Page 507 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 10 February 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
comments was that they had been charged. So his defence is, “They had not been charged, even though I said they had been charged”.
Mr Speaker, this is an Attorney-General who deserves to be disowned by his Chief Minister, who deserves to be disowned by his cabinet and who deserves to be disowned and condemned by this Assembly, which is why we have brought forward this motion today. As Mrs Dunne has very clearly enunciated, the right to a fair trial is fundamental to and sacrosanct in our legal system. Despite what we have heard from the government, it actually predates the Human Rights Act. The principle of the right to a fair trial has been enshrined in our legal system and has been upheld by our courts. The responsibility of public officials is to help the courts to uphold that and to ensure that a person’s right to a fair trial is not prejudiced.
This is a clear-cut case. Mr Corbell again leaves the chamber; he has spent most of the debate out of the chamber, I think because of his embarrassment over his statements.
Mr Stanhope: No, it is just puerile; that’s why.
MR SESELJA: Mr Stanhope interjects, but he did not put one word on the record in favour of this behaviour from Mr Corbell. That is the big story here. We expect from the Labor Party, no matter how disgraceful the behaviour, that they will defend themselves, that they will defend each other, that they will show solidarity. Whilst we can assume—although not from the words of his speech—that Mr Stanhope will vote against this motion, he was not prepared to put one word on the record in defence of this kind of behaviour. We can only assume it is because he knows that Simon Corbell got it wrong and that Simon Corbell acted in a way that has the potential to prejudice a case. That behaviour has the potential to prejudice the right of these individuals to a fair trial.
Simon Corbell went on the record on radio and television. He made a decision, and he delivered his verdict. The Attorney-General delivered his verdict that they are guilty, and that is the problem here. Mr Speaker, we see it in the basic understanding that members of the fourth estate have about this issue. Journalists—not the first law officer—are meticulous in saying words like “alleged” or “alleged offence”. They do not draw conclusions when there is a trial ongoing or when proceedings are about to commence about the guilt or innocence of an individual lest it would prejudice the case.
This is a clear-cut case. Mr Corbell put forward a four-minute defence. Remember that he was the only one who was prepared to speak in his own defence; the Attorney-General has not been backed up by his colleagues much here. We saw a spray from Mr Hargreaves, which no one quite understood, and we saw his Chief Minister effectively publicly disowning him for his behaviour. He refused in his 10-minute contribution to defend him. There was not one word in his defence.
We see in the QUT Law and Justice Journal that Craig Burgess goes to the very point that Mr Corbell raised. The prejudice is there because it is almost certain that proceedings will very soon be instituted. That is the law. It is almost certain that proceedings will be instituted. Mr Corbell thought they would be; he thought they had already been charged. In fact, he went out and said they had been charged. Now he
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .