Cole has asked for sworn statements from the Foreign Affairs Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister. Once the statements arrive, the assisting Mr Agius or any of the 30 lawyers representing parties can apply to cross-examine the ministers. All tonight’s news reports have concluded that this will happen. As noted last night, Jack’s defence against the terms of reference cover-up charge - that is, ‘Cole is free to find the government guilty’ - struck me as a touch rash. Effectively, Jack boxed Cole in (after Cole had offered up a poor defence in any event, according to Ken Parish).
3 Responses to “Dolly in the dock”
Leave a Reply
Please read the comments policy. If you would like an icon beside your comment, please register a Gravatar.
There is a Comments Preview function below the typing box which activates when you start typing.
whilst some cross-examinations may show up incompetence all Cole can report on is illegality.
No-one believes Dolly has done anything illegal only that he has been grossly incompetent!
I don’t think that’s correct, Homer: you mean “criminality” not “illegality”. As I understand it, Downer was required to enforce sanctions under Australian law through customs regulations.
Well, there could be an argument about what ‘illegal’ means, but I would have though the ordinary usage is something contrary to law for which there is a legal remedy - ie. either (1) a common law offence; (2) an offence against a statute or (3) a civil/administrative wrong (e.g. breach of contract, tort or administrative error).
If I were a betting man, I’d say that (1) and (2) are out of the question so far as Dolly is concerned. I’d be surprised if there were a statute that imposed a positive obligation on Dolly to personally do anything in relation to customs regulation enforcement.
This could be an important issue because once Cole finds that Dolly knew this that and the other, the question will immediately arise: well, what does that mean from a legal point of view?