Tuesday, February 28, 2006
"Guilty Even If Not Proven Guilty": Ruddock
I was listening to AM yesterday on the drive to work, as is my wont, and I heard a quote from Phillip Ruddock yesterday that simply astonished me. He was referring to a guy called Jack Thomas, who was found innocent of two serious terrorist charges, but guilty of two more minor ones, of receiving funds from a terrorist organisation and of making fraudulent changes to his passport.
Seems that even though a man has been proven guilty, he's hinting that it's only because our legal system is too stringent, and he's guilty as sin.
Judge for yourself:
"The fact (is) that in relation to our legal system there is a very high burden of proof that has to be satisfied to achieve convictions and sometimes, even though people have been committed for trial on the basis that there is sufficient evidence to convict, juries find that on the balance, that they have to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that they wouldn't convict."
and
"But… and the important point to understand in the context of our law is that people aren't put to their trial unless a magistrate - in this case a magistrate did judge that there was sufficient evidence to convict of all of the offences.
"And the fact that a jury comes to review that on the test that has to be satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that they don't convict, ought not to be seen as some form of victory. This isn't a victory issue. This is an issue of protecting the Australian community, and terrorist offences are very serious offences."
WTF?
Seems that even though a man has been proven guilty, he's hinting that it's only because our legal system is too stringent, and he's guilty as sin.
Judge for yourself:
"The fact (is) that in relation to our legal system there is a very high burden of proof that has to be satisfied to achieve convictions and sometimes, even though people have been committed for trial on the basis that there is sufficient evidence to convict, juries find that on the balance, that they have to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that they wouldn't convict."
and
"But… and the important point to understand in the context of our law is that people aren't put to their trial unless a magistrate - in this case a magistrate did judge that there was sufficient evidence to convict of all of the offences.
"And the fact that a jury comes to review that on the test that has to be satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that they don't convict, ought not to be seen as some form of victory. This isn't a victory issue. This is an issue of protecting the Australian community, and terrorist offences are very serious offences."
WTF?
// posted by Cass @ 9:35 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
Ah Philip Ruddock. The man in charge of making sure our civil liberties are protected from overpowered legal people.
Thank god he is there protecting us. I feel confident our rights will not be pissed away. After-all, he ran DIMIA so well, and left it in such great shape, you'd have to be a cynical leftist fool to think that he'd sold his grey soul to the devil in exchange for a crumb of power.
Post a Comment
Thank god he is there protecting us. I feel confident our rights will not be pissed away. After-all, he ran DIMIA so well, and left it in such great shape, you'd have to be a cynical leftist fool to think that he'd sold his grey soul to the devil in exchange for a crumb of power.
<< Home
