Christian Porter

Remove this Banner Ad

Proper Gander said:
If I were selecting a barrister, I would be going for someone with an extensive history (including recent) as an actual barrister with a decent record.

Even the best attorney-general (and he is not it) isn’t going to be able to perform the role as effectively as a person with a spot of hands-on history
Click to expand...
If I were going for a Barrister I wouldn’t pick one who killed his political career by launching a legal case that made sure it was totally rooted and then claimed victory and then refused to declare which deluded bunch of crooks funded him…but that’s just me
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Going out whining, unsurprisingly. "Nothing is ever my fault" right to the end.

western royboy said:
“Rule of Law”….what a cretin
Click to expand...

Hide like an absolute Rhino.

Will go down in history as the Attorney General who set up and presided over a Star Chamber where Bernard Collaery and Witness K are concerned.

His damascus conversion to the wonders of the rule of law rings absolutely hollow.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Number37 said:
The fleas serve as a reminder.
Click to expand...

Ms Dyer feared Ms Chrystanthou would use “confidential information” from their discussion to help Mr Porter win his defamation case.

Last year, Justice Tom Thawley found there was a danger of misuse of confidential information received by Ms Chrystanthou.

During an appeal hearing on Wednesday, Mr Porter’s barrister Bret Walker SC argued the information about allegations against Mr Porter was no longer confidential and Ms Dwyer did not want them to remain confidential when she met Ms Chrystanthou.

“They were not intended by her to be kept confidential,” Mr Walker said.

“The very opposite.

Before the court was closed to the public for the remainder of Mr Walker’s address, he said he did not agree with the move.

“I also resist the notion that these proceedings should be in closed court, this is not national security,” Mr Walker said.

A decision on the appeal outcome has been reserved by the court.


Seems the Kate document circulated by whomever is not what it has been represented to be as the ABC, is now well aware.
 
Kwality said:
Ms Dyer feared Ms Chrystanthou would use “confidential information” from their discussion to help Mr Porter win his defamation case.

Last year, Justice Tom Thawley found there was a danger of misuse of confidential information received by Ms Chrystanthou.

During an appeal hearing on Wednesday, Mr Porter’s barrister Bret Walker SC argued the information about allegations against Mr Porter was no longer confidential and Ms Dwyer did not want them to remain confidential when she met Ms Chrystanthou.

“They were not intended by her to be kept confidential,” Mr Walker said.

“The very opposite.

Before the court was closed to the public for the remainder of Mr Walker’s address, he said he did not agree with the move.

“I also resist the notion that these proceedings should be in closed court, this is not national security,” Mr Walker said.

A decision on the appeal outcome has been reserved by the court.


Seems the Kate document circulated by whomever is not what it has been represented to be as the ABC, is now well aware.
Click to expand...

Argument at trial .... Nothing confidential was said, even if there was something confidential, don't/can't recall what it was.
Argument at appeal....It wasn't confidential because it wasn't confidential.
Oh and Jo Dyer doesn't like Porter...ooooh aaaaaah

I'm not sure which is more ridiculous coming from supposed great legal minds representing a client with a supposed great legal mind.



Kwality said:
Seems the Kate document circulated by whomever is not what it has been represented to be as the ABC, is now well aware.
Click to expand...

How you got that from that article is anyone's guess.
It's that same barrow you pushed a while back that it will all come out.


Why do you need to make s**t up?
It doesn't help Porter, all it does is make him look like an even worse vile grub than he already is seen as.
 
Kwality said:
Seems the Kate document circulated by whomever is not what it has been represented to be as the ABC, is now well aware.
Click to expand...
Perfectly highlighting your penchant for making vast swathes of comment on matters you are ignorant of.

Matters you have obviously not even bothered to read up on, but for the snippets of headlines which suit, which even then do not support your vapid point.

Have you read any actual background documentation relevant to this thread?
 
Number37 said:
You're suggesting the dossier came from, or was compiled by, Jo Dyer?
Click to expand...
He's just an idiot.
Not sure why he would even contribute with such a limited knowledge of the facts.
 
Kwality said:
'Was involved' in the document that was circulated.

Is that what Ms Dyer was so keen to not be cross examined over? My speculation that.
Click to expand...
She was a friend of the deceased, Kate Thornton.
She and two other members of the same debating team as Porter all supported her claim that Porter had raped her.

No she was not involved with the document.
Did she do her utmost to see that Porter could not worm his way out of his own admissions, blaming others and trying to profit from the lie?
Yes. She did.

Get your facts even remotely straight.
If anyone should be under the spotlight it should be Peter van Onselen, who a close personal friend of Porter, through his position at The Australian
attacked the victim claiming that her allegations are likely fabrications because she described episodes of disassociation, and read a book related to “recovered memory”.
The full dossier has been released by the court and there is absolutely no evidence or even claim by either side that the document is not 100% genuine and
the work of the victim.

Here is a link to the actual dossier containing all the allegations put by the victim, supported by at least three people, both publicly and in written affidavits.



The possibility of prosecution is still very real, and seems solely dependant on when the Morrison Government ceases to hinder.

Prosecution does not have to be at the request of the NSW or SA Police, although it is of note that the case is still formerly open in SA.
The former NSW Commissioner has left office.


Section 49(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) (‘the Act’) gives individuals the power to commence private prosecutions.

The section states as follows:

'If a person other than a police officer or public officer is authorised under section 14 of this Act or under any other law to commence committal proceedings against a person for an offence, the person may commence the proceedings by issuing a court attendance notice, signed by a registrar, and filing the notice in accordance with this Division.'
Click to expand...
Section 14 of the Act is headed ‘Common informer’ and provides that:

'A prosecution or proceeding in respect of any offence under an Act may be instituted by any person unless the right to institute the prosecution or proceeding is expressly conferred by that Act on a specified person or class of persons.'
Click to expand...
Criminal proceedings are commenced by issuing a court attendance notice (CAN) to the defendant that must be signed and issued by a registrar of the court, who must first determine if the CAN meets the required criteria. The matter could be halted at this point, though there is the option for appeal to a magistrate if the CAN is initially refused.

As well, the Department of Public Prosecutions (DPP) can at any time decide to take over a matter that started off as a private criminal prosecution, ostensibly to ensure any evidence is presented fairly. The DPP can also decide to terminate the proceedings, by issuing a "nolle prosequi" or “unwilling to pursue” declaration.
 
Kwality said:
'Was involved' in the document that was circulated.

Is that what Ms Dyer was so keen to not be cross examined over? My speculation that.
Click to expand...

Your fixation with this is bemusing.
Surely if it was material to Porter getting defamed he would have won even more convincingly.
But the reality is, he folded, quickly & without giving a yelp.

What is the accusation against Jo Dyer?
That she compiled a dossier?

Why didn't Porter sue her for defamation?


What is interesting in your fixation with all of this is that you have never raised any of these questions in relation to the leaking of Ms Miller's text messages in the Tudge affair. Isn't it the same thing? Isn't it the same thing as all the other backgrounding done by the Morrison govt?
It is.
And just another example of how your favourite fascist plays the public for fools.
And despite your continued howls of trial by media, Porter has nobody to blame but himself. The fact that he doubled down by thanking his mates in his valedictory speech just further illustrates that he still has no idea that he F'd himself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top