So I’m not completely comfortable with the outcome, but at the same time we’ll never know how much pain or deaths were avoided by the interception of the drugs and stopping of one of the major Indonesian drug traffickers (albeit shot dead during arrest).

It’s a wistful thought of mine that perhaps the audit shows how incompetent and inappropriate Keelty’s behaviour has been, and upon reading the draft he’s been told by the gov’t to shove off now with full honours, or face the boot.

Now let’s see if we can get a credible person to head the AFP and restore its reptuation.

At what price? That of knowingly sending Australians to their probable deaths.

Are you really okay with that?

Ideally there would be some way for the AFP to pass information on the basis that those charged would not face the death penalty (though life in an Indonesian jail is not going to be much of an improvement).

If they had arrested the suspects beforehand (and getting a conviction would probably be much harder) its probable that the smugglers would just have found a bunch of other drug mules that the AFP did not know about.

The Bali 9 may have been all they managed to get in the end, but from the AFP point of view they wanted more of the network than that. In terms of credit/publicity presumably the AFP would prefer to do the arrests in Australia themselves.

Can you please read the following points closely Chris?

1) There has been no suggestion anywhere, ever, by anyone that the AFP should have let the suspects complete their smuggling mission, take their cut and go free.

2) The information implicating the Bali 9 came initially from the family of one of the suspects in Australia. It was not an Indonesian investigation until the AFP decided to make it one.

3) The suspects could have been arrested in Australia before they left, or when they returned, and interrogated, charged etc under Australian law.

“Oh boy, some ingenues who think the court system is impartial & b/s free, and that it matters not which magistrate hears a matter, as the outcome will be the same regardless of magistrate?”…SATP@62

SATP, I doubt there is anyone here who would contend that the magistrates court, in any state, is perfect. However, they are just as critical as the police forces that bring those accused before them. If you have any evidence that a particular magistrate has been involved in “conduct” unworthy of their office it is your duty to report it to the appropriate authorities.

It is just not good enough to make snide suggestions about Jacqui Payne in this cowardly manner. She strikes me as someone both fearless and diligent. Either put up or shut up.

Can’t say I’m sad to see the end of him. Here’s a man who took the AFP and made it the laughing stock of federal police services around the world. And that was before Haneef.

“Ozzi/Aussie Street” – there’s no such thing, it’s one of those garbage concepts like “monocultural societies” that people drag out to support their opinion.

e.g. advocating fairer treatment of women within the legal profession, and treatment of women by the legal system – domestic violence springs to mind, sadly.

(Kudos to the barrister who gave a transcript Record Of Interview to the Oz. Brickbats to Ruddock who tried to interfere with that practitioner’s duty to defend his client, [necessary due to political meddling which threatened a fair trial], but always: “without fear or favour.”)

Nabakov, you got a real problem feller. Let it go. I haven’t had a point go wrong yet. It may get on your goat that someone squeezes more living into their day than you do in a month. Deal with it.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/ba198041/s16.html

(2) In assessing whether there is an unacceptable risk with respect to any event specified in subsection (1)(a) the court or police officer shall have regard to all matters appearing to be relevant and in particular, without in any way limiting the generality of this provision, to such of the following considerations as appear to be relevant–
(a) the nature and seriousness of the offence;
(b) the character, antecedents, associations, home environment, employment and background of the defendant;
(c) the history of any previous grants of bail to the defendant;
(d) the strength of the evidence against the defendant…

ie (a) serious crime alleged BUT
(b) good character; no criminal antecedents; no associations with criminal organisations, medical practitioner sworn to save lives; excellent background.
(c] no previous bail history
(d) piss weak strength of prosecution case.

Bail granted. “May it please the Court.”
(Gnashing of teeth in Canberra and certain pubs in perpetuity.)

“Suddenly I’m a feminist if I think it’ll cover up my point gone wrong.”

Cue undeliverable threats of physical violence coupled with strident observations that running a remote pub equips you with far more wisdom than anyone else ever. Followed by chip on shoulder dip and twirl.

For the magistrate was not a he, but a she.

Making statements such as “.. he did his job..” makes you.. er.. foolish. You don’t know the first thing about the way the magistrate went about her task. You didn’t even know it was a she. No matter what you come out with now, you will never have me believe you did anything but put fingers to keyboard without the faintest clue what you were waffling about.