Mowbray has been hearing a challenge to his control order and has decided that parts of it are “somewhat silly”.

Which would seem to indicate that he just signed off on the thing without reading it. That’s a bit of a worry.

I’ve written some other thoughts on this matter over on The Concatenate.

What’s Your opinion?

Please login to post your comments, or connect with
36 Responses to
Magistrate Mowbray, you don’t read what you sign?
Showing only Website comments
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Danman 9:20 am 04 Sep 06

LOL this went over the weekend – you both must have been passionate. Now both y’all step back or ill crack both ya heads – serious – Im a big boy – my mum lets me out AFTER the street lights have come on!!!

Big Al 8:40 am 04 Sep 06

It seems Mr Agassi has run out of puff! Second, runner up, finalist – but still a loser.

Big Al 5:52 pm 03 Sep 06

How so my good man … Thomas is suddenly guilty? A confession extracted through intimidation, arbitrary incarceration and threat of violence is now acceptable? Gut feel trumps evidence? You know I hold no favour for the bleeding hearted left. This isn’t about bashing John Howard. This is about the rule of law, about there being a right way to bring criminals to justice and the mugs way … If you want me to play your game, when it comes to gut feel – I think Thomas will prevail, only because the AFP blew their chance.

You’re a worthy adversary VG, but I don’t need you as my enemy. For what it’s worth, I’m sorry for the insults – it’s the way I play the game when I’m in a mischievous mood – to use a pugilistic analogy it’s a sucker punch – will the opponent go for the insult or the argument? You deserved better from me, and I apologise.

Now please, tell me about my foibles…

vg 11:47 am 03 Sep 06

Your quote:

“It’s not soft headed civil libertarianism to suggest that the checks and balances of the legal system are thankfully there to protect the community against authorities acting on belief alone.”

My quote:

“It doesnt alleviate my belief that he did what he was charged with but then again thats the beauty of an adversarial justice system, and its better to see a guilty man go free than an innocent one be incarcerated.”

Al you really should keep up with what’s being written, particularly as I posted this one prior to the one I’ve quoted from you.

Soft-headed civil libertarianism from me or yourself…I think not.

Soft heartedness….well thats another story.

If you would like me to poitn out further foibles in your arguments feel free. Otherwise I’m guessing about now I’m Agassi and you’re Baghdatis…game, set and match

johnboy 10:25 am 03 Sep 06

Ahh, only the guilty have anything to fear.

No real need for a police service at all, the army and ASIO could do it all! Just kick down the doors of whoever they suspect at 4am, drag them away, extract a confession and then they’re done after a secret hearing far away where the “evidence” is tossed up to a tame judiciary.

Have you heard this song before?

Big Al 9:11 am 03 Sep 06

Are you still here VG? Still nothing to add, still hiding behind violence. If you bothered to understand what I wrote, you would see that it is the ‘amicable contest’ that you are hiding behind – you’re a big tough guy, but you want to cloak your violence in respectability … you’re a sad fellow indeed.

So you’re only contribution is a ‘belief’ that Thomas is guilty, but you have nothing to support that. It’s not soft headed civil libertarianism to suggest that the checks and balances of the legal system are thankfully there to protect the community against authorities acting on belief alone.

Big Al 9:04 am 03 Sep 06

Special G, there’s no question that one of the important roles of the police is to be interested in people who may have done something illegal.

The processes and protections offered – the checks and balances – of the legal system have little to do with ‘civil liberties’ and a lot to do with ensuring that treatment is even handed and that where a conviction is recorded it is robust.

In the case of Joseph Thomas there is an unsavory element to the way his confession was elicited and this has been recognised by the courts – that have also revealed that the only evidence against Thomas was in fact his own word – the Crown has been unable to verify anything that Thomas has alleged. Why do the police accept so wholly Thomas’s words – after all he said he did these things it must be true – the absurdity of the position is clearer if we transpose the situation to say, David Eastman. Eastman has persisted in his claim of innocence yet the police aren’t saying “hey wait a minute, Eastman says he didn’t do it – we’d better let him go…” it’s because there’s other evidence, they have something on him.

After Thomas returned from Pakistan he lived free in the community – for nearly 17 months – this is a man who the Government think is so dangerous a threat to the community that he warrants a control order – who has apparently trained with terrorists, yet he lives freely in the community t a time before the allegations against him are tested in the courts – when we’re really not that sure of how much of a bad arse he really is.

Nothing from the Government, not a peep. But after the courts have rejected the two most serious charges against him because they have no basis – even when admitting as evidence a confession obtained under duress and quashed a further two charges because the appellate court finds that his confession should not have been admitted.

We find that the Government moves to issue a control order – one apparently with the checks and balances of the judiciary, but as it turns out the judiciary allowed the order without fully appreciating its nature. Nothings changed, no new evidence has come to light, the only difference is that the Crown’s case has been shown to be a house of straw.

Control orders seem like a good idea, but lets keep them for the terrorists rather than people the Government finds convenient to progressing their spin campaign on national security.

vg 9:01 am 03 Sep 06

Thank you G. I’ll re-explain my position for Al (I’ll remove the ‘Big’ as his heart definitely isn’t). I believe that Jihad Jack is guilty. I also believe that there were errors made in the TROI procedure. Nothing more or less than that. I believe he took money from AQ.

With all that said I was hardly ‘backed into a corner’. I tried to argue cogently but all I was met with was juvenile invective and name calling. When I took umbrage after more than 1 episode of it (and Al has given out more than his share of abuse here) I took steps to ensure that he was willing to back up what he says with actions. Rather predictably he wasn’t, despite him saying that he looked forward to bumping into me one day and me making an ‘idiot of myself’.

Funnily enough he espouses a knowledge of law but shows, in a sporting context, that he knows little with respect to assault. Step in the ring with me of your own volition and its a little thing called an ‘amicable contest’ and no assault.

I’m really lost by this remark ….”your just too gutless to carry out your threats in a context that will see you dealt with in the courts.”

Ummm, no I’m not, you see it would never end up in Court as per the above. And I’m too much of a gentleman and a scholar to imply anything outside of the sporting contest.

You really are a petty and narrow minded individual. I am have had disagreements with virtually everyone on the RA but I chose to argue cogently, not abuse.

If you try and keep your language out of the gutter maybe your opinion would garner more respect. But then again you re just like many of the people I deal with on a daily basis. Cowards and bullies. People who don’t have the courage to repeat a remark to my face that they make behind my back.

This thread has shown you to be nothing other than shallow, cowardly and lost for words when someone disagrees with you. That is quite sad. I’ve said all I need to say here.

And Mowbray shouldn’t be complaining about an order he signed because he didn’t read it properly. A blame shifter

Special G 8:13 am 03 Sep 06

I never did quite understand the ‘pinko’ insult. You’ll have to explain that one to me.

Read the other posts and you will understand the RSPCA reference.

From my experience the only people the Police are interested in are those who have done something wrong. Even then, if your average Joe who generally does the right thing they will let most things slide. Thats why there are things like cautions and diversionary conferences.

As for the grown up reference. I’m not even going bother getting into a slinging match with you. I love my mum. She’s been a school teacher for 35 years and has provided a great service to the community. If you were neglected as a child I can refer you to some great support agencies.

As for our system. There are checks and balances. Police have to apply to a Magistrate/Judge to get orders/warrants etc.. If the Police don’t warrant getting the order/warrant it gets knocked back.

Getting back to the original post. The buck stopped with Mowbray. He signed the order.

Big Al 8:12 am 03 Sep 06

You’ve got nothing to support your argument so, backed into a corner, you choose violence? That’s pretty pathetic VG – will the facts of tthis issue somehow change because you hit me – but not just that, you seek the cowards refuge of the boxing ring, where your assault might be defended as some form of honest sporting conext – your just too gutless to carry out your threats in a context that will see you dealt with in the courts.

You’ve got nothing to add to this debate, and I’m bored with annoying you now, so piss off will you.

vg 7:57 am 03 Sep 06


If you would take the time to read the postings I have made (perhaps the excessive testosterone is clouding your thought process) you no doubt have read a little thing I wrote discussing the beauty of an adversarial judicial system.

But then again you can say what you like about me. You have clearly displayed that, unlike myself, you truly lack the courage of your convictions. You are the one that stated “I’m sure sooner or later we’ll bump into each other and you’ll have your chance to make an idiot out of yourself”.

I offered the bump. Unfortunately only one person came of it looking like an idiot and it wasn’t me.

Invective, amateur name calling and empty challenges and threats, without an actual discussion of the case in point, is truly the haven of a coward. But we didnt need the empty invective to prove that did we?

If you want to reduce it to the level of 3 year olds…sticks and stones sweetie, sticks and stones.

The invitation remains open 24/7. Any day, any time anywhere. If you’re not going to take it up then leave the forum to the adults, the one’s who are actually making cogent points and arguments

Big Al 6:23 am 03 Sep 06

There’s somthing in that Pandy … Foskey as an insult I can understand … but the RSPCA? Go figure.

Pandy 12:00 am 03 Sep 06

Big Al, I thought the “While your at it move in with Foskey at the RSPCA” deserves a johnboy prmomotion to header status. 🙂

Big Al 8:13 pm 02 Sep 06

Hey Special G – great post! Did mummy come up with that or did you thing of it yourself. You’re a piss-ant, be a good little prick and fuck off – the grown ups are dealing with this one.

Big Al 8:05 pm 02 Sep 06

VG I’m guessing, by the tone of your post, that you’ve read the decision now … good on you. The debate would be well advanced by now if the rest of the totalitarian apologists bothered to actually look at the facts before they sprouted off with their appeasement re-labeled as bullshit.

I wont be accepting your challenge to a round in the ring … unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately for my charming good looks, your lame-arse response of the threat of violence just doesn’t seem that appealing [ ] I have left this space blank so you can call me a coward but hey that’s life – you should feel free to respond to all my future posts with a lame-arsed insult about how I’m not prepared to back up my words with actions – but hey, my obligation is to respond with reason not bravado, so I’ll give a flying fuck when it matters … shitbag.

My opinion aside, it’s a fact that you lessen yourself as a man by choosing violence as route to reclaiming your honour … if “fucked up little monkey” offends you as much as I perceive it does, then please accept my apologies, I am oh so sorry for choosing an inappropriate insult – as a token of my contrition you should feel free to select any other insult that you feel better reflects the sort of brainwashed dip-shit who, as an employee of the people, honestly believes that the established rule of law is but an inconvenient speed hump. By way of choice I offer:

1. try hard wannabe dog-fucker;

2. Shit-brained little pinko lick-spittle; and

3. lacky-boy arse-wipe.

But please, feel free to choose your own if none of these suite.

vg 6:10 pm 02 Sep 06

and in what I would hope to be the last post in this vein I would like to say this.

I respect Al’s right to an opinion different to mine. I respect that a great majority of people may differ to my views.

The issue I have is the way that opinion is made. Calling me a ‘fucked up little monkey’ is someting that I find, well shall we say, slightly disagreeable. I have been called many things on RA which I happily let slide. This I won’t.

I am fiercely loyal to my job and I will admit that on occasion that will bring me into disagreement with a lot of people. Getting called every name under the sun is something that happens in my line of work. Being called something a little beyond the pale here, when I am in ‘civilian’ mode I will take a little differently. Argue and disagree with me all you like Al, thats what makes the world go around. Call me a ‘fucked up little monkey’ when I am neither

a) Fucked up
b) Little; or
c) resembling a monkey in any way, shape of form other than both of us being bipeds

and you may be forced to back it up with something other than a DSL line

is something that

vg 5:49 pm 02 Sep 06

And I would like the first words to come out of your mouth in the ring to be ‘you’re a fucked up little monkey’. At least do me that favour

vg 5:48 pm 02 Sep 06

JB I appreciate the comment. I am also happy to accept what appears to be a mistake on the AFP’s part in this matter. It doesnt alleviate my belief that he did what he was charged with but then again thats the beauty of an adversarial justice system, and its better to see a guilty man go free than an innocent one be incarcerated.

What I won’t accept is the cowardly name calling by Al (I’m assuming that by using Big he is in fact Small). There are ways to make a point, and petty, juvenile name calling isnt generally the way to do it post 16 years of age.

Name the time and place Al. In fact lets turn it into a fund raising boxing match for Riotact. No ‘hiding behind a uniform’, no ‘I bet you’re not so tough when off duty’

“I’m sure sooner or later we’ll bump into each other and you’ll have your chance to make an idiot out of yourself.”………here’s your chance. The Charnwood PCYC any time you like. I’ll leave in squarely in your Court.

Any FYI my super-heavyweight amateur record is 1-0, with me knocking the opponent out

johnboy 3:48 pm 02 Sep 06

Frankly I think any one who doesn’t believe in civil liberties is unfit to serve in the police force.

I think the minister for police should be demanding that the AFP remove all such people from ACT policing.

Special G 3:04 pm 02 Sep 06

Big Al, Take your civil libitarian head and stuff it up your arse. While your at it move in with Foskey at the RSPCA.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Copyright © 2019 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved. | | |

Search across the site