Attorney General Nicola Roxon

Justice Rares hands down judgement countersigned by AG Nicola Roxon in the Peter Slipper James Ashby matter

Justice Steven Rares has handed down a summary judgement accusing James Ashby of abuse of process, his application being politically motivated and using the proceedings to defame Federal MP Peter Slipper. This is hypocritical of Justice Rares to the extreme.

Rares judgement is clearly politically motivated and he abuses his position as a judge to defame numerous people who were not party to the proceedings thereby denying them natural justice.

What Justice Rares says about Ashby and others (Click here to read Rares’s judgement)

I have reached the firm conclusion that Mr Ashby’s predominant purpose for bringing these proceedings was to pursue a political attack against Mr Slipper and not to vindicate any legal claim he may have for which the right to bring proceedings exists

I am satisfied that these proceedings are an abuse of the process of the Court. The originating application was used by Mr Ashby for the predominant purpose of causing significant public, reputation and political damage to Mr Slipper.

A party cannot be allowed to misuse the Court’s process by including scandalous and damaging allegations, knowing that they would receive very significant media coverage, and then seek to regularise his, her or its pleading by subsequently abandoning those claims.

Sexual harassment of anyone, including an employee such as Mr Ashby, is a violation of the person’s human dignity and rights. The Court must always be available for the hearing and determination of bona fide proceedings to vindicate and protect those rights. But for the reasons I have given, Mr Ashby’s pre-dominant purpose in bringing the proceedings was not a proper one.

Even though I have not found that the combination was as wide as Mr Slipper alleged in his points of claim, the evidence established that Mr Ashby acted in combination with Ms Doane and Mr Brough when commencing the proceedings in order to advance the interests of the LNP and Mr Brough. Mr Ashby and Ms Doane set out to use the proceedings as part of their means to enhance or promote their prospects of advancement or preferment by the LNP, including by using Mr Brough to assist them in doing so.

There was no need whatsoever for Justice Rares to mention Ms Karen Doane and Mr Mal Brough. He could have handed down the same judgement without mentioning them. Where is their opportunity to respond. They have been denied the natural justice that they would have received if the matter had gone to gearing as it almost guaranteed they would have been called as witnesses and had an opportunity to put their side of the story forward. As Rares says about Ashby “knowing that they would receive very significant media coverage” Rares also knew the same about his judgement and the damage it would do to their reputations.

Political Bias by Rares

In the summary of his judgement Rares makes no mention of the abuse of court processes by Peter Slipper or the government but makes plenty of mention of Ashby and others abusing the process. On a quick read of the full judgement the only thing he mentions is that one day Peter Slipper did not show up to court yet he makes extensive mention of Ashby and others abusing the processes.

At paragraph 10 Rares says “I also ordered Mr Ashby to file and serve points of defence in reply. However, Mr Slipper’s original and amended points of claim, when filed, suggested that Mr Ashby may have acted unlawfully in providing Mr Lewis and Mr Brough with photocopies of Mr Slipper’s diary entries for particular periods in 2009 and 2010. (I will refer to the amended points of claim filed on 26 June 2012 as “Mr Slipper’s points of claim”.) As a result, on 6 July 2012, I relieved Mr Ashby of having to file any defence or evidence until the moving parties, on the interlocutory applications to dismiss the proceedings, had closed their cases. This was to avoid Mr Ashby being put in the position of potentially having to incriminate himself until he knew the case and evidence he had to meet and could make an informed decision as to the course he wished to take.”

Rares makes no mention of the fact that part of the reason Ashby did not have to file a response was also because of the public statements made by several Labor politicians which Rares did raise in court at the time a few months ago. One federal MP was Anthony Albanese and Rares said at the time “Your client and one of the senior ministers in the press is reported to make similar allegations . . . Having put this on the table why should I force Mr Ashby to do something that may incriminate him.” (Click here to read more)

So why did Rares not mention this in his judgement?

At paragraph 11 Rares says: “The affidavits were made by David Russell QC, a former senior office holder of the LNP and one of its predecessor parties, the National Party and the Liberal Party, and Mr Harmer” Why does Rares mention the political background of David Russell. It has no bearing on the case. To me Justice Rares is trying to help smear the matter as being a political conspiracy. If Rares was being fair he would have also mentioned that the barrister who represented the government, Julian Burnside QC, tweeted on twitter last year that Tony Abbott is a pedophile. (Click here to read more)

Rares goes to town on James Ashby and others in his judgement, points out liberal party connections where he can and them abusing the processes yet avoids any criticism of Labor and Slipper abusing court processes and procedures. I outline the numerous times Labor abused the processes in a pervious post titled: “AG Nicola Roxon gives instructions to her subordinate Justice Steven Rares in the Peter Slipper / James Ashby case” (Click here to read the post)

Even if all of Justice Rares criticisms of James Ashby and others was justified, his failing to fairly criticise the Labor Party, Government and Peter Slipper equally shows clear political bias by Rares and I have no doubt he did this deliberatly to keep Nicola Roxon and the Labor Party happy and on their instructions.

In April I wrote a post where predicted a lot of what happened titled “Peter Slipper strikes it lucky and lands corrupt federal court judge Steven Rares to hear his sexual harassment case.” (Click here to read)

Rares is the fool who handed down a dodgy judgement in the NRL / AFL v Optus judgment which was overturned on appeal on the 27/4/2012 (Click here to read more)

Rares is a Knox Grammer Old Boy and Liberal Party appointment (2006) so you would think he would favour them. His problem is that he is that corrupt he has to do whatever he is told whether that is Labor or the Liberals and given Labor are in power they are the current master.

A court proceeding should only ever be summarily dismissed if it has no chance of success and clearly the sexual harassment case did have a chance of success just based on the sleazy emails and texts that Peter Slipper sent James Ashby.

There is no doubting James Ashby, Mal Brough and Karen Doane and maybe others have plenty of questions to answer about their own conduct but that does not justify the matter being summarily dismissed and James Ashby being denied natural justice. Nor does it justify Justice Rares using his position as a judge to defame Ms Doane and Mr Brough which he has done without them having an opportunity of reply in court.

If Peter Slipper has been totally vindicated by the judgement of Justice Rares then I am sure the Labor Party will reappointment him as speaker of the house immediately. Of course that will not happen.

I read Rares’s judgement quickly once and then started reading it again and it only took me to paragraph 10 to start finding political bias. I may update this post when I have had an opportunity to have a better look at his judgement.

The above case apparently will be appealed which one would expect will probably not be until after the next election or at least for a judgement to be handed down. I think that is why the government settled with Ashby for $50,000. Nicola Roxon knew that Rares would give them the judgement she wanted but she also knew it would probably be appealed and did not want it hanging over the governments head up until the election next year. Now it is only Slippers problem, not the governments.

I have written about Justice Rares a number of times and given how corrupt he is I would expect to write plenty more in the future.

Declaration: Justice Rares has his own chapter in my book “Love Letters from the Bar Table” where I write about his criminal conduct while on the bench. I have also written a post titled “How the Australian Federal Police and Federal Courts collude to sweep criminal conduct of judges under the carpet. Part one.” (Click here to read) where Justice Rares handiwork gets a mention.

Update: After further reflection of the judgement 15/12/12: Nicola Roxon abusing her position as Attorney General and Justice Rares’s boss and making the public statements she did is one of the key reasons it had to go to hearing. Rares’s judgement has left it open for many people to perceive that he at least might have been or has been influenced by Nicola Roxon’s public statements thereby scandalising the court and damaging the public’s confidence in the judicial system. By the matter failing to go to hearing untold damage has been done to the reputation of the courts. Rares knows this and did not care.

It would be greatly appreciated if you spend a minute using Twitter, Facebook and email etc and promote this post. Just click on the icons below.

And make sure you follow this site by email which is on the top right of this page and about once a week you will get an email when there is a new post/story on this site.

This site is fully funded by myself, both time wise and monetary wise. If you would like to support the continuance and growth of this site it would be greatly appreciated if you make a donation.

If you would like to buy a t-shirt or coffee mug visit my online shop (Click here to visit the shop)

If you would like to buy a copy of my non-fiction book on corruption in the Australian judiciary that names names visit my website for the book which has links to the online bookshops. (Click her to visit the website)

Thank you for your support.

65 replies »



    • What rubbish, Rares J. was an appointment of the Howard Government, but that is immaterial, His Honour dealt with the facts of Mr Ashby and other’s sms etc which speak for themselves read the whole judgment, the diatribe by the creator of the website ignores the fact there were previous judgments where the former Speaker and others were dealt with. I can say it is inappropriate for the AG to comment at the moment whilst the time for an appeal still remains, but for the comment that “the AG gave instructions to her subordinate Justice Steven Rares” is an eg of a comment by someone who has absolutely no idea how the system operates – Greg Harris Legal Practitioner of 29 years

      • You say “I can say it is inappropriate for the AG to comment at the moment whilst the time for an appeal still remains” which it is good that you acknowledge that.

        But then you say “the diatribe by the creator of the website ignores the fact there were previous judgments where the former Speaker and others were dealt with” Can you please point to the previous judgments where Justice Rares was critical of Nicola Roxon’s continued and ongoing public statements during the course of the proceedings which by your own admission are “inappropriate”. No you cannot can you.

        You say “but for the comment that “the AG gave instructions to her subordinate Justice Steven Rares” is an eg of a comment by someone who has absolutely no idea how the system operates” You say you have been a lawyer for 29 years, then name me one corrupt judge. There is corruption everywhere in society including the judicial system and if you cannot name one corrupt judge you are either lying or have no idea how the system operates.

      • Without splitting hairs, I think if you read Gregory Harris’s post in context, I think he is referring to criticisms in rulings Rares has made in relation to the Ashby case and not previous judgements that Rares may have made on other cases.

      • Both Gregory Harris and myself are talking about judgements in the Ashby case. Mr Harris at this point has failed to indentify any where Justice Rares was critical of Nicola Roxon.

  2. Shane, Ashby has not been denied natural justice, he still has the right of appeal, isn’t that natural justice? You seem to have one foot on either side of the fence. A great post by you, thanks for the links, regards.

    • There were a number of people defamed who did not get a chance to defend themselves.
      What are the Rules of Natural Justice?
      Natural justice comprises two common law rules which have been developed largely
      by the courts to ensure that decisions of government and certain public bodies
      affecting the rights or other interests of individuals are made fairly.

      The first rule is that a decision maker must afford an opportunity to be heard to a person whose interests will be adversely affected by the decision.
      The second rule is that a decision maker must be disinterested or unbiased in the matter to be decided. Bias is defined in the case law to include actual bias or
      apparent bias.

      • I know judgement says the case was brought with political motives but does it speak to whether or not Ashby was actually sexually harassed by Slipper. I don’t see any reference to this in the reporting so far .

      • robh, did you not see the texts Slippery Pete sent to James Ashby? Pretty clear case of sexual harassment in my view – and sadly, this judgement (so called) puts the move for women to feel free and safe to report sexual harassment back into the dark ages.

      • Don’t know about that Janelise . I gather some texts he sent were very crude and misogynistic but I am not sure if they were ones sent to Ashby and even if they were it is only harassment if they were unwelcome . i have not really had the stomach for the sordid details of their interactions so I don’t know what else was supposed to have occurred . Anyway I don’t think you need worry about sexual harassment cases generally as this was a highly political and it seems the fix was in at the start as Shane so wisely predicted at the start.

  3. Well , Justice Rares can’t be classed as being unbiased, disinterested or NON POLITICAL! Certainly the Attorney General, ROXON is guilty of all 3 claims as well as trying to keep her well paid job in ALP! Justice was not SEEN TO BE DONE in this case! Go for the appeal, Ashby, as Slipper is guilty of sexual harassment amongst other crimes.

  4. Rares J behaviour and attitude is well covered in your book. Has anyone asked him if he is or has he been a member of the ALP? Not that we would get a straight answer but in any case he should have recused himself. Roxon will refer the other corrupt ALP behaviour cases to Rares now, I suppose.

  5. Typical of this inept and corrupt rabble in power! Gillard and her old mate Roxon and many other LP mates have got their noses deeply in the trough yet again…and I like pigs….the normal ones I mean!

    This Rares character is another greedy pig cow-tailing to his mistresses in Gillard and Roxon to protect his rear end and his job with all its perks…what a disgrace….all-power to Ashby!

  6. Typical Labor,put the blame on the other side. They are like “Gloating Gargoyles.”I feel sick to my stomach when I watch them. I am sure the Australian voters will see it for what it is. That judge will be very popular with the Labor party in future cases.

  7. How inept is the media or should that be biased. The simple question to Roxon is, ‘if they never had a case, why did you settle’? And of course she needs to be forced to answer and not dodge, after all that is our money she gave away.

  8. I think that the core of corruption in the Judiciary, is that Judges are chosen by Whom???? By their merits ??? of affiliation??? or indications???? This is the point…
    The amount of Loyalty will be demanded when the occasions raises.

  9. I would have thought you would have this story already complete months ago, with just a few blank spaces for details like the date or time.

  10. I come back to those three words “Menace Harass or Offend.” These words appear to mean nothing at all now. You now can do what you like over a telecommunications carriage service

  11. i wonder had it been a woman giving these allegations against slipper would it have been dealt with this way. when i seen the report yesterday in the Australian i thought the same as you if he has thrown the case out why bring all the people who would have witness’s been nominated and to be chastised by this clown. this stinks to high heaven of labors hands all over it

  12. It was always going to end this way. Labor or Liberal or any other flavour, politicians are so corrupt and have so many skeletons in their backgrounds that they will band together to protect each other and their filthy system. Some will beat their chest in a disingenuous way to pretend they care about justice and the victims but is all a dog and pony show.

    It stinks from the top down and yet jails are populated mainly by poor people who don’t have access to these protective networks.

    Any suggestion that the judicial system is separate from politics is laughable when you consider who actually makes the nomintions and decides who gets in and who doesn’t.

  13. In order to gauge public opinion in this matter the mainstream media should conduct a poll on this judgement. The following question should be asked:

    Do you believe that the judgement passed by Justice Rares in the Slipper case was wholly independent and completely free from political influence or interference?

    1. Yes
    2. No

  14. Poli = latin for many, Tics = latin for blood sucking creature, politics?

    Did we realy think justice would be done, I for one didn’t. This smacks of labor control and intervention, and, as Shane had already stated in his previous post on this case, I agree with Shane, the outcome was predetermined to be thrown out by this biased and corrupt Judge Rares under orders of his bosses.
    What bothers me is it seems the allegations of sexual harrasment were never actually judged, which just indicates to me the end result was a for-gone conclusion. Where is the justice in this country, Mr Ashby has been denied a hearing for the sexual harrasment by Mr Slipper, which, as we all know, was well documented in the txt’s etc he sent to Mr Ashby.
    We as a public need to start making a noise about this type of goverment intervention and corruption into OUR political and judicial system, after all we employ them, we should have the power to sack them, and I dont mean by election.

  15. Whoever thinks they will see justice from this current mob of hypocrites have got another think coming, I have never witnessed such blatant corruption in my 75 years of life on this planet. Roxon’s exultation with her subordinates faithful obedience of her orders in trying to make the opposition look as corrupt as her and her cronies. It will not work madam, when you get your “natural justice” which you deny other people,I hope you do not become a car salesperson for I know no-one who would buy a car from you.The next Labor “saint” that will work away Scott free is Craig Thomson, then Gillard and the jails will still be crowded with the less fortunate who cannot afford to keep a judge in their pocket. I must get out my “T” shirt and show the world whose side I am on. Allan Mayalup WA.

  16. My understanding is that a case stands or falls by whether or not the accusations can be proven as breaches of the law. Your motive for taking the matter to Court is surely irrelevant in that regard? Political intent and desire for media coverage are surely irrelevant as well…..Where in the judgement does the Judge address the likelihood of the accusations being substantial enough to justify going to full trial? Nowhere it seems.

    Is this a Court of Law or an Opera?

    • my thoughts labor has taken over the judical system by stacking fancy ajudge lowering themselves to the level of pollies lets keep up the pressure thanks to shane ,william.

    • @K Edmonds: you are correct in your understanding, however there is also a concept in law called Abuse of Process that is there for a very good reason. This is to prevent people tying up the courts with frivolous cases meaning those with legitimate cases can then get the court time they need to have a fair hearing. Personally I think Ashby’s case should have been tested, but whatever the merit unfortunately Ashby had two motivations here. 1. A legitimate complaint (although reading all the txts made public, Ashby didn’t exactly discourage him at times, though that is what a court would decide) and 2. A political motivation demonstrated not so much asking Brough for advice, but involving the press prior to ever making a complaint or bringing an action against slippery Pete. Unfortunately for Ashby, Rares has decided that the abuse of process is more serious in this case than the sexual harrassment charge whatever the merits.

  17. Biased , sexist , human rights abusing , kangaroo courts of immoral opinion.They have once again lived up to my expectations.selective prosecution is dictatorship.

  18. As for the other highlighted cases of sexual deviants and excess currently in the public arena, the Legal Fraternity of Judges (Princes of the Law) only answer to, and take instructions from, their political benefactors (the ALP) in Canberra. Many are called, but few honest ones are chosen.
    The Rule of Law, as it has sunk in Australia, may be summed up as:
    Rule 1: His Honour is always right.
    Rule 2: On Appeal, rule 1 will always apply.

  19. Can someone save us from the corrupt Government ?who is useing the Judicial system to continue their communist corruptness. This Justice Rares is a gutless spineless Puppet of Juliar Gillard and Nicola Roxon, and the rest of the Labour communist Puppets.

  20. For a lawyer, it is most disressing if a attorney general of the commonwealth or
    a state should lower the office in the manner demonstrated recently.
    I would be interested to hear Bob Ellicott QC opine on the recent conduct as demonstrated.
    The Attorney General should uphold the principles of the administration of justice and promote confidence in the system. By getting into the political gutter and commenting, the office is none other than a political branch meeting.
    Recent reported events and public comments are possibly unethical and endanger our democratic processes and the necessary impartiality of deliberation in court processes.
    Hundreds of years of legal process are now questioned.
    To appreciate the ultimate disaster, read Ingo Mullen’s book:’Hitler’s Justice’.

  21. Reading the texts on M Smith’s web (before they disappeared), it seems that Ashby was baiting Slipper well before they fell out. This whole matter originated out of greed, for money, but had nil to do with politics until claims were made privately, and the wagon started to roll. I’ll bet there are few who wished they didn’t get involved. What a circus.

  22. Reading some of the posts here, and seeing someone “accuse” Nicola Roxon of being “disinterested” in this matter, I think it’s time we spelled out the proper meaning of “disinterested”. Disinterested means being fair, unbiased, and not having an interest in either side of the argument.

    Disinterested is what the Attorney General Roxon SHOULD be in this matter. It is definitely not what she is.

  23. mike,well if i had not been reading your posts for a while ,Shane,I would have said -you are a bit biased!-however having suffered under corrupt justices[Guiduce& Ross]under political instructions for 2 years[see previous posts]I have re-read and have this opinion.Although some of those mails do not make a clear case of abuse,the way the whole thing has gone ,leaves too many question marks to answer by those running the judicial System from the Att.Gen.down.-to answer.An appeal is likely but will the opposition want to ‘push it “now that this judgement has been made ?.As for unlawful,unethical and illegal activity -this labor Government has it in spades -and has had ,from the first day it was elected,the sooner they are out the better and there are a lot of judiciary that need questions asking of them to decide if they are fit to remain in the judicial system,merry xmas to all ,mike stone.

  24. While certainly not a lawyer, it seems to me that the findings of the Judge are based purely on a whole bunch of allegations supported by texts and emails. That neither Ashby, Doane or Brough appeared before the judge to state their case and be cross examined is a deficiency which is hard to comprehend especially when such a condemnatory ruling is handed down. It would be interesting to know whether the Attorney-General , Ms Roxon, or the Australian government Solicitor had any conversations with Judge Rares prior to his handling of this case.

  25. Is there any truth in the rumour that Roxon has appointed Rares to the high court? If this is true, the corruption gets more slimy by the day.

  26. Barrie Macmillan says “…. This Rares character is another greedy pig cow-tailing to his mistresses in Gillard and Roxon to protect his rear end and his job with all its perks…what a disgrace ….”

    Rares reminds of those of similar ilk laboring lickspittle-like cleaning up after the likes of Harry Lee, of MadHattir and of Ferny Marcos and of every other fascistic petty dictator — and of those less so, too.

    Just as the systemic serial criminal conduct of the ever-more — post the traitor, Whitlam — arrogantly-corrupt, Socialist-International-servile, ALP-activist-owned-and-operated and increasingly-authoritarian-regulatory Canberra-centralized bureaucracy/media/unions/lobbyist co-conspiracy becomes as-increasingly-difficult to distinguish from any other fascistic dictatorship.

    Current and/or past. Petty and/or otherwise.

  27. Shane , great response to the “legal practitioner of 29 yrs”, This will surely go to appeal, and is another example of Rares making determinations about an event he isn`t fully conversant with and obviously led by the nose via the A.G.

    Take a look at the savaging on appeal he received over his initial decision wrt the Optus AFL/NRL rebroadcasts.

    • And what happens if the original ruling is upheld on appeal? I gather the judge hearing that is corrupt too? And let’s just say that the high court grant leave to hear an appeal against the original ruling by a corrupt judge and against the appeal by I’m assuming another corrupt judge and the full bench of the high court still uphold the case. Are they all then corrupt as well? Sheeez some people just can’t accept the referees decision! If you take the time to read Rares’ FULL ruling Arthur, you would see that he was FULLY conversant with the entire case. Whether he should have thrown it out without Ashby’s case being tested is debatable but that being said, if Ashby hadn’t decided to involve the press in the first place this would never have happened and the case would have been heard on its merits. Going to Brough per se didn’t kill this; it was prosecuting it via the media that came back to bite him. Ashby may well have a valid case against slippery Pete but that doesn’t excuse the fact that he was also motivated politically and was out to destroy the remaining reputation that slippery hadn’t damaged himself. There are two different issues here. The harrassment case and Ashby’s desire to cause slippery maximum damage. Unfortunately for Ashby, Rares felt that Ashby’s vendetta against slippery was the more serious of the two. As for Rares being corrupt or “got at” by the PM, AG or Labor in general I have 7 words for all you conspiritorists ROFLMAO (rolling on the floor laughing my ass off)

      • Nicola Roxon abusing her position as Attorney General and Justice Rares’s boss and making the public statements she did is one of the key reasons it had to go to hearing. Rares’s judgement has left it open for many people to perceive that he at least might have been or has been influenced by Nicola Roxon’s public statements thereby scandalising the court and damaging the public’s confidence in the judicial system. Rares knows this and did not care.

        The reality is I know him and he is as corrupt as they come, but that aside what I said above stands.

        To win an appeal on the grounds of bias you only have to show perceived bias not actual bias. The question that needs to be asked is: Would the average person think that Justice Rares might have been influenced by Nicola Roxon’s public statements. I think most people think that he was posibly influenced at the very least.

  28. I deleted a few comments as they were off topic. I will do up a comment policy page over the holidays so everyone knows the policies which should make the moderation easier.

  29. Rares is obviously corrupt but I wonder what motivates him. I thought a judge would /should be completely independent or use his own discretion? If Roxon or other politicians are steering him, what do they have on him? Does he lust for power? No normal person would put their careers on the line for being corrupt!

      • Had a look and it looks like their all “in bed together” so to speak. Scratching each others backs and covering for one another and helping each other with their career climbing. I will have a another in depth look and see what else is there.

    • Re: Rares. When you believe you’re ‘untouchable’, there is no reason to think you’re putting your career on the line. And Slipper is finding out what happens when that kind of plan goes sour!

  30. His Honour Justice Hutley many years ago suggested that the rising ‘ethnic’ legal practitioners should spend 2 years studying legal ethics. (not a direct quote but his expression).
    It would seem that the tardiness spoken of by His Honour has reached the highest levels of the administration of justice. Perhaps His Honour has passed on, nevertheless it is incumbent on his students to ensure that his sentiments are enforced.
    The government should consider appointing an appropriate respected legal identity to the office of the first law officer of the Commonwealth. The US is having problems with AG Holder. Search him. Politics and the administration of justice are constitutionally like chalk and cheese.The public need the ‘cream’ in such an office for the public to have to have confidence

  31. Have to agree with H.W.S. Especially the last sentence. However, where do we find the “cream” to fill the office? Will we ever have confidence in our justice system again?

  32. having already posted early in the week the more that emo gillard and carr and the rest of those bunch of losers carry on they should listen to the countrys top industry leaders and get on with governing this great country of ours not mount a witch hunt that truly when you ask the average joe in the street doesnt know anything about or could care less. tony abbott should give it back to gillard and her cronies i am sick and tired of the way they belittle him and he does not fight back.

  33. “Countersigned by the AG???????”

    Is this even allowed in law in Australia? It is banned in most other civilized countries to make sure politicians cannot corrupt the Courts – are we demonstrating just how corrupt these Courts are?

  34. One of the most disturbing aspects of these findings is the interpretation attached by the Prime minister. Could she be accused of verballing? Nowhere within the judgement can one see the word ‘ conspiracy’; yet Julia keeps harping on the fact that this was a conspiracy. In the Canberra times of Sunday 16 december, Gillard is reported as saying ‘It is transparent from what the judge said that this was always a CONSPIRACY about the politics and consequently aimed at the government’ Judge Rares was careful in his choice of words and stated that Ashby, Doane and Brough ‘acted in combination’ – a very different situation to that of a conspiracy. Needless to say, the entire situatio according to Ms Gillard was attributable to Tony Abbott`.One would hope that there will be an appeal and that the current findings will be overturned otherwise the statement attributed to Oscar Wilde ‘that the law is an ass’ will have been ably demonstrated.

  35. My first comment here. Although I pop in and read every other day. Thought you might be interested, if you havent read already. Sunday Tele today on line reads ‘gillard government authorises Queensland Labor MP Graham Perrett to ask AFP commissioner to investigate Mal Brough in relation to Peter Slipper’s diaries. ‘ I guess they are hoping he will be charged. I say bring it on. At least it will give Mal a chance to defend himself from Rares J, assertions in his judgment. And as we know, Ashby’s solicitor is appealing, as he should. Keep up the good work. Will put up a subscription early in the New Year, after electricity bill to be paid. Happy Christmas Shane.

  36. How is it ‘just’ that at the same time as asserting that there isn’t sufficient evidence for this case to go to trial, Rares, without testing ANY evidence in a court, can publicly accuse, slander and defame Ashby and Brough in his ruling, under privilage of the court? It defies logic and is an insult to our collective intellegence! There’s a conspiracy here alright, but it’s not being driven by Abbott!

Leave a Reply to Goldcoast AndyCancel reply