Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Chamberlains - complete legal services for business

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?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
36 Responses to
Magistrate Mowbray, you don’t read what you sign?
Big Al 11:16 am 02 Sep 06

VG you do a lot of posturing yourself – I think the “hard man” moniker was yours not mine. If the fact that I tell it like I see it threatens you, then perhaps you’re the one hiding behind the internet. But you’re a big tough guy aren’t you … protecting all us innocent little bleeding hearts from those big bad nasty terrorists … wakey, wakey hands off snakey!

I have no particular objection to repeating my views in person, my views are my views, where I express them doesn’t particularly bother me much and if calling you a fucked up little monkey to your face because you think that to disallow the use of a confession that has been extracted under severe duress is a mere technicality, sure – but you see there an issue there isn’t there – there’s no implied threat in my scorn – but there is in your invitation. 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.

But lets refocus now shall we?

You say “…you make so many factual errors it is staggering…” well lets see, I have my copy of the decision, and you allegedly have yours so lets assume we’re looking at the same document. The media source I refer to is the complete transcript of the ABC interview – that’s the one the dip-shits at the AFP say is so similar in content to the Pakistan confession hat they want to run with that instead. So at least we’re talking about the same stuff.

“I’ve read the entire court transcript.” Good for you mate – I’ve read the decision (as I stated earlier).

“If it was only the evidence of the interview the trial would have taken less than a day.” I guess that if Thomas’s beaks hadn’t argued the point on the admissibility of the Pakistan confession the case would have been wrapped up in a day – instead it took three. That’s not a long time with breaks and recess and all – I guess that’s because there was nothing much to discuss apart from Thomas’s own words and whether the confession was admissible given the unsavory nature of its procurement.

Maybe the AFP were wishing that there was more evidence to pin on him – is that what your doing VG? Closing your eyes and wishing really hard that something, anything might pop up that actually proved Jack Thomas really has been a naughty boy.

vg 9:12 am 02 Sep 06

“Perhaps if these dolts spent a little more time paying attention to laws of evidence and got off their doughnut stuffed fat arses and went out looking for evidence instead of relying solely on what can be beaten out of the suspect they might actually get a conviction to stick.”

and again, whack ‘Faheem Lodhi’ into Google and tell me what organisation that supposedly can’t secure convictions managed to get up in this instance?

But then again everyone is an expert in law enforcement

vg 9:10 am 02 Sep 06

Oh Al, the hard man really doesn’t become you. Besides the rhetoric, posturing and tough guy language (everyone is tough on the end of a DSL line) you make so many factual errors it is staggering.

Curiously the hard men of the internet have a tendency to clam up like caught out 3yo children when their asked to repeat such remarks when face to face with the focus of their vitriol. Lets just say that I’ve dealt with more angry men (with real violent proclivities intended) than you’ve had hot breakfasts, so this means that your amateur attempts at inflaming me or the debate will be for nought.

You’ve read something posted in the media, I’ve read the entire court transcript. If it was only the evidence of the interview the trial would have taken less than a day.

If you would like to call me a “fucked up little monkey” face to face feel free to nominate a date/time/place. I’m guessing those sort of remarks won’t be so forthcoming in a personal environment.

I’ll leave the name calling to the people who don’t have anything left

Big Al 8:59 am 02 Sep 06

“As for lack of evidence Mk. 2, well that must have been Monopoly money in his bank account that was tracked was it?”

I guess it must have been, because if it was ill gotten terrorist money you’d think even the trained monkeys at the AFP could have got that one to stick – regardless of whether or not Thomas ‘fessed up to it.

Big Al 8:09 am 02 Sep 06

VG having now read the decision in the first case and the complete transcript of the ABC interview (posted on The Australian website – couldn’t be fagged linking it) which the incompetent shitbags at the AFP reckon is identical to the Pakistan interview its possible to restate the essential facts of the case – the only evidence linking Thomas to any of the so-called terrorist activities – is his “confession”. There’s nothing else, no passport, no cash nothing … you must be some sort of fucked up little monkey if you think that a confession extracted using torture and arbitrary incarceration is a technicality.

This whole sorry episode should be ringing alarm bells for the people in charge at the AFP – it’s pretty obvious that the federal plods aren’t fit to organise a fuck in a brothel when it comes to law enforcement. If Kelty took a minute to stop flip-flopping on whether or not Australia is or isn’t a terrorist target because of our support for the US he might have time to have a look at what the AFP dip-shits responsible for this fuck up are doing. Perhaps if these dolts spent a little more time paying attention to laws of evidence and got off their doughnut stuffed fat arses and went out looking for evidence instead of relying solely on what can be beaten out of the suspect they might actually get a conviction to stick.

vg 10:18 pm 01 Sep 06

I think Al is trying to play the hard man again

When you’ve had a squizz at the evidence gimme a yell. It is/was ample. The only reason the matter was quashed is because the TROI (taped record of interview) was deemed inadmissible.

As for lack of evidence Mk. 2, well that must have been Monopoly money in his bank account that was tracked was it?

Trying the hard man, looking the silly man

johnboy 9:22 pm 01 Sep 06

Oh c’mon, the communists were the duck’s guts when it came to running the police state.

terubo 8:46 pm 01 Sep 06

First time I’ve seen vg described as a ‘pinko’…
Stand by for further correspondence – polite or otherwise.

Big Al 5:45 pm 01 Sep 06

“…this guy met OBL 3 times, trained with Al Qaeda, accepted their money and then tried to explain it all as a ‘boys own’ adventure.”

The only – sorry just in case you missed it, the only evidence against Thomas for all of this is his word. There is no proof, no corroborating evidence, no false passport, no wad of money – zip, zilch … fuck all. Thomas said that he did these things after being subjected to torture and arbitrary incarceration … frankly the DPP are a fucking joke – they must be pretty pissed that the Government forced them to proceed with seeking a conviction for purely political purposes.

As for “He got off on a technicality.” – what sort of pinko bullshit is that? His case was dismissed because there was nothing in it – fucking technicality my arse!

johnboy 5:29 pm 01 Sep 06

And when/if you can secure a conviction against thomas (as you did against lodhi) no one will have a problem with him getting locked up and/or subjected to deprivations of his liberty.

vg 4:32 pm 01 Sep 06

A control order isn’t going to be applied to Joe Average.

FFS, this guy met OBL 3 times, trained with Al Qaeda, accepted their money and then tried to explain it all as a ‘boys own’ adventure. He got off on a technicality.

For those of you that still doubt regarding a possible threat to this country try throwing ‘Faheem Lodhi’ into Google.

Having said all that, for a so called learned man to call an order silly after signing off on it on the first place smacks of ass covering

Mr_Shab 2:17 pm 01 Sep 06

That’s as may be Thumper – but these control orders weren’t such an affront to personal freedoms, this would be farcically amusing.

Thumper 1:52 pm 01 Sep 06

Thomas is a numpty of the highest order.

Big Al 1:42 pm 01 Sep 06

Apparently when this was pointed out to the Crown beak his responce was – well compliance wont be a significant burden for Mr Thomas … now that’s what I call earning your money!

Cityboy 1:32 pm 01 Sep 06

Apparently Thomas is not allowed to communicate with the dead people under the control order. You have to wonder what chump dreamed up the list.

1 2 3

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site