Sunday, March 1, 2020

Andrew Bell, President, Court of Appeal can be appointed Acting Chief Justice NSW immediately to deal with judicial crisis created by the Chief Justice: Bathurst CJ's undermining Fagan J while promoting his own agenda not a one-off; Bathurst desire to insert himself in public debate damaged public perception of the judiciary' in 2017



                                                      Chief Justice Tom Bathurst will save us from ourselves-Tim Blair, Daily Telegraph,2017


by Ganesh Sahathevan



It was recently revealed on this blog that NSW Chief Justice Tom Bathurst undermined the authority of a brother judge of the Supreme Court, Desmond Fagan, by praising the work of the Muslim Legal Network NSW,despite the MLN publicly accusing Fagan of lacking fairness and failing to perform his role of administering justice impartially.

Additionally Bathurst seemed unconcerned that the MLN has on its website advice that can hinder the work of ASIO, Border Force and the AFP. That the MLN advice had been criticised by the minister concerned, Peter Dutton, also seemed not to bother the Chief Justice despite his duty to uphold the law. 



The Chief Justice's determination to insert himself into the public debate on immigration and jihadism has embarrassed the judiciary since at least 2017 (see commentary by Tim Blair in The Daily Telegraph below). His conduct at the MLN dinner in 2019 cannot therefore be considered an one-off. Then there is his belief in conspiracy theories, which seems to have led him to approve of the re-writing of the facts of  a reported decision of his own court. 


In the interest of preserving public confidence in the judiciary, Mr Bathurst ought to step down immediately. The President of the Court of Appeal, Andrew Bell, can be elevated to the position of Acting Chief Justice NSW while a suitable replacement is found.


END 






SEE ALSO 
Judges know best. They are more knowledgeable and caring than politicians. They are also more knowledgeable and caring than the voters who elect those politicians.
We know this because the state’s leading judge, Tom Bathurst, says so.
In a speech to the Opening of Law Term dinner, Chief Justice Bathurst declared it was the judiciary and not the government who can be relied upon to promote fairness and equality. Left to our own devices, and without the soothing touch of all-wise judges, Australians would apparently descend into rampant racism.
“It should give us pause that one of the most serious threats to the rule of law in Australia was grounded in xenophobia,” Chief Justice Bathurst said, much in the manner of his predecessor Jim Spigelman.
The chief justice’s speech will no doubt please that sector of our community which is essentially suspicious of and distrusting towards the majority of Australians. Bathurst reinforced this notion with a line about promoting equality, fairness and the rule of law “in spite of popular sentiment”.
Poor old popular sentiment always cops a bashing from the we-know-better brigade. This is frequently ill-considered. After all, popular sentiment led to stopping the people smuggling trade in our region – and therefore ending a murderous practice that cost around 1200 lives at sea during Labor’s six years of power.
Interestingly, the legal fraternity – those promoters of fairness and equality – even now forms a large part of the movement dedicated to ending Australia’s life-saving border security operations.
Chief Justice Bathurst reached all the way back to 1888 for one example of the judiciary’s wisdom over popular opinion. During that year the NSW Government ordered police to stop Chinese passengers getting off a ship which had docked in Sydney Harbour, only for the government to be eventually overruled.
The chief justice sees parallels between the events of 1888 and Australia’s current mood, at least in terms of then-NSW premier Sir Henry Parkes’s comments at the time.
Sir Henry is presently unable to respond, having been dead for more than 100 years, but we would submit that Australia has changed a great deal during the intervening period. We are now a multicultural, tolerant, educated and thoughtful people who are quite capable of seeking fair outcomes without being bossed into them.
If Chief Justice Bathurst would like to have more of a say in the state’s affairs, he is welcome to run for elected office.

Friday, February 21, 2020

The Muslim Legal Network 2020 Iftar :: Will Chief Justice Bathurst, AG Speakman and Gov Beazley be attending ,and again undermine Sup Crt Judge Des Fagan, Peter Dutton & NSW Minister for Counter Terrorism Anthony Roberts?

by Ganesh Sahathevan




From the Muslim Legal Network Facebook page 








Our Annual Ramadan Iftar Dinner does not occur without the support of our amazing sponsors. One of our gold sponsors and long time supporter of the Muslim Legal Network NSW is Birchgrove Legal.

A firm based in Sydney CBD, Birchgrove Legal have been servicing the community for many years, providing representation in legal, civil and a variety of specialist areas.

Find out more about the great work Birchgrove Legal does by visiting their FaceBook page or their website www.birchgrovelegal.com.au

We are thankful for their ongoing sponsorship



Wednesday, February 12, 2020

Will the Supreme Crt NSW next find that algo-trading programs had acted falsely, for shorting stocks before consulting company managers? Rural Funds decision has serious consequences for Australian investors, will prevent market from being fully informed, will interfere with price discovery

by Ganesh Sahathevan










Yesterday in the NSW Supreme Court Mr  Justice David Hammerschlag found that short sellers Bonita Research had issued false statements regarding their target the ASX listed  Rural Funds Management Ltd (RFM).The judge went on to describe Bonita's issuance of a report against  RFM and its shorting of RFM stock as "misleading" , "deceptive" and premised on information disseminated to the market that was "false".


Reporting the judgement the  SMH's Paul Kruger said:

Rural Funds Group achieved a comprehensive legal victory over Texas-based short-seller Bonitas Research on Wednesday, as the NSW Supreme Court found that allegations against the real estate investment trust were "false in material particulars or were materially misleading".
Bonitas sent RFG's share price plunging in August last year after it released a report alleging RFG's accounts included fabricated rental income and claiming the trust was ultimately worthless.
"I am satisfied that they knew or ought reasonably to have known that the statements and information were false in material particulars or were materially misleading. They did not care that they were false," said the judgment from Justice David Hammerschlag.
Hammerschlag seemed to have been particularly offended by the  fact that Bonitas did not seek comment from RFM's managers. The AFR  reported:

"Wiechert (Bonitas founder)  is no doubt a sophisticated operator. Yet, as has earlier been said, neither Bonitas nor Wiechert took the trouble to check with or enquire of RFM as to any of the matters which they broadcast. They had an obvious commercial interest in depressing the price. I have no difficulty in concluding that they did not care whether what they were saying was false."


However, Bonitas based their work on RFM's audited financial statements. That the Supreme Court NSW requires researchers and analysts to consult with company managers and directors  about what they mean by their representations in their audited financial statements is ridiculous; the investing public are meant to rely on those statements as the final word on a company's health.

Short sellers in particular have an important role to play in price discovery, issuing negative reports in markets where buy-side research dominates. In fact, Bonitas report forced RFM to issue additional statements, which further informed the market.

Hammerschlag's decision will consequently interfere with the free flow of market information, and with market efficiency. It is investors who will pay, in the form of higher costs in the process of price discovery.

The decision is also at odds with what is becoming, here in Australia and overseas, an increasingly automated market. 
One wonders what Hammerschlag and his fellow judges at the Supreme Court NSW might make of algorithmic share traders, who can short stocks based on signals which can include financial statement ratios,which can be adjusted accordingly depending on the weight assigned to the credibility or. quality of what has been reported. The programs, as one would expect, do not first invite company managers to tea before executing their cold and merciless trades.

END 


Postscript

In his 2014 paper Turner  raised the prospect of sell orders executed by algorithmic trading platforms  being found to be defamatory publication: 


Computer-generated practices such as automated search engines present new challenges that the law will need to meet. An important development in this respect is the emergence of algorithmic share trading. It not only challenges orthodox conceptualisations of shareholders and their behavior, but provokes difficulties in identifying an intention in specific acts of share trading for the purpose of corporate regulation. Justice Beach’s derivation of an intention in Trkulja indicates one way in which company law could develop in regulating the conduct of algorithmic share traders.

Sunday, February 9, 2020

Muslim Legal Network accused Sup Crt Judge Fagan of lacking fairness, failing to perform his role of administering justice impartially: Soon after his Chief Justice Tom Bathurst praised MLN for upholding the rule of law :" doing a good job, cannot see how you can do it better"


by Ganesh Sahathevan

The video excerpt above has been extracted  from the Muslim Legal Network's Facebook page. While the 2019 Iftar Dinner was held in May, the video at this link was only uploaded in November:





MLN (NSW) Iftar 2019 Highlights
If you missed out on attending our Ramadan Iftar Dinner earlier this year, dont miss out on this highlights ree


Chief Justice Tom Bathurst's words of praise for the MLN are intriguing given this attack on his bother Supreme Court judge, Desmond Fagan: 
“We and various other organisations have made it clear that the comments by his Honour *Judge Desmond Fagan)  were disappointing to say the least,” said Muslim Legal Network NSW president Sarah Khan. “The role of the judiciary is one of impartiality and fairness, and justice should be seen to be done.”

The position of the network that represents Australian Muslim legal practitioners is that Justice Fagan failed to perform his role of administering justice impartially, and rather, conflated crime and religion. And it warned this could lead to further Islamophobic attacks.

The context of the above statements is explained (in part) in the article below, bot that is not really relevant. In most jurisdictions that type of comment from lawyers would be considered a subversion of the judicial system.Lawyers can expect penalties to be imposed, by the courts and their respective professional bodies.
Not it seems in the eyes of Chief Justice Thomas Francis Bathurst, who has recently given a speech in which he expressed some difficulty in discerning community standards.
END 

  • BLOG
  • SUPREME COURT JUSTICE CRITICISED FOR DIVISIVE REMARKS ABOUT ISLAM

Supreme Court Justice Criticised for Divisive Remarks About Islam

15/02/2019 BY PAUL GREGOIRE
Supreme Court JusticeRemarks made by NSW Supreme Court Justice Desmond Fagan in relation to the interpretation of “hostile passages” in the Quran have caused outrage amongst the local Muslim community, as well as sparked calls from the NSW legal profession for greater understanding of Islam.


Justice Fagan said on the 31 January that a number of NSW and Victorian cases reveal that terrorists rely on Quranic verses “to support an Islamic duty of religious violence”. And unless “Australian Muslims who wish to live in peace” denounce these particular verses, this will continue.

“If Islam accepts the entire Quran as Allah’s eternal instruction to believers, without explicit repudiation of verses which ordain intolerance, violence and domination,” Mr Fagan posited, “that unqualified acceptance will embolden terrorists”.

The Supreme Court justice further claimed that it was beyond the reach of the courts and law enforcement to prove “terrorists’ perceived obligation of jihad” is false, so it’s up to Australian Muslims to assert that the violence inciting passages are “not authoritative instructions from Allah”.

Muslim group have stated that the judge’s conjecture about the religion they adhere to is out of his remit. And while he was present in the court to sentence two offenders convicted on terror-related charges, he wasn’t supposed to be casting doubt upon an entire religion.
Dividing the community

“We and various other organisations have made it clear that the comments by his Honour were disappointing to say the least,” said Muslim Legal Network NSW president Sarah Khan. “The role of the judiciary is one of impartiality and fairness, and justice should be seen to be done.”

The position of the network that represents Australian Muslim legal practitioners is that Justice Fagan failed to perform his role of administering justice impartially, and rather, conflated crime and religion. And it warned this could lead to further Islamophobic attacks.

According to the Muslim Legal Network NSW, “Australian Muslim leaders, religious scholars, community workers, lawyers and advocates have repeatedly rejected teachings relied upon to incite violence”.

Ms Khan further told Sydney Criminal Lawyers that her organisation “is working to find a solution to such narrative and is endeavouring to engage with relevant professional bodies in order to educate and discuss a way forward and better serve the Australian community”.
Conspiring to do acts

Justice Fagan made the remarks as he was sentencing Sameh Bayda and Alo-Bridget Namoa: the so-called “Islamic Bonnie and Clyde”. Last October, the pair were found guilty of conspiring to do acts in preparation for a terrorist act, contrary to section 101.6(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth).

The now 21-year-olds were charged with this offence – which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment – following the planning a violent street robbery of two non-Muslims that Bayda and two other men were going to carry out on New Year’s Eve 2015.

Mr Bayda backed out of the attack at the last minute. And the pair were subsequently arrested. Text messages that Ms Namoa had attempted to delete were retrieved from her phone. These revealed the recently married couple discussing how they wanted to carry out a jihadist attack.

It was heard by the court a fortnight ago that both Bayda and Namoa have given up their extremist views. Justice Fagan found their crimes were of the “low order of seriousness” and he handed down sentences, which meant the pair are now eligible for parole after spending years on remand.
Purported silence

During his sentencing remarks, Justice Fagan outlined that the countless extremist recorded sermons and articles Bayda and Namoa had on their phones quoted “verses of the Quran which unmistakably instruct the believers to undertake jihad in pursuit of universal Islamic dominance”.

The judicial officer went onto list various verses from the Quran to prove his point. And he then cited Dr Rodger Shanahan who’d explained that Islam is not only limited to religion, but it’s also a legal and political system.

Justice Fagan further explained that jihadist propagandists “consistently invoke belligerent verses of the Quran” to justify their actions. And he said the pair should have known that “Allah’s instructions” to attack those of different religious persuasions wouldn’t stand up in the “civilised world”.

And the judge concluded that “the absence of express public disavowal of verses which convey Allah’s command for violence”, contradict the assurances from the Australian Muslim community in regard to Islam being “a religion of peace”.
Mending bridges

A week after Justice Fagan made his incendiary remarks, a number of distinguished members of the judiciary and the legal profession went to the Gallipoli Mosque in Auburn to attend an Islamic service that marked the opening of the 2019 law term.

Law Council of Australia president Arthur Moses SC said at the occasion that it’s important for “communication and understanding of the Islamic faith in Australia’s legal profession and judicial process”.

And whilst he said he wasn’t “passing comment on any recent case”, Mr Moses said “the criminal actions of a few” must not be “used to unfairly judge, discriminate against or condemn a whole community or religion”, as, “ultimately, we are one community”.
Exceeding a judge’s duty

The Law Council president also commended the appointment of NSW barrister Bilal Rauf as the new media spokesperson for the Australian National Imams Council (ANIC): an organisation representing Imams, clerics and Islamic scholars across Australia.

On the day following Justice Fagan’s comments, the ANIC condemned them in a statement. The umbrella organisation said it was disappointing that the judge thought it was “appropriate to give a broader commentary on Muslims”, whilst sentencing two offenders.

The ANIC stated it was clear that in regard to comments about the “‘unqualified acceptance’ of certain passages in the Quran by Muslims”, Justice Fagan had given no consideration to mainstream and orthodox Muslims, who “categorically reject extremist interpretations of the Quran”.

“Of most concern is that the comments and opinions expressed by the judge appear to exceed his duty of passing judgement on the specific case at hand,” the ANIC statement concluded, “rather than judging an entire faith community and its religious text.”











































































































































AUTHOR

PAUL GREGOIRE







Paul Gregoire is a Sydney-based journalist and writer. He has a focus on human rights issues, encroachments on civil liberties, drug law reform, gender diversity and First Nations rights. Prior to Sydney Criminal Lawyers®, he wrote for VICE and was the news editor at Sydney’s City Hub.

PAUL'S

EMAIL

WEBSITE

ARTICLES

Friday, December 13, 2019

The case of Samantha Chong fits a pattern of Bar Council cover-up, and raises fresh questions for the newly appointed JC George Varughese

by Ganesh Sahathevan

Newly appointed Judicial Commissioner George Varugehse called for urgent reform judiciary appointment processes. While himself Bar Council President he oversaw that mysterious JV with the College Of Law Sydney,and refused to provide answers to repeated queries. The case of Samantha Chong arose when he was immediate past president of the Bar Council.,and when his successor Fareed Gafoor maintained the culture of silence.


The story of Samantha Chong arose six months ago and ought to have triggered an immediate internal investigation by the Bar Council Malaysia, but that does not appear to have happened.

That silence appears to have been exemplified by this email from the current Bar Council President, Fareed Gafoor, to his CEO,on the matter of the Bar Council's JV with Australia's College of Law:

Dear Rajen,
We can’t remain silent on this.
Abdul Fareed Bin Abdul Gafoor
The immediate past president of the Bar Council. George Varughese, was recently appointed a judicial commissioner. It was under Varugehese's watch that the College Of Law JV was executed, ended,and now it seems, covered-up.
As immediate past president of Bar Council when the events complained of by Ms Chong occurred  Varugehse has a duty to explain why her complaint was not acted on.He also has a duty to explain the matter of the College Of Law.
To not do so is to cast doubt on his appointment as a Judicial Commissioner.
END











What happened to my sexual assault case, asks former lawyer




Lawyer Samantha Chong wants an update on the investigations into the police report she lodged against a fellow lawyer.

PETALING JAYA: Former lawyer Samantha Chong is asking why it was taking so long to get an update on a police report of a sexual assault six months ago.
In a series of tweets to Inspector-General of Police Abdul Hamid Bador and Attorney-General Tommy Thomas, she said the investigating officers had chosen to ignore her, most of the time.
“Updates are hard to get. Do you still need another six months?
“Is this how you treat a sexual assault survivor? And then pretend to be surprised why most victims remain silent?
“Why the delay?” she asked in her tweets.
Chong, 34, had alleged that she was groped twice during a Criminal Lawyers’ annual dinner gathering at a hotel here in June.



Two of Samantha Chong’s tweets.

She then lodged a police report at the Sea Park police station against a fellow lawyer over alleged sexual assault.
She claimed that her alleged assailant, who was said to be drunk, groped her at least twice during the dinner.
Samantha who is in her early 30s, claimed she told the lawyer to stay away from her but he ignored her warnings.
She said the lawyer then became aggressive, used vulgar words against her and threatened her.
In her tweets today, Chong claimed the suspect is now happily carrying on with his life while “nightmares have been a loyal friend to me”.
“I’m tired of trying so hard to walk out from the shadows while you kept me in the dark,” she said, apparently referring to the police, adding that enough is enough.
When contacted, Petaling Jaya district police chief Mohd Zani Che Din said they would be getting in touch with Chong.
“We will respond only to the complainant,” he told FMT.

Rafizi's claim that "same 'rich elites behind VK Lingam involved in latest crisis " demands immediate action to eradicate the Malaysian justice system of the Lingam satellites

 by Ganesh Sahathevan  Pandan MP Rafizi Ramli has expressed fear that the same "ultra-rich elites" who were behind the VK Lingam s...