- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #376
It might be unpopular, but I can understand a little bit of where Hardie is/might be coming from. It's probably completely inaccurate from a legal perspective, but from a common sense position it is a question in my mind.
If the basis for the courts ruling is that the AFL contract of employment forces/compels someone to give information up and therefore there is no grounds for appeal - is there a point at which the basic legal principles (against self incrimination, confidential information etc) override the AFL contract. Or could you be 'forced' (in order to get a job) to sign away your basic rights just to get work in your chosen field.
Now - this is just from a very distant view (possibly involving the Hubble Telescope) - it doesn't take into account the fact there were lawyers present at the interviews etc etc - and there is probably a s**t load more to it...
And possibly I've completely mis-understood Hardies objection - but it has raised an interesting thought bubble in my head....
The problem is the Full bench couldnt rule for or against the AFL contract side of things, because it wasnt brought up at the initial trial, thus only leaving them to rule on the validity of the investigation.