Where to now for Justice Rares given his dodgy judgement in the James Ashby / Peter Slipper matter?

James Ashby has won his appeal against the summary dismissal handed down by Justice Rares in the Peter Slipper sexual harassment case. But we won’t be seeing Justice Rares again in this matter as would be the norm as Rares has already done a runner. It will now be sent back to the federal court for a new judge to hear the case.

The list of dodgy judgements by Rares is growing as I pointed out in a post when Justice Rares was appointed to hear the case back in April 2012 and I foreshadowed a probable move for summary judgement. (Click here to read)

Remember Rares is the man who tried to legalise Optus’s copyright theft from Telstra, ARL and AFL in 2012 which was also overturned on appeal by the full court only two months later. The reason it was overturned was simply because Rares’s judgement was that stupid beyond belief the appeals court had no choice but to overturn it.

In almost all professions if you keep on failing at your trade you are eventually kicked out of that profession. But in the cases of judges like Rares not much happens. The fools just keep on getting paid, waste more taxpayers money and damage people’s lives.

The former Labor government tried to protect Peter Slipper in his court case to keep his support the same way as they tried to protect the newly convicted criminal and former federal MP Craig Thomson to keep his vote so the Labor Party could stay in power.

The Labor Party did whatever it took to stay in power which in Slipper’s case meant making sure Justice Steven Rares handed down a dodgy judgement countersigned by the then Attorney-General Nicola Roxon. This was after Mrs Roxon and other federal Labor MP’s blatantly and openly interfered in the administration of justice by making public statements designed to influence Justice Rares which they did given his dodgy judgement.

The appeal judgement by Justice Mansfield, Justice Siopis and Justice Gilmour

The full judgement in the appeal can be read by clicking here Ashby v Slipper [2014] FCAFC 15. I have not read the whole judgement as it is rather long but a few key points in the SMH are:

Justices John Mansfield and John Gilmour said: “We are satisfied that the evidence before the primary judge did not warrant the adverse finding said to constitute an abuse of the court’s process on the two bases found and did not warrant the rejection by his honour of the sworn and unchallenged evidence of each of [James] Ashby and [Michael] Harmer.”

Justices Gilmour and Mansfield found Justice Rares erred in two central ways.

Justice Rares found Mr Ashby didn’t have feelings of distress and harassment as a result of Mr Slipper’s conduct towards him because Mr Ashby didn’t complain of it in text messages to friends.

In fact, there was other evidence, which could have been explored at trial, which demonstrated Mr Ashby was feeling ashamed and distressed.

Secondly, Justice Rares found Mr Ashby participated equally in sexually suggestive exchanges with Mr Slipper.

“A detailed review of those materials does not support such a finding,” Justices Gilmour and Mansfield said.

“The inappropriate sexualised remarks were conveyed by Slipper. Ashby’s responses were either to ignore them, rebuff them or attempt to change the subject.” (Click here to read more)

So why did Rares do a runner

When Rares handed down his judgement in December 2012 dismissing the case he awarded costs to Peter Slipper and the decision of how much costs was set down for legal argument. But Rares knew his judgement would be overturned on appeal and sent back for him to hear the case so he used the hearing for costs to get out of the case as Rares was getting a hiding on social media as he should have. His reputation was being destroyed at a rapid pace online and he had to jump ship.

I wrote in February last year:

“In an unprecedented move Justice Rares has slipped out the back door after handing down his judgement in the James Ashby v Peter Slipper matter and will not hear Peter Slipper’s costs claim against Ashby and his lawyer Michael Harmer. While this might seem minor sometimes it is the small things that can tell a story or in this case add to the story.”

“Justice Rares has been quoted as saying “he felt it would be more appropriate if another judge heard the argument over costs”. But that is it. The report does not expand on it. So why does he feel it is “more appropriate” for another judge to hear it. To me it is almost an admission that his original judgement was dodgy.” (Click here to read more)

Who will win the court case is anyone’s guess based on the evidence that has been in the media and maybe we will never know if it is settled out of court which is the most likely outcome from what I can see. But one thing is for sure and that is Justice Rares should never have dismissed the case and Rares knew exactly what he was doing when he handed down his dodgy judgement.

Please use the Twitter, Facebook, email etc. buttons below. 

And make sure you follow this site by email which is at 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 independent and reliant on donations to keep publishing. If you would like to support the continuance and growth of this site it would be greatly appreciated if you make a donation. Click on the below button to donate via PayPal or go to the donations page for other donation options (Click here to go to the Donations page)

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

Thank you for your support.

Tags: , , ,

15 Comments on “Where to now for Justice Rares given his dodgy judgement in the James Ashby / Peter Slipper matter?”

  1. BLUE JUMPER February 28, 2014 at 1:24 am #

    RARES., JUST ANOTHER RATBAG WHO HELPED TO KEEP THE LABOR GOON PARTY IN OFFICE..
    IT MAKES ME SICK TO THINK SLIPPER HELD THE SECOND MOST POWERFUL POSITION IN PARLIAMENT.
    WHATEVER HAPPENS, HE WILL HAVE A FABULOUS PENSION FOR LIFE.

    • MIK--------E February 28, 2014 at 7:36 am #

      unless we do something about it!!

  2. Linda Bennett February 28, 2014 at 4:02 am #

    Blatant corruption. As you say, in all other occupations, this repeated poor form would not be allowed. Judicials cause so much damage. And keep doing it

  3. Valerie Merritt February 28, 2014 at 6:24 am #

    Can’t comment on the court case as I did not follow it, but my understanding is that the liberal party were always aware of Mr Slippers sexual predilictions
    but only made an issue of it when he became speaker. I thought that it was obvious what Mal Brough was doing when he encouraged Mr Ashby to lay charges.

    • The Climate Realist February 28, 2014 at 3:25 pm #

      All the standard talking points of the Labor trolls throughout the course of the case. And to think you managed to quote them all without following the case. So obvious was Brough’s involvement hey that these judges specifically found that he had no involvement.

      • Valerie Merritt February 28, 2014 at 4:10 pm #

        Do I detect a political bias here?? People who actually worked along side the blameless Mr Ashby may see a more realistic picture. Not that I cared for either gentlemen. Mr Slipper’s behaviour in many other incidents is abhorent. Dosnt alter the fact that around the traps everyone knew why Mal Brough acted as he did.

    • Paul March 1, 2014 at 12:08 am #

      To be fair, Val is right, they did know. I can recall the subject of Slipper’s dodgy behaviour getting a bit of an airing around 2002. It reminded me a bit of how Labor tolerated Mal Coulston, until he pulled a number on them. Whatever Brough may or may not have done, the case still appears to stand on its merits, and that’s more important then any tawdry or otherwise politics.

    • enough of the lies March 1, 2014 at 1:56 pm #

      Read the judgement and you might think differently of Brough.

  4. Bill Thompson February 28, 2014 at 7:16 am #

    Hats off to you on this one! When I saw media reports of Ashby’s appeal win the other day, the name ‘Steven Rares’ immediately came to mind. At first, I wasn’t sure why I had made that connection but now I recall reading your earlier articles about this guy. Spot On, it appears…

  5. nottwistedyet February 28, 2014 at 9:33 am #

    Yes Shane, again you were right all the time.
    Of course Justice Rares should now immediately resign.
    and again of course he will not do that, he will remain on the public teat!

  6. Janelise C February 28, 2014 at 12:16 pm #

    How good it is to read that the “justice” system is capable of turning on the Old Boy’s Club and admonish one of their own! Bravo Justices Mansfield and Gilmour. Is this a case for Rares of “every little doggie has it’s day”? Happy for James Ashby – sad that he had to wait so long for his day in court.

  7. Warren Olsen February 28, 2014 at 1:15 pm #

    Hi Shane, pretty much with you all the way on that one. Justice Rares is clearly a dud and should be flicked. Got to say also there are quite a few dud politicians who should be flicked too. Regards, Warren Olsen

  8. glen February 28, 2014 at 2:34 pm #

    Shane great work on both cases ie Thomson affair and now Slipper/Ashby case.
    We need more people like you in being like the little terrier who just would not let go.!!

  9. GMan February 28, 2014 at 3:11 pm #

    Shane, I also have gone back over your previous posts re Rares and you’ve nailed this from the beginning …… I smiled at one reply that said 29 years experience gave him some right to rebuke you…..oooops another legal brain pulling the wool !!!!!

  10. kurt flahavin March 1, 2014 at 11:11 pm #

    It’s good that Mr Ashby won his appeal. I hope that the Coalition government investigate Nicola Roxon’s conduct in influencing Justice Rares corrupted decision in dismissing the Ashby matter. Roxon will go down as one of the most corrupted ministers in the Rudd/Gillard government. Roxon should never have been Attorney-General at all. Roxon helped Peter Slipper in every dirty way possible to stay in government.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s