Agmates Editor Steve Truman writes:
For those of you following the “$10 Billion Carbon Case” NSW farmer Peter Spencer (pictured left) was back in the Federal Court in Sydney last week.
Incredibly Justice Emmett has turned the clock back to December of 2007 in moving to again consider the Commonwealths argument to have the case “struck out”.
In December 2007 the crown moved to have the matter struck out but Justice Emmett stated that Mr Spencer had an arguable case. Justice Emmett stated the same thing again in the next hearing on the 14th February.
Then again just last week (2nd April) Justice Emmet Emmett accepted Mr Spencer’s Statement of Claim and told the court he thought that it was a reasonably arguable case. At that point Justice Emmett stood the matter over for hearing on the 10th April.
Now in what appears to be a complete reversal Justice Emmitt stood the matter over until next month and will reconsider a renewed argument by the Commonwealth team of barristers to have the case “struck out”.
Peter Spencer’s barrister Peter King was less than impressed with the Judges complete “back flip” and requested the matter be transferred to another Federal Court Judge. Justice Emmitt would have none of it and the matter will come before him next month.
With the costs associated with fighting this case against the Commonwealth with its unlimited money and barrage of barristers and QC’s it is no wonder that no other individual or organization has been willing to try and argue this matter before the courts.
Bear in mind that Peter Spencer’s legal team has been before the good Judge all of these times just arguing for the opportunity to have their arguments heard, not actually arguing the case itself. Last weeks turn of events is a joke really - one that is apparently lost on our Judiciary, who it would appear make the rules up as they go along.
—————————————————————
Have Your say!
If a Federal Court Judge told you, “you have an arguable case”, wouldn’t you expect to be able to do just that - have your day in court to argue your case?
Leave your comment below or click on the blue word Comments to bring up the reply box.
Related Posts
- $10 Billion Carbon Case Advances in Federal Court
- Court Declares Farmers Have “Arguable Case” for Compensation
- Fight For Australian Farmers Property Rights Continues in Federal Court.
- Peter Gargan says High Court decision Means the end of all Magistrates Court
- $10.8 Billion payment to farmers to meet Kyoto Commitment.
Tags: Carbon Case
There is a real problem brewing for all Australians, and it would appear that our judicial system is part of the problem.
It appears that judges are very concerned about their positions, and rather than upset government, appear to dither about unable to make reliable decisions and are very cautious not to expose themselves by getting involved in situations which really need to be sorted out in court so Australia can move on.
The current governmental position is reflected by the published statements of Attorney-General Robert McClelland saying that “Government would never allow the role of parliament in deciding policy to be eclipsed by the courts” and “I can say two things: Australia won’t get a constitutional charter of rights and will not get … any form of instrument that enables courts to usurp the proper role of parliament”.
In addition we have the NSW Attorney-General John Hatzistergos saying “charters break down the separation of powers, they give authority from the legislature to the courts to determine difficult social and political questions, which they are ill-equipped to handle and for which they lack the democratic legitimacy”
The above references relate to a Human Rights Charter published in the Weekend Australian.
However this “attitude” of Government is very concerning, yes, they are elected officials BUT they do not have the right to remove the separation of powers, which they are hell bend on doing.
Secondly they have forgotten that government is for the people and by the people in a “democracy”. Government has forgotten what “the proper role of parliament” is.
God forbid we ever have a Republic without the protection of a substantial Bill of Rights. If simple human rights can’t be protected in Australia, what rights can??
The sooner the Australian Voter stops naval gazing and concentrates on these real issues, that will impact us in the near future, the sooner we put a stop to this government madness.
Media and leading politicians are taking the lead in flaunting the abuse of human rights in neighbouring countries, there are many human right issues of great importance on our own shores that are in dire need of attention.
If politicians and judges have such a hard time procrastinating over what is right and wrong can they not refer to the Australian constitution on which they swore to uphold for the people as this is still the supreme law, as it is gods law.
With anzac day approaching , and the legacy our forefathers left to future generation Australians is being fritted away and eroded by self indulgent self serving public servants, keep in mind the road you are traveling on , and judgment day will come.
In honor of the men and women who fought and died for this great country.
LINDA MACRI
G’day Linda,
Interesting comment? Perhaps you’d like to expand on the “many human rights issues of great importance” in Australia that are in “dire need of attention”.
I’m not aware of any “human rights issues” in Australia that even come close to what is happening to farmers / citizens in Zimbabwe / Tibet / Dahfor etc.
Perhaps can tell our readers what they are?
THE FOUNDATION AND THE EROSION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS IN AUSTRALIA, WITHOUT SECURE LANDRIGHTS ALL HUMAN RIGHTS WILL ERODE
G’day Linda,
Too type is capital letters on the web is classed as YELLING. All I asked you was to give us some examples of the “human rights issues in dire need of attention” here in Australia.
It appears that you are not able to give us those. Please do not resort to “screaming” rhetoric.
I have no doubt that Peter Spencer and other Farmers property rights have been infringed upon by State Government legislation (i.e. Native Vegetation Laws).
However Peter is perusing these issues in the proper forum which is the courts of the land.
All great Democracies must guard against the excesses of their ruling executive through legislation, regardless of the executives political learnings (left or right).
The people of great democratic nations have two mighty safeguards - An independent Judaical System and regular free and fair elections. Without both you are no longer a democracy, you are no longer free. I believe we in Australia still have both - don’t you?