[LINK] lies, damn lies, and 31,000 pages

[Adam Todd]

Yes Roger, but smoke can be created by the desires of some to inflict 
humiliation or example upon others.

I know only too well.  Such as being put in a mental hospital for 21 
days without charge, then being charged with 85ZE, going to trial for 
9 months and then 3 years later having a supreme Court judge (Megan 
Latham) say in judgement that there was no such charge.  Maybe Latham 
and other Judges, and Magistrates, need to look at the law properly, 
not assume they know it all.

Now to mention that Latham also stated that the Mental Hospital did 
not have carriage of the application before the Magistrate to detain 
me longer than the legislated 3 days.  Does the Magistrate have 
carriage of the proceeding? If not the applicant?

It will save Government and Agencies serious embarrassment.

I can't even comment on this case, be it 31,000 pages of nulls in a 
document or what.  We just don't know what the key to the 
investigation was, what he's been targeted to what the evidence is 
and it's not fair to take only the side of the Media which reports on 
the Governments position only.

As you say, this guy might simply be the victim of a terrorist 
calling his mobile phone by accident, or his wife's mobile might be 
one digit different to that of the terrorist.

It has happened before.

It's enough to make you not want to have a phone.  Don't send 
letters, people use them against you ion court, don't make phone 
calls or receive them because you're guilty of a crime if you have a 
phone, lets get back to plain old face to face communications.  But 
then you're guilty by association.



At 11:09 AM 12/07/2007, Roger Clarke wrote:
>>Roger Clarke wrote:
>>>  And as for the Magistrate's behaviour ...  ('Oh, challenge my 
>>> independence, would you?  Well I'll need 48 hours to consider 
>>> your submission;  and your client can sweat it out, and you can't 
>>> do a thing about it.  Serves you right for being impertinent'.)
>At 10:32 +1000 12/7/07, Howard Lowndes wrote:
>>The last detention grant had the codicil that they couldn't 
>>question him during it.  I wonder if that still applies during this 
>>adjournment now that that grant has in fact expired.
>
>My understanding is that the law allows long-period detention, but 
>only 24 hours of interrogation during that period;  and they've 
>already used 12 (and apparently not got very far, even though he had 
>no legal representation at the time - which was possibly his 
>choice); and they're saving up the other 12 hours until they've 
>found more and can interrogate more effectively.
>
>I have no trouble with multiple, successive interrogations, and with 
>restraints on his movements, and on who he can make contact with. 
>The bloke could be completely innocent of everything except having 
>some ratbag relations;  but there's smoke around, it's an important 
>matter, and a careful investigation is fully warranted.
>
>But the law enforcement agencies appear to be incapable of providing 
>any evidence of anything.  Detention beyond 24 hours, without 
>justification using uncontrolled powers unprecedented in common-law 
>countries since the 13th century (possible caveat needed re 
>war-time), is simply repugnant to the notion of a free country.
>
>--
>Roger Clarke                  http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/
>
>Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd      78 Sidaway St, Chapman ACT 2611 AUSTRALIA
>                    Tel: +61 2 6288 1472, and 6288 6916
>mailto:Roger.Clarke at xamax.com.au                http://www.xamax.com.au/
>
>Visiting Professor in Info Science & Eng  Australian National University
>Visiting Professor in the eCommerce Program      University of Hong Kong
>Visiting Professor in the Cyberspace Law & Policy Centre      Uni of NSW
>_______________________________________________
>Link mailing list
>Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
>http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link