Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Skilled legal advice with
accessible & personal attention

Poor privileged Pete

By Mike Jeffreys - 25 September 2014 22

slide-stock

The former Parliamentary Speaker Peter Slipper has managed to avoid the Go-Slow (as an ex-lawyer who worked with me as producer used to refer to the House of Correction).

He’d spent a bit of time inside after dipping in to his trust fund.

It’s not easy being a lawyer – so many temptations.

Of course that won’t be an issue for Slippery Pete now – no more lawyering for him after this.

Handing down a sentence which requires him to pay the Commonwealth back its $954 as well as complete 300 hours community service and be of good behaviour for the next two years, Chief Magistrate Lorraine Walker pointed out that he had held one of the highest political positions in the country, and had breached a trust.

Her Honour also noted that Mr. Slipper had shown no remorse for his offences apart from the shattering effect of his public humiliation.

Apparently Pete overlooked the “public” part of public life.

I would argue that someone in his position should expect scrutiny, especially when they do the wrong thing.

Lawyers tend to be somewhat inconsistent when it comes to their clients and news coverage.

For every defence lawyer arguing their client has suffered and deserves to be cut some slack after the going over they’ve had I bet I can show you another one who is busily trying to manipulate the dreaded media to get their side of the argument across before court proceedings commence.

I know they’re trained to be opportunists and play the system as hard as they can, but the hypocrisy does get tiresome, especially when it comes coated with a thick layer of sanctimony.
I don’t agree that media exposure of criminal activity constitutes a hardship which should mitigate punishment.

Are we to accept that Peter Slipper suffered more because he had farther to fall from grace than most of us?
It was argued on his behalf that he was a pathetic figure.

Poor pathetic privileged Pete.

Couldn’t it be equally argued that because of the lofty heights he’d managed to climb he should be held to a higher standard than lesser mortals?

Should his punishment be all the greater because of the expectations we (presumably) have of our representatives in high office?

At the very least should his punishment be a warning to others who are supposed to serve the public good, not rort the public purse.

Of course we can then ask whether anyone so arrogant, so filled with a sense of entitlement or so just plain stupid would take notice.

Right now this minute I guarantee there are conspiracy types who will want you to believe the system went soft on Slipper because if it squeezed too hard, how much more might he have to say (to the embarrassment of all).

I think the way Peter Slipper behaved was disgraceful but above all foolish in the extreme.

In the end I don’t think there would be any good purpose served by sending him to gaol.

So it’s in to the history books for you Pete.

By the way, speaking of which can we expect a tell all bio?

Of course you’re not allowed to profit from your crimes.

But with only three hundred hours of community service over two years and no legal practice to pursue you should have plenty of time on your hands.

Perhaps you could find a ghost writer who’ll do it as a roman a clef and then we could all try to guess who it was really about.

That is presuming we could be persuaded to believe someone could throw away so much for so little.

*Update: The saga continues – Peter Slipper has lodged an appeal against his conviction

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
22 Responses to
Poor privileged Pete
HenryBG 12:34 pm 27 Sep 14

justin heywood said :

Amid all the backstabbing, shallowness, hollow rhetoric and general dishonesty at the very top of Federal Labor, revealed in the recent memoirs of Rudd, Gillard and Swan, (not counting the eye-popping ego and vanity shown in the ‘diary’ of Bob Carr), Slipper was an entirely appropriate character to appoint as speaker in the former government.

Slipper, mate of Abbott’s and member of his Liberal Party.

I am constantly amused by these ridiculous attempts to cast Slipper as some kind of ALP crook, when it was the Liberals that gave him his seat in parliament.

Not sure why Justin is on about “dishonesty” on the part of the last government, I don’t remember any of that, but we have had a great demonstration of utter puking lies from the new government. Dozens of broken promises, pathetic lies about a “budget emergency” more lies about a “great big debt”, failure to attend the climate summit, and wanton mismanagement of the economy which economists are predicting will cause a big slow down next year and a 20% reduction in the value of the Aussie dollar.

dungfungus 10:44 am 27 Sep 14

JC said :

MERC600 said :

And secondly, this is a Labour town.

What’s that got to do with it considering Slipper was a Liebral turned independent.

The thing that sh$ts me to tears with this is the excessive cost of the whole process, read it was over $3m for $1000. And secondly there were others who were up to no good who were given the opportunity to repent their sins but not Slipper. Whole lot is way out of proportion with the crime.

I think we will all agree that Slippery Pete’s spending was “way out of proportion” with the use of the taxpayers’ money:
http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/news/slipper-says-his-travel-costs-within-guidelines-mp/714677/
Justice must also appear to have been done.

justin heywood 11:35 pm 26 Sep 14

Amid all the backstabbing, shallowness, hollow rhetoric and general dishonesty at the very top of Federal Labor, revealed in the recent memoirs of Rudd, Gillard and Swan, (not counting the eye-popping ego and vanity shown in the ‘diary’ of Bob Carr), Slipper was an entirely appropriate character to appoint as speaker in the former government.

gazket 10:05 pm 26 Sep 14

old slip dawg

JC 9:22 pm 26 Sep 14

MERC600 said :

And secondly, this is a Labour town.

What’s that got to do with it considering Slipper was a Liebral turned independent.

The thing that sh$ts me to tears with this is the excessive cost of the whole process, read it was over $3m for $1000. And secondly there were others who were up to no good who were given the opportunity to repent their sins but not Slipper. Whole lot is way out of proportion with the crime.

Mike Jeffreys 12:46 pm 26 Sep 14

Update 2: In case you haven’t already seen this elsewhere – Mr. Slipper may abandon his appeal… http://bit.ly/1roLlx2

dungfungus 8:51 am 26 Sep 14

pommyb said :

Didn’t he offer to repay the expenses but was denied the opportunity? I recall that when Abbott made “an error” with his parliamentary expenses he was able to repay it with no fuss, no fanfare and no criminal proceedings.

Funny smell round here……

I think you will find that Slipper was given the opportunity to repay a lot of other expenses he wasn’t entitled to but neglected to repay the ones that he was sent to trial on.

dungfungus 8:48 am 26 Sep 14

liability said :

dungfungus said :

Can someone explain to me why this matter was heard in the ACT Magistrates Court when the offences occurred in NSW?

The offence was not committed because he was being driven around NSW, but rather when he filed the cab vouchers in parliament house.

I thought of this also but years ago I was a witness in a fraud matter involving falsified finance contracts.
The settlement cheques were received by the accused in the ACT and then banked across the border in NSW. The trial was held in a NSW district court and at the end of the trial the defendant’s legal counsel approached the presiding judge and pointed out that as the cheques had been received in the ACT the jurisdiction for hearing any criminal matters arising there-from would be ACT. Apparently there were precedents backing this up.
The judge deliberated for a few minutes, went into a rage and declared a mistrial. The defendant walked.
While the DPP could have arranged another trial in the ACT they declined.

dungfungus 8:39 am 26 Sep 14

bigfeet said :

dungfungus said :

Can someone explain to me why this matter was heard in the ACT Magistrates Court when the offences occurred in NSW?

If they are Commonwealth offences, I think the decision as to where they are first heard is made by the Commonwealth DPP and it can be anywhere in the Commonwealth. (Not sure, just a vague recollection from some study years ago)

I think these were Commonwealth offences weren’t they?

You are correct (thanks), according to a discussion I had with a lawyer last night.
Are you still in Jordan? How would Sharia Law have dealt with Peter Slipper’s crimes?

pommyb 7:07 am 26 Sep 14

Didn’t he offer to repay the expenses but was denied the opportunity? I recall that when Abbott made “an error” with his parliamentary expenses he was able to repay it with no fuss, no fanfare and no criminal proceedings.

Funny smell round here……

bigfeet 11:56 pm 25 Sep 14

dungfungus said :

Can someone explain to me why this matter was heard in the ACT Magistrates Court when the offences occurred in NSW?

If they are Commonwealth offences, I think the decision as to where they are first heard is made by the Commonwealth DPP and it can be anywhere in the Commonwealth. (Not sure, just a vague recollection from some study years ago)

I think these were Commonwealth offences weren’t they?

liability 7:02 pm 25 Sep 14

dungfungus said :

Can someone explain to me why this matter was heard in the ACT Magistrates Court when the offences occurred in NSW?

The offence was not committed because he was being driven around NSW, but rather when he filed the cab vouchers in parliament house.

Pork Hunt 6:40 pm 25 Sep 14

dungfungus said :

Can someone explain to me why this matter was heard in the ACT Magistrates Court when the offences occurred in NSW?

Probably because Abbott’s henchmen couldn’t be bothered to drive to Queanbeyan to speak to the NSW plod.

dungfungus 3:43 pm 25 Sep 14

Can someone explain to me why this matter was heard in the ACT Magistrates Court when the offences occurred in NSW?

MERC600 2:16 pm 25 Sep 14

I did smile at how the interstate papers were saying how Slippery Pete could face time in the slammer.
Firstly I didn’t think that 900 bucks of ‘bad bookkeeping ” was worth time.
And secondly, this is a Labour town.

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