Home » Posts tagged 'Law'
Tag Archives: Law
British barrister beats woke Bar Standards Board
In 2021, British barrister Jon Holbrook was investigated by the Bar Standards Board (BSB) over a series of social-media posts. 17 were thrown out. It decided that one of the 18 tweets in question constituted a breach of professional conduct.
The tweet he got into trouble for was as follows:
“Free speech is dying and Islamists and other Muslims are playing a central role. Who will lead the struggle to reinstate free speech as the foundation of all other freedoms?”
The Bar Tribunals and Adjudication Service initially found that Holbrook had breached duty five of its handbook:
“you must not behave in a way which is likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the public places in you or in the profession”.
Having already been thrown out of his chambers, he was sanctioned by the BSB and fined £500.
Holbrook appealed the decision on the following grounds:
1. under the Equality Act 2010 which protects ‘philosophical belief’
2. under the common law and human rights law that protects speech
3. because the charge of causing offence and possible hostility towards Muslims:
a) sets the bar far too low for bringing either me or the profession into disrepute
b) is not set out in the BSB Handbook, is ultra vires and is not prescribed by law
c) breached natural justice as I was given no chance to respond to this new charge
4. because the procedure breached my right to a fair trial under article 6 of the ECHR and common law.
The appeal panel decided that Holbrook’s tweet had not breached this duty, and ruled that the tweet was not “seriously offensive or seriously discreditable within the terms of the handbook guidance”.
Full story: https://sterlinglawqld.com/british-barrister-beats-woke-bar-standards-board/
Recalling the infamous “Order me a f*&%ing pizza while you’re at it” incident — Sterling Law QLD
Background David Allan Baker had been charged with attempted murder and had sacked his barrister and solicitors on an earlier occasion when his trial came on for hearing. Baker’s trial was set to commence before Daubney on 4 June 2012, but the day before he again sacked his legal representatives and the matter came on…
via Recalling the infamous “Order me a f*&%ing pizza while you’re at it” incident — Sterling Law QLD
Brisbane Legal new legal blog
by Leon Bertrand
Dear Sandpit readers,
I have a new blog, which focuses on the law and related issues. It is intended to appeal to lawyers and non-lawyers alike.
The blog will comment on practical issues which will inform people of what to expect and how to deal with lawyers, the courts etc. Already I have a post about how you can help your own legal case. I will post about topics such as why legal fees are so high and how you can reduce your legal fees in the coming weeks.
The blog will also comment about various legal issues. Already it has posted about the law of negligence, disciplinary proceedings against lawyers and criminal law. Having practiced in a number of areas, I have a reasonably broad knowledge of the various areas of law.
So please check it out and feel free to comment. Any feedback, positive or negative, would be appreciated.
I would also like to thank Ray for some advice on the technical aspects of wordpress.
Fairfax just needs a murdered schoolgirl…
The report in today’s Oz raises an interesting moral question about the nature of journalism, namely is it morally acceptable for a journaist to break the law to get a story.
click for source
So after breaking to the ALP database in a flagrant breach of the law this troika of Age journalists are trying to suggest that it was their god given right as “journalists” to flout the law in pursuit of some “great truth”? Is it any wonder that the profession is held in such contempt by the public? The thing is if these three get away with hacking the ALP how long will it be before we have members of the fourth estate hacking the computers of ordinary citizens ? Of Bloggers, like you and I dear reader, just because we may happen to express opinions that they dislike? The laws that protect the ALP in this instance protect us all and no one should be exempt from prosecution when they get into our computer systems because they are “journalists”.
It has just occurred to me that Fairfax has taken such delight in the woes of the British branch of the Murdoch press in relation to the “hacking” scandal that saw one tabloid shut down in shame and journalists facing criminal charges and here they are with their own little “hack-gate” sadly for the general public there is no great heart string puller like the victim being a murdered school girl in the Australian example but morally is this act by Fairfax journalists really that different?
I don’t think so,
Cheers Comrades
Related articles
- Charges ‘attack on press freedom’ (theage.com.au)
- Mirror journalists held over hacking (bbc.co.uk)
Lord Justice Leveson’s address in Australia
I hope that readers can forgive me returning to a pet topic of mine but I found this piece about Lord Justice Leveson’s address rather interesting and I am pleased to note that he is saying things about the “new media” that Both Ray and I have been arguing for quite sometime, namely that its users have to be held responsible for the things that they write or say.
In the super-injunction example, the writ of the law was, perhaps, believed not to run against bloggers and tweeters. This is perhaps an example of the wider phenomenon I mentioned earlier: the belief that the law does not, and cannot apply to the internet. In many ways this is a pernicious and false belief: false because the law can be enforced against those who blog and tweet; pernicious because the idea that the law does not apply to some while it applies to others undermines the rule of law as it is inconsistent with the idea of equality before the law. Procedural justice requires the law to be equally applicable to all.
While Lord Justice Leveson speaks to the nature of the problem with the “New Media” he does not offer any idea about how individuals may be held responsible for the things that they may publish in a tweet or blog and while he does not go further than mentioning online anonymity in passing I am saddened that he has not made the logical connection between easy anonymity and the behaviour that it enables and encourages. personally I think that easy anonymity goes hand in glove with bad behaviour and that Ray’s suggestion that no social media presence without verifiable bona fides should be possible has merit for improving accountability and civil behaviour. The suing of Twits and Bloggers who have thought that they could ignore the law with impunity is something that we will see far more often in the coming years and we Bloggers will have to be eternally aware of just where the boundaries of the law are if we are to avoid litigation. Personally I have always strived to remain within the bounds of the law because I do understand that doing so is essential for the civility of social engagement, hopefully those who have thought other wise will be brought to heal by the evolution of the law in the way that it pertains to our ever increasing online presence.
Cheers Comrades
Related articles
- Leveson: Bloggers and tweeters must not be above the law (itv.com)
- Leveson warns journalistic standards could slip if bloggers not subject to law (guardian.co.uk)
- Leveson, Libel and Social Media (broadstuff.com)
- ‘Trial by Google’ the new threat to privacy, Leveson warns (crikey.com.au)
Legal Good time, Legal lime time, and Justice
One of my passions is justice and I suppose my view of what is actaully just is very much a product of my life experience and I expect that I’m much like most people in that respect. Unlike some on in the profession of getting Crims off so that they can minimise the consequences of their abhorrent social behaviour I don’t actaully have much time for the excuse that some sort of mood disorder like depression should be used as an argument in mitigation when they are being sentenced:
click for source
Even those with mood disorders like depression know the difference between right and wrong and really only those people suffering from mental illnesses severe enough to totally destroy their reason deserve to get substantial leniency for their criminal acts.
Perhaps the time has come to make it clear that such excuses are actaully just bullshit invented by the whores of the legal, profession (members of the Bar) who spend their time grasping at any reason to argue that their criminal clients should get a lighter sentence than they deserve, worse still are the judges who buy into such bullshit and provided the leniency sought by members of the oldest legal profession.
Cheers Comrades
Related articles
- Court mental health row
- Is It Really a Mood Disorder?
- Gitty’s View On Having A Mood Disorder
- BigPharma and Wall Street Profit from the Drugging of Children and Elderly
- Bipolar Disorder
- Mood Management
- Liam Jurrah; payback may be a bitch but there comes a time when that bitch has to be brought to heel.
- PKD and “The Highest Authority in Science is the Data”
- Hormones and mood – the first steps to feel better
- The Blue Factor
- Anti-social behaviour at the football
- The Sensitive Nazi
- Self-Centered Kids May Just Have Immature Brains, Max Planck Institute Study
‘They could have at least shot the tyres, not shoot at little kids’ well maybe not
"In a bid to halt the car, police opened fire, hitting the 14-year-old male driver in the chest and arm, and a passenger, Troy Taylor, 18, in the neck." Photo: Jacky Ghossein
When I heard about the shooting of two young indigenous “children” while they were in a stolen car I could not help wondering just how much time the police officers involved had spent on the firing range, two shot and no fatalities? They need more practice!
Ok maybe I should not be so flippant but what can the indigenous elders and community leaders expect when the police are faced with life threatening behaviour that saw the car driven at a pedestrian?
Surely this is an incident where (potentially) lethal force was both necessary and justified no matter who the perps were. Sadly real life is not like the movies where a car can be stopped dead by shooting its tyres out as one person has suggested in the SMH report.
Isn’t it funny though that all of our friends from the left will claim or imply that the reason for so many indigenous people coming into contact with the law and subsequently sojourning in one of Her Majesty’s fine hotels is a result of racism and prejudice rather than the fact that so many of the community seem to have a total disregard for the laws that govern us all.
Cheers Comrades
Related articles
The value of money when it comes to recruiting for criminal activities
More amusement from our learned friend
Just imagine that someone here fronts up to a group of poor lads at a bus top here in Australia and suggests to a nineteen year old that if they agree to work on a boat for one voyage and for doing that they would be paid a what would amount to a year’s salary for the job. Surely the first thought going through that lads head would have to be that no one offers that much money for a simple job unless there is something dodgy about the offer, Something like it being either a scam illegal very dangerous or all of the of the above. Frankly I don’t think that Aussies would be any different to Indonesian lads when it comes to accepting such offers namely that if their greed overcomes their good sense and then they get caught its hard to to feel too much sympathy when they face a very harsh penalty for the laws that they have subsequently broken in pursuit of that easy money. I felt that way about the Bali Nine and I feel the same way about those Indonesian people smuggling crew who are being prosecuted and jailed for breaking our law.
The sins in play here with these crewmen and with the Bali Nine are precisely the same, Greed and wilful stupidity and an irrational belief that they would not get caught. Now from an Australian perspective it is easy to say that the “10 million rupiah (about $A1000)” is not a lot of money but to do that is not appropriate; we must view the amount of money from the perspective of the young man offered the stipend. To him that is a very big wedge indeed. Sadly minions of the left like our learned friend thinks that criminals such as this should be given a slap on the wrist and then sent home with “I love Australia Tee shirt*”
Click for source
There is something sadly predictable about our learned friend’s argument. In the first instance he ignores the very long-standing principle that ignorance of the law is no excuse and that it should have no effect on the punishment received by law breakers. But further he makes the patronising assumption that because the chap in question is from a poor background has no concept of right or wrong and that as such he does not deserve whatever punishment the courts deliver.
Finally he cites, as an alternative, a very wishy-washy propaganda piece from the Greens even though it wouldn’t be in any sense a viable alternative. I suppose that it does show just why the Greens are so attractive to political theorists like our learned friend. They, like him, just love playing “what if” games based upon some “high minded principles” knowing full well that those ideas will never be put to the test in the real world.
Cheers Comrades
Iain Hall's SANDPIT 