29 August 2009

The Chief Justice and the DPP

| CoolRhubarb
Join the conversation

What is happening over at the ACT DPP. In a decision published only yesterday, the Chief Justice wrote “The applicant does not seem to have understood this.”

The applicant was the DPP! Surely, our most senior law officer would not fail to grasp any point? Or if he didn’t, he would be more subtle in signalling his failure to understand?

Perhaps, the Chief Justice’s pithy words are all the more direct as current resourcing pressures at the ACT Supreme Court do not allow him the time to write anything but pithy sentences?

At least, we know what he thinks of the the applicant?

Join the conversation

All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments

I agree joy123, it’s not the DPP’s fault. There haven’t been enough murders, that’s the problem.

Step up the murder rate people!

This is not the DPP’s fault, that there have been no murder convictions, the law NEEDS to be changed ASAP!

moneypenny261211:18 am 30 Aug 09

I believe the OP’s rant is about a quote made in this court decision last week – R v Massey [2009] ACTCA 12.

Something to do with the trial judge suspending the trial until the prosecution lifts its game. The DPP lost its appeal against the suspension.

The quote attributed to the appeal judge is about the DPP seeming to think that the trial judge had permanently suspended the case, when in fact the suspension is temporary.

But the suspension won’t be lifted until the DPP fixes up a mistake they’ve made about the use of identikits, and also addresses the failure to thoroughly forensically test materials found at the scene of the crime.

Or something like that. Not as simple as Law and Order that’s for sure.

“The ACT has also not had a successful murder conviction for more than 10 years.”

That’s not the DPP’s fault. Funny how the judge can lay it on the DPP, but the reverse is unacceptable.

Malcolm. People + glass houses + stones…..or something along those lines


Lawyers drafted to help DPP overhaul
24/08/2009 7:15:00 AM
The lawyer berated by a Canberra judge over the failed prosecution of schoolteacher Tania Tominac on sex charges has been given the task of improving the efficiency and standard of the ACT Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Justice Malcolm Gray demanded that Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions John Lundy explain why he had tendered a ”great panoply” of sex toys when the prosecution failed to make any link between the alleged crimes and the seized items.

It was the latest in a long line of criticism of the office by ACT judges. The Director of Public Prosecutions has long been plagued by overstretched budgets and turned over more than 50per cent of its prosecutors in a six-month period last year. The ACT has also not had a successful murder conviction for more than 10 years.

Mr Lundy has been employed as assistant director under a short-term executive contract lasting almost two years and told to fix the office.

As a senior member of the executive team Mr Lundy must help implement the strategic vision of the office including 12 key issues during his two-year employment agreements.

This might help

“The applicant does not seem to have understood this” in itself is not worth getting worked up about. Unless you can provide the context i’d say this is a rant, and that you have an agenda.


Is there a link to any article?

understood what? i’m afraid i don’t understand this

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.