Whilst he was found guilty of assault i can’t understand why he got away without a conviction. Assault is assault – no matter who you are. disappointed in the system.
CT have the storyhere.
But you who philosophise disgrace
and criticise all fears
Bury the rag deep in your face
For now is the time for your tears
It’s better to incure a mild rebuke than perform an onerous task.
Life was not meant to be easy
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know.
This affair has been a disaster for everyone involved. Like other kids in my class at school I know the background. I think the outcome in court would have been the same regardless of which jurisdiction it occurred in. There is no peculiar ACT flavour about it. I’m sure after all the controversy that had already occurred the visiting Tasmanian magistrate went to great lengths to ensure the outcome was precisely in accordance with the law and no special favours were done for anyone. From my knowledge of the legal system it is not unusual for magistrates to spare a conviction after they take account of all the facts and the unblemished record of the accused. I remember a few years ago a member of the local parliament who was found guilty of drink driving was not convicted because of his previous good record. Many criticised this decision but it was not irregular. It frequently happens to low profile members of the community but the media generally don’t report it.
Except for the fact that the CT article names Cahill as the one resigning over the incident. Not the one who’s name has been suppressed.
unfortunately i do know the circumstances and do follow the judicial system which i suppose makes the outcome less surprising.
The tagging on this story is a bit quirky – one tage, one person’s name. On a quick read, one could jump to the conculsion that the “public figure” might be the person named in the tag. We know that’s not the case, but this stuff stays up on the web for a long time.
Mods – is it too forward to suggest that perhaps you might want to rethink the tag on this one?
In the absence of truth lets make something up, otherwise known as a current affairs motto.
I reckon the girl was telling Rudd how if she was the stewardess theres no way she’d take that crap from him.
So what was so special about this public figure that justifies suppression of his name? or was it his daughter so his identity is suppressed to protect hers?
If you google for info about the decision, and the evidence from the victim’s treating professionals, you’ll see that it has been to protect the victim, not the offender. Looks like one very sad family circumstance, so don’t rush to judgment …
“i can’t understand why he got away without a conviction”
You don’t follow the ACT judicial system much, do you?
A myriad of reasons as to why there’s no conviction, doesn’t mean he was acquitted though
Stop treating the public like mugs and let us know who it is.
You probably don’t understand why he got away without a conviction because you know very little about what happened and the evidence given during the trial, the same as the majority of the rest of us. You may well be right, but making throw away comments like that is rather pointless. To be honest, the information released seemed to make the matter out to be minor.
I would be interested to know who the public figure was though.
Who are we “not” talking about?
Is Canberra's signature dish: