I am amazed and grateful that Anne Twomey is doing these videos. Have wanted to hear your voice for a long time. Your expertise on constitutional and case law are revelational.
Our judges behave as though they are above the law. I really would like to see the American system where judges are voted into office. They have to answer to the people, just like the politicians those who make our laws. Why should the lawmakers have to face the people, yet those who enforce the law be virtually answerable to no one?
Thanks for explaining that. The media here in Tasmania just said it could be done with an old British law but didn't explain it. That was frustrating as he's still continuing to get his huge salary wasting taxpayer's money. I can see why they are now going to hurry up with the new legislation - they want to be sure it can definitely be done.
Thanks for terrific explanation. I think it would also help to inlcude reference to the process of attempting to remove Justice Vince Bruce in NSW where a motion was introduced into the Legislative Council by the AG (supported by the previous AG who appointed the Judge) - the Judge was allowed to put on a defence (in writing) and the motion to dismiss him was defeated on a free vote.
Yes, I refrained from discussing that one, as I was involved as the legal officer who dealt with the issues about how it should be done. I didn't want to trigger myself!
Another really interesting video Professor Twomey. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but Justice Angelo Vasta was removed by the Queensland Legislative Assembly in about 1990 for supposed wrongdoing, and he’s been the only Supreme Court judge removed by a Parliament anywhere in Australia?
@ The average person affected by judicial misconduct isn’t going to be able to achieve a parliamentary motion re s78B of the Judiciary Act 1903 but a person in a position of power or wealth could. This example is public and criminal one so the pollies are moved to Act on their awareness. A lot of judicial misconduct occurs in relative secrecy (think family court or FVIO matters….⚖️
Thanks for the class. We the mortal can end up in jail, why should be different to him? Apart from his position, isn't him a mortal as well? Otherwise, will have two different laws them and us.
He has not been sentenced yet. None of what I said about the process for removing a judge has anything to do with what sentence he will receive. Any sentence ought to fall within the same sentencing guidelines as apply to anyone else. This is fundamental to the principle of the rule of law.
@@deanpd3402I would not in general agree with you. May I ask what you would cite as an example of how it is compromised please. (The Commonwealth provisions almost exactly echo the English provisions on the removal of senior judges by the way.)
my observation on that is - from memory its requirement that judges be entitled to practice law - a criminal conviction would usually result in a lawyers practice license being withdrawn - so in all probability a judge would cease to be qualified to sit if they could not hold a practice license - the only analogy i can think if is Einfield but he had all ready retired when he was convicted but he was subsequently striped of his status as a QC and his practice license revoked.
I understand he was convicted of assault and other domestic violence offences. While that is fairly horrific, I don't see how it could be seen to affect his decisions on other sorts of cases.
@@Dave_Sisson "not only must Justice be be done; it must seem to be done" perceptions of bias impropriety or other misconduct have and will result in the overturning of a verdict or judgement where there is even a sniff of judicial misconduct - let he who is perfect cast the first stone - if you cant uphold the standards you cant be on the bench
@@Robert-xs2mv Well I don't have a law degree and have no ambition to be a judge. But your post sort of implies you might want him totally cancelled, all cases he heard being retried and all mention of him expunged from the records. Apart from it being impossible to retry every case he presided over, I only think he should be sacked and serve a few months for his domestic violence conviction.
If a judge cannot be suspended and/or removed until the appeal process is completed, what about those who appear before him/her and the possibility of injustice because of corruption/misconduct by the judge. It would seem detrimental to justice for the judge to continue to hold court.
Usually the most senior judge will control the case list, so a judge facing sanctions might not be given any cases to hear, but might be dealing with pre-trial paperwork etc.
Shouldn’t the question arise after the Judge’s sentencing, or appeal for that matter? For instance the Judge is expected to be given a community corrections order, and it can’t be easy to schedule sitting cases if he’s working at Vinnies or picking up rubbish on the highways.
One would hope that a judge with any shred of decency or self awareness would resign, understanding their position is no longer tenable. Sadly, humans tend to be blind to their own wrongs.
@@probablynotmyname8521 It would depend on the judge and the charges. I am asking a general question. The focus is on the judge and his/her rights (as it should be), but there is a larger picture that goes beyond the judge. I am very aware of the principle of the "appearance of justice done".
In the UK's House of Lords it had a Judicial Committee (now the UK's Supreme Court) as the final court, there was some talk of seeking to pass a resolution in the Lords to remove Lord Hoffman after he was found to appear to have had a conflict of interest in the Pinochet case. Nothing came of it. Usually in the UK, a judge who is in hot water reads the room and goes off and resigns (probably with a pension intact).
The UK is an interesting one since even with the UK Supreme Court, parliamentary sovereignty exceeds judicial review, so in effect the UK Supreme Court is another appointed body like the Law Lords were, that the House of Commons can override if they wish.
@@braytongoodall2598 That's true, but the executive cannot overrule the courts. If Parliament wishes to pass legislation overruling a judgement they are free to do so. That process and decision would be open to full scrutiny though so they better have a bloody good reason for doing it.
Hasn't Geason J already been accorded natural justice through the Magistrates' Court trial process? His case seems different from that of Willis, who (if I remember correctly) was amoved by the governor without any process.
well i think a different process for sentencing might make sense because he might be in danger if he faces any prison time but i imagne aussie prisons have rules for that like we do.
@DeepThought42 While he has shown early signs of a narcissistic personality , pugnacity, and arrogance, he might be persuaded to shove off because of the high cost of fighting on and the stench accompanying even a possible win. Anger management won't really help with this kind of narcissism, and while lying can be treated, it's never cured. G'day Australia 🇦🇺.
@@redmatters9318 I hope you're right that he will shove off, but the urgency that the politicians have now put on getting the legislation done tends to suggests they think he won't. The vibe I've got from him is that he's the type of person for whom finances will come before anything else. So, he'll cling to that huge income for as long as he can, providing it's fiscally responsible for him. Mind you some narcissists don't think too far ahead and forge on even though it's financially unwise as they always think they're in the right and will win in the end.
@@beauzo9965 The Monarch acts on the advice of the Prime Minister. Bill Hayden was a republican but was appointed Governor General. As long as the GG fulfills the duties of his or her office, it does not matter what opinions he or she holds.
@davidpearn5925 the location has no bearing. The most important institution for constitutional matters is the high court, where the high court is physically located is irrelevant.
Who gave him the position?The attorney-general should advise and both parties of government should have a discussion and tell the Governor general to fix it!
"The attorney-general should advise and both parties of government should have a discussion and tell the Governor general to fix it!" However, it requires an Address passed by the two Houses of the Parliament of Tasmania.
I don't care ,if someone uses there positions in power to subvert the course of justice they should be charged ,just because you might hold a high office job doesn't give you the right to break the law and especially a high court judge .that goes for politicians as well ,if the high courts want people to treat them with respect they should be held accountable for wrong doings .also these judges are paid for by the taxpayers dollars like politicians so they should be held to a higher standard .
But he was charged and found guilty. His offence had nothing to do with subverting the course of justice. He was not given any right to break the law. You seem to have missed the point of the video - or not watched it. The video was about the separate issue of the power to remove a judge from office.
iT SOUNDS a bit like the laws governing Ambassadors from other nations...They apparently cannot be HELD TO ACCOUNT on any charge..get out of jail free card
Since when have the courts been institutions that enforce the law of the land equally upon all members? The function of the law is to keep us suppressed landless serfs we have always always been throughout recent history. Instead of holding the executive account for war crimes they are complicit in war crimes, something we turn a blind eye to, as the last thing the public is interested in is the truth. Try and get a solicitor to defend you if you are a whistle blower, it is impossible. "The law has no mechanism for getting at the truth" Clarence Darrow.
The Tasmanian Constitution is not 'entrenched' (see my 'manner and form' video about amending State Constitutions), so it could be fixed by legislation at any time. There was a review process to do this, about a decade ago, and I was on a consultative committee to help advise it. We did the work, but the Government never went ahead with it.
Constitution Clarion As we eventually transition to a Republic who and how can make amendments to eliminate anomalies and tidy our constitution for the next century or more.
All changes to the Commonwealth Constitution require a referendum. In 1999, the Commonwealth Government took the odd view that it would only tidy up anomalies in those constitutional provisions that had to be changed anyway to refer to a 'President'. So bits would have been updated and other bits left anomalous. It was all rather odd.
How would a Registrar of the Supreme Court of Tasmania have authority over the Justices of the Supreme Court of Tasmania? I think that the Registrar of the Supreme Court of the State of Tasmania would be subordinate to the Court.
@@shellyaus The Registrar of the Supreme Court of the State of Tasmania would be the Clerk and Registrar to the Justices. When a case is received, the Clerk and Registrar may have the authority to assign the case to a specific Puisne Judge, or Associate Justice. However, the Registrar has NO authority over the Puisne Judge/Associate Justice, or the full Bench of the Court. It would be the Chief Justice of Tasmania that would have some supervisory authority over the Court. The Supreme Court of Tasmania is the superior Court over the Magistrates' Court of Tasmania. As Professor Emerita Anne Twomey has said, the only way to remove Justice Geason from the Bench is for the both Houses of the Parliament of Tasmania ---- the Legislative Council and the House of Assembly ----- to pass an Address (Resolution) praying that the Governor-in-Council to do so. The website of the Supreme Court explains the wisdom of having an independent Judiciary: "For a legal system in a democracy to work properly, it is necessary for: Law Makers (State Parliament); Law Enforcers (Police and the Public Service); and Law Interpreters (Courts and Judiciary) to be separate and independent. In Australia, there is a convention, which is commonly referred to as the doctrine of separation of powers, by which judges remain totally independent following their appointment. This independence is secured by certain legislative measures and conventions including: A prohibition against judges holding any other paid office; The fixing of judicial salaries by the Legislature, rather than the Executive or the Public Service; The provision that a judge can only be dismissed for misconduct by the Governor at the request of both Houses of Parliament; The convention that a judge should not engage in political or any other public activity which might have the effect of identifying him or her with one segment of the community as opposed to another." Source: www.supremecourt.tas.gov.au/the-court/judges/
Great video, Judges are people who also make mistakes. Retiring after a distinguished career in law is honourable. Dragging it through the unforgiving media is not honourable.
Still a colony ? Flawed though it may be in the face of legal wordplay , the 1857 act would seem to detail the negative and the positive in one sentence , merely separated by 'unless'. High time for a law reform commission to at least take laws containing the word colony off the books .
"High time for a law reform commission to at least take laws containing the word colony off the books ." Actually, the Law Reform Commission does NOT have the power to take laws containing the word colony off the books. That would be the sole prerogative of the Parliament of the jurisdiction that had enacted the law in the first place. In regards to the Supreme Court (Judges' Independence) Act 1857 (Tasmania), then only the Parliament of the State of Tasmania has the power to repeal that law. The Law Reform Commission's mandate is to recommend to Parliament what statutes should be repealed.
It doesn't surprise me for an issue that is extremely rare. You don't often see judges get criminal convictions, and many issues with laws aren't identified or prioritised to be fixed, or identified loopholes removed until something happens to reveal the problem. It's made me understand what a big job it would/will be to get our law sorted out if we were ever to stop being a realm of the UK monarch.
@@DeepThought42 "It's made me understand what a big job it would/will be to get our law sorted out if we were ever to stop being a realm of the UK monarch." Actually, the Commonwealth of Australia CEASED to be a Realm of the UK monarch on the Eleventh Day of December 1931 with the STATUTE OF WESTMINSTER, to which the Parliament of Australia ratified with the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 backdating the adoption to 1939. King Charles III reigns only as King of Australia over the Commonwealth of Australia.
@@ronaldmccallum2111 Very informative I didn't know that, thanks for that. I still see/ hear the term used all the time to distinguish the countries that still have the UK Monarch as head of state from other countries. For example, The Royal Family website refers to the 14 other (than the UK) countries that have Charles as Head of State as Realms. It says they are often referred to as "Realms" then proceeds to use that term Realm. I guess they do that, and the term Realm get used by everyone else even though it technically isn't correct as there is no other word to distinguish the 14 from other countries (especially the other 41 republic Commonwealth countries). It seems to be in common use as, for example, wikipedia calls the 15 (they include the UK) countries "Commonwealth realms" (as opposed to Commonwealth countries/members).
@@DeepThought42 The point I was making that each one of those "Commonwealth Realms" is an independent sovereign state from the others, and therefore, each Throne (Crown) is an independent corporation sole. Perhaps, Anne Twomey, Professor Emerita of Constitutional Law could expand on that topic here, or in another Constitutional Clarion video. Also, there are only thirty-six or so sovereign Member states that are republics in the Commonwealth of Nations as there are five sovereign states with their own Monarchies: Brunei: an Unitary Islamic absolute Monarchy; Eswatini (Swaziland): an Unitary absolute Monarchy; Lesotho: an Unitary Westminster Monarchy Federation of Malaysia: a Federal Westminster Monarchy comprised of nine subnational monarchies in nine Federated States, and four Federated States with appointed Governors. The nine Rulers rotate the Office of the The King of Malaysia,[2] officially Yang di-Pertuan Agong (YDPA; lit. 'He who is made Lord'[3]), is the constitutional monarch and head of state of Malaysia amongst themselves for five year terms; Tonga: Unitary Constitutional Monarchy in the South Pacific; For further information: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_the_Commonwealth_of_Nations en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_of_Malaysia
The law is so warped under the wig of legalese that it cannot function efficiently or effectively.The law is like an electric vehicle with an inability to fully charge,complex and unfathomable that no one can repair without it being scrapped.Too complex and expensive to fix a common sense vehicle is needed.
'Common sense' usually just means that 'whatever I think, is right and should be what's done'. But ten other people will think that it's common sense to do something completely different. The point about law is that it can be applied consistently and not depend upon the individual views of people. This makes it more fair. Relying on 'common sense' would mean that the same conduct would be dealt with completely differently depending on whose 'common sense' applied, and this would be unfair. There are good reasons to make it really difficult to remove a judge. This prevents governments from interfering in judicial decisions and ensures that the system is independent and fair. This is why the same or similar constraints apply in nearly all democratic countries.
@@constitutionalclarion1901common law could be regarded as natural law, but as the people are just free-range slaves these days a law including opinions of corrupted people will be corrupt
The the flip is the ''commonwealth constitution" ? Do you mean *The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia Act 1901* OR The Australia Constitution 2001.... Hmmm.
@@R0d_1984 The Commonwealth Constitution and the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 are two different documents. The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 was an act of the UK Parliament that passed and was given Royal Assent on the 9th of July 1900. The Commonwealth Constitution was enacted by clause 9 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900. The Commonwealth Constitution came into force on the 1st of January 1901. The CoAC Act is the shell that gave life to the CC, meanwhile the CC is the chicken that hatched from that shell. Regardless of all this, there is no “Australia Constitution 2001”. Sometimes the Commonwealth Constitution is sometimes colloquially referred to as the Australian Constitution.
Neither of the two purported Acts you cite exists. Perhaps you mean the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 - which is the British Act which contains the Commonwealth Constitution in s 9.
We need to become a Republic and begin modernising our out dated and ineffective political/ legal frameworks. It astounds me that the political class keeps the status quo so easily, but then again most Australians are more interested in whats on Netfix or there football leagues. Imagine dismantling lobbyland in Canberra ??? The Americans would not allow it to happen.
Yeah, we really need a system as corrupt and dysfunctional as the US. A system that has more lobbyists than any other government. We need legislation, based on bills that are regularly hundreds, and often thousands of pages, long. Pfft
The politicians are responsible to their funders, not WeThe People. Health, Education, Judicial and policing are responsible to regulations and regulators who are responsible to bureaucrats and technocrats. At the top its a very small group of participants, who are also not interested in We The People of Australia. ❤🇦🇺🪃🙏🥷✅️
I am amazed and grateful that Anne Twomey is doing these videos. Have wanted to hear your voice for a long time. Your expertise on constitutional and case law are revelational.
Thank you, Professor.
You are very welcome.
No one should be above the law.
Our judges behave as though they are above the law. I really would like to see the American system where judges are voted into office. They have to answer to the people, just like the politicians those who make our laws. Why should the lawmakers have to face the people, yet those who enforce the law be virtually answerable to no one?
Err the judge clearly isn't above the law.
Thanks for explaining that. The media here in Tasmania just said it could be done with an old British law but didn't explain it. That was frustrating as he's still continuing to get his huge salary wasting taxpayer's money. I can see why they are now going to hurry up with the new legislation - they want to be sure it can definitely be done.
Yes, passing a law to clarify the situation is probably the best outcome.
Thanks for terrific explanation. I think it would also help to inlcude reference to the process of attempting to remove Justice Vince Bruce in NSW where a motion was introduced into the Legislative Council by the AG (supported by the previous AG who appointed the Judge) - the Judge was allowed to put on a defence (in writing) and the motion to dismiss him was defeated on a free vote.
Yes, I refrained from discussing that one, as I was involved as the legal officer who dealt with the issues about how it should be done. I didn't want to trigger myself!
As ever, most interesting. Thank you for all the work going into these little treasures.
;o)
My pleasure.
Very interesting case.
Well with this conviction for Domestic Violence, he is toast.
Another really interesting video Professor Twomey.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but Justice Angelo Vasta was removed by the Queensland Legislative Assembly in about 1990 for supposed wrongdoing, and he’s been the only Supreme Court judge removed by a Parliament anywhere in Australia?
Correct, after Vasta J personally addressed the Legislative Assembly which subsequently voted for his removal
That was my judge! The previous one justice S Holt resigned! Unnecessary State Land acquisition treatment!
I suspect it is fat cats who made these rules to protect other fat cats. I wouldn’t like anyone who broke the law to judge me.
Thank you for your excellent summary of the issues. I was quite amoved.
Glad to have educated people about a particularly obscure word! You never know when it will be useful in a crossword.
The NACC cannot investigate judicial officers. There is no current method for judicial accountability federally
there is - a motion from both houses to the governor for removal
The NACC can't even wipe its own .....
Thank you so much for this , very interesting. Calm ,authoritative delivered you have a great mind, it shows. 🙏🏼🐨❤️🙏🏼D.D.
@ The average person affected by judicial misconduct isn’t going to be able to achieve a parliamentary motion re s78B of the Judiciary Act 1903 but a person in a position of power or wealth could. This example is public and criminal one so the pollies are moved to Act on their awareness. A lot of judicial misconduct occurs in relative secrecy (think family court or FVIO matters….⚖️
Thanks for the class. We the mortal can end up in jail, why should be different to him? Apart from his position, isn't him a mortal as well? Otherwise, will have two different laws them and us.
He has not been sentenced yet. None of what I said about the process for removing a judge has anything to do with what sentence he will receive. Any sentence ought to fall within the same sentencing guidelines as apply to anyone else. This is fundamental to the principle of the rule of law.
Thank you as ever. It is a shame that we do not have an equivalent RUclipsr for the UK.
As an Aussie, yes I agree. It is obvious that your judiciary is compromised and need investigating.
@@deanpd3402I would not in general agree with you. May I ask what you would cite as an example of how it is compromised please. (The Commonwealth provisions almost exactly echo the English provisions on the removal of senior judges by the way.)
You need to get a constitution before you get your own clarion 😂
@@alexjohnwarda common mistake. The UK has a constitution, just not written down in one place. :-)
So a member of parliament can be removed when convicted of criminal offences, but a member of the judiciary can not.
Imagine being sentenced by a judge that is convicted for criminal conduct?
Sure case for a claim of miscarriage of justice?
my observation on that is - from memory its requirement that judges be entitled to practice law - a criminal conviction would usually result in a lawyers practice license being withdrawn - so in all probability a judge would cease to be qualified to sit if they could not hold a practice license - the only analogy i can think if is Einfield but he had all ready retired when he was convicted but he was subsequently striped of his status as a QC and his practice license revoked.
I understand he was convicted of assault and other domestic violence offences. While that is fairly horrific, I don't see how it could be seen to affect his decisions on other sorts of cases.
@@Dave_Sisson why you never will be a judge, and rightfully so!
@@Dave_Sisson "not only must Justice be be done; it must seem to be done" perceptions of bias impropriety or other misconduct have and will result in the overturning of a verdict or judgement where there is even a sniff of judicial misconduct - let he who is perfect cast the first stone - if you cant uphold the standards you cant be on the bench
@@Robert-xs2mv Well I don't have a law degree and have no ambition to be a judge. But your post sort of implies you might want him totally cancelled, all cases he heard being retried and all mention of him expunged from the records. Apart from it being impossible to retry every case he presided over, I only think he should be sacked and serve a few months for his domestic violence conviction.
And he's still collecting 500k per year
If a judge cannot be suspended and/or removed until the appeal process is completed, what about those who appear before him/her and the possibility of injustice because of corruption/misconduct by the judge. It would seem detrimental to justice for the judge to continue to hold court.
I understand that the judge has not been hearing cases since December last year.
Usually the most senior judge will control the case list, so a judge facing sanctions might not be given any cases to hear, but might be dealing with pre-trial paperwork etc.
@@EdMcF1 Thank you. I appreciate your information.
No one is above the law.
Excellent, clear analysis, as always.
Shouldn’t the question arise after the Judge’s sentencing, or appeal for that matter?
For instance the Judge is expected to be given a community corrections order, and it can’t be easy to schedule sitting cases if he’s working at Vinnies or picking up rubbish on the highways.
How can someone convicted of a crime continue to be a judge? Dismissal should be an automatic process once all appeals are heard.
One would hope that a judge with any shred of decency or self awareness would resign, understanding their position is no longer tenable. Sadly, humans tend to be blind to their own wrongs.
It really depends upon the offence and possible sentence.
What about the distinct possibility of injustice for anyone coming before that judge while the appeals process is taking place which could be years?
@@davidhandyman7571 how would it be an injustice?
@@probablynotmyname8521 It would depend on the judge and the charges. I am asking a general question. The focus is on the judge and his/her rights (as it should be), but there is a larger picture that goes beyond the judge. I am very aware of the principle of the "appearance of justice done".
That's insane.
In the UK's House of Lords it had a Judicial Committee (now the UK's Supreme Court) as the final court, there was some talk of seeking to pass a resolution in the Lords to remove Lord Hoffman after he was found to appear to have had a conflict of interest in the Pinochet case. Nothing came of it. Usually in the UK, a judge who is in hot water reads the room and goes off and resigns (probably with a pension intact).
The UK is an interesting one since even with the UK Supreme Court, parliamentary sovereignty exceeds judicial review, so in effect the UK Supreme Court is another appointed body like the Law Lords were, that the House of Commons can override if they wish.
@@braytongoodall2598 That's true, but the executive cannot overrule the courts. If Parliament wishes to pass legislation overruling a judgement they are free to do so. That process and decision would be open to full scrutiny though so they better have a bloody good reason for doing it.
Very informative.
Thanks.
Glad it was helpful.
Thanks algorithms, for this recommendation Listening to you is like drinking up rain. Feel like I am already growing
Glad you enjoyed it. I have over 100 other videos for your drinking pleasure. Do explore them.
Sure did find it interesting. As always and thank you.
You're welcome.
Great explanation. Thank you for taking the time to share your knowledge with us, I definitely appreciate it, as I'm sure many others do.
Much obliged.
Hasn't Geason J already been accorded natural justice through the Magistrates' Court trial process? His case seems different from that of Willis, who (if I remember correctly) was amoved by the governor without any process.
Unless removed he still continues to get his huge salary, just like he was still working asca judge - wasting taxpayers money.
I think I'm enlightened.
well i think a different process for sentencing might make sense because he might be in danger if he faces any prison time but i imagne aussie prisons have rules for that like we do.
Yes, there are mechanisms for taking into account any particular danger that applies to an inmate.
Maybe because they couldn't explain.
Thanks.
"found guilty of an offence but has not yet been convicted" is that not a contradiction
No - there are some circumstances in which a person can be found guilty, but a conviction is not recorded.
He'll most probably resign . G'day Australia 🇦🇺 😊
I'm not sure he will. He's fought it all the way, looking arrogant and self entitled and what we call "bloody-minded" if you'll excuse the language.
@DeepThought42 While he has shown early signs of a narcissistic personality , pugnacity, and arrogance, he might be persuaded to shove off because of the high cost of fighting on and the stench accompanying even a possible win. Anger management won't really help with this kind of narcissism, and while lying can be treated, it's never cured. G'day Australia 🇦🇺.
@@redmatters9318 I hope you're right that he will shove off, but the urgency that the politicians have now put on getting the legislation done tends to suggests they think he won't. The vibe I've got from him is that he's the type of person for whom finances will come before anything else. So, he'll cling to that huge income for as long as he can, providing it's fiscally responsible for him. Mind you some narcissists don't think too far ahead and forge on even though it's financially unwise as they always think they're in the right and will win in the end.
Doesn't the governor general get appointed by government?
The King/Queen appoints the GG on the advise of the Prime Minister
No , by the monarch, on “recommendation “ of the government.
Semantics?
@@Robert-xs2mvin theory but in practice why would a monarch appoint a republican
@@beauzo9965 because they don't part care
@@beauzo9965 The Monarch acts on the advice of the Prime Minister. Bill Hayden was a republican but was appointed Governor General. As long as the GG fulfills the duties of his or her office, it does not matter what opinions he or she holds.
Still encumbered by Colonial ball and chain ,Britain !
Britain doesn’t interfere with commonwealth justice systems, try blaming your leftist politicians.
you are a dick
Encumbered by a justice system? Every servant of Satan hates a justice system.
Cough cough.
Governor general sacked primed minister due to persuasion of Americans...
'Common Law' is nothing if not quirky
I will stand under common law before bullshit legislation.
Is Australia's second biggest city (Sydney) of significant importance in constitutional affairs ?.
Your question makes no sense.
@@probablynotmyname8521 Canberra is the icon for constitutional affairs.
@davidpearn5925 the location has no bearing. The most important institution for constitutional matters is the high court, where the high court is physically located is irrelevant.
@@probablynotmyname8521 Clover Moore wouldn't agree.
Is the Pope a Jesuit???😂😂😂
Who gave him the position?The attorney-general should advise and both parties of government should have a discussion and tell the Governor general to fix it!
"The attorney-general should advise and both parties of government should have a discussion and tell the Governor general to fix it!"
However, it requires an Address passed by the two Houses of the Parliament of Tasmania.
What did he do
Physically assaulted his partner and broke a violence restraining order. Pretty awful stuff
Thank you@@landcruiserfan4206
What’s the conviction for
I don't care ,if someone uses there positions in power to subvert the course of justice they should be charged ,just because you might hold a high office job doesn't give you the right to break the law and especially a high court judge .that goes for politicians as well ,if the high courts want people to treat them with respect they should be held accountable for wrong doings .also these judges are paid for by the taxpayers dollars like politicians so they should be held to a higher standard .
But he was charged and found guilty. His offence had nothing to do with subverting the course of justice. He was not given any right to break the law. You seem to have missed the point of the video - or not watched it. The video was about the separate issue of the power to remove a judge from office.
iT SOUNDS a bit like the laws governing Ambassadors from other nations...They apparently cannot be HELD TO ACCOUNT on any charge..get out of jail free card
Since when have the courts been institutions that enforce the law of the land equally upon all members? The function of the law is to keep us suppressed landless serfs we have always always been throughout recent history. Instead of holding the executive account for war crimes they are complicit in war crimes, something we turn a blind eye to, as the last thing the public is interested in is the truth. Try and get a solicitor to defend you if you are a whistle blower, it is impossible.
"The law has no mechanism for getting at the truth"
Clarence Darrow.
So if/when we move to a republic that would be a perfect time to fix these anomalies in our various systems.
The Tasmanian Constitution is not 'entrenched' (see my 'manner and form' video about amending State Constitutions), so it could be fixed by legislation at any time. There was a review process to do this, about a decade ago, and I was on a consultative committee to help advise it. We did the work, but the Government never went ahead with it.
Constitution Clarion
As we eventually transition to a Republic who and how can make amendments to eliminate anomalies and tidy our constitution for the next century or more.
All changes to the Commonwealth Constitution require a referendum. In 1999, the Commonwealth Government took the odd view that it would only tidy up anomalies in those constitutional provisions that had to be changed anyway to refer to a 'President'. So bits would have been updated and other bits left anomalous. It was all rather odd.
What about a registrar of a court, who has authority over them, if they fail to do their job properly?
How would a Registrar of the Supreme Court of Tasmania have authority over the Justices of the Supreme Court of Tasmania?
I think that the Registrar of the Supreme Court of the State of Tasmania would be subordinate to the Court.
@@ronaldmccallum2111 how could you go to the supreme court, without going through the registrar?
@@shellyaus
The Registrar of the Supreme Court of the State of Tasmania would be the Clerk and Registrar to the Justices. When a case is received, the Clerk and Registrar may have the authority to assign the case to a specific Puisne Judge, or Associate Justice. However, the Registrar has NO authority over the Puisne Judge/Associate Justice, or the full Bench of the Court. It would be the Chief Justice of Tasmania that would have some supervisory authority over the Court.
The Supreme Court of Tasmania is the superior Court over the Magistrates' Court of Tasmania.
As Professor Emerita Anne Twomey has said, the only way to remove Justice Geason from the Bench is for the both Houses of the Parliament of Tasmania ---- the Legislative Council and the House of Assembly ----- to pass an Address (Resolution) praying that the Governor-in-Council to do so.
The website of the Supreme Court explains the wisdom of having an independent Judiciary:
"For a legal system in a democracy to work properly, it is necessary for:
Law Makers (State Parliament);
Law Enforcers (Police and the Public Service); and
Law Interpreters (Courts and Judiciary)
to be separate and independent.
In Australia, there is a convention, which is commonly referred to as the doctrine of separation of powers, by which judges remain totally independent following their appointment. This independence is secured by certain legislative measures and conventions including:
A prohibition against judges holding any other paid office;
The fixing of judicial salaries by the Legislature, rather than the Executive or the Public Service;
The provision that a judge can only be dismissed for misconduct by the Governor at the request of both Houses of Parliament;
The convention that a judge should not engage in political or any other public activity which might have the effect of identifying him or her with one segment of the community as opposed to another."
Source: www.supremecourt.tas.gov.au/the-court/judges/
Great video, Judges are people who also make mistakes. Retiring after a distinguished career in law is honourable. Dragging it through the unforgiving media is not honourable.
Quamdiu se bene gesserint.
Still a colony ? Flawed though it may be in the face of legal wordplay , the 1857 act would seem to detail the negative and the positive in one sentence , merely separated by 'unless'.
High time for a law reform commission to at least take laws containing the word colony off the books .
"High time for a law reform commission to at least take laws containing the word colony off the books ."
Actually, the Law Reform Commission does NOT have the power to take laws containing the word colony off the books. That would be the sole prerogative of the Parliament of the jurisdiction that had enacted the law in the first place. In regards to the Supreme Court (Judges' Independence) Act 1857 (Tasmania), then only the Parliament of the State of Tasmania has the power to repeal that law. The Law Reform Commission's mandate is to recommend to Parliament what statutes should be repealed.
It doesn't surprise me for an issue that is extremely rare. You don't often see judges get criminal convictions, and many issues with laws aren't identified or prioritised to be fixed, or identified loopholes removed until something happens to reveal the problem. It's made me understand what a big job it would/will be to get our law sorted out if we were ever to stop being a realm of the UK monarch.
@@DeepThought42
"It's made me understand what a big job it would/will be to get our law sorted out if we were ever to stop being a realm of the UK monarch."
Actually, the Commonwealth of Australia CEASED to be a Realm of the UK monarch on the Eleventh Day of December 1931 with the STATUTE OF WESTMINSTER, to which the Parliament of Australia ratified with the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 backdating the adoption to 1939.
King Charles III reigns only as King of Australia over the Commonwealth of Australia.
@@ronaldmccallum2111 Very informative I didn't know that, thanks for that. I still see/ hear the term used all the time to distinguish the countries that still have the UK Monarch as head of state from other countries. For example, The Royal Family website refers to the 14 other (than the UK) countries that have Charles as Head of State as Realms. It says they are often referred to as "Realms" then proceeds to use that term Realm. I guess they do that, and the term Realm get used by everyone else even though it technically isn't correct as there is no other word to distinguish the 14 from other countries (especially the other 41 republic Commonwealth countries). It seems to be in common use as, for example, wikipedia calls the 15 (they include the UK) countries "Commonwealth realms" (as opposed to Commonwealth countries/members).
@@DeepThought42
The point I was making that each one of those "Commonwealth Realms" is an independent sovereign state from the others, and therefore, each Throne (Crown) is an independent corporation sole.
Perhaps, Anne Twomey, Professor Emerita of Constitutional Law could expand on that topic here, or in another Constitutional Clarion video.
Also, there are only thirty-six or so sovereign Member states that are republics in the Commonwealth of Nations as there are five sovereign states with their own Monarchies:
Brunei: an Unitary Islamic absolute Monarchy;
Eswatini (Swaziland): an Unitary absolute Monarchy;
Lesotho: an Unitary Westminster Monarchy
Federation of Malaysia: a Federal Westminster Monarchy comprised of nine subnational monarchies in nine Federated States, and four Federated States with appointed Governors. The nine Rulers rotate the Office of the The King of Malaysia,[2] officially Yang di-Pertuan Agong (YDPA; lit. 'He who is made Lord'[3]), is the constitutional monarch and head of state of Malaysia amongst themselves for five year terms;
Tonga: Unitary Constitutional Monarchy in the South Pacific;
For further information:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_the_Commonwealth_of_Nations
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_of_Malaysia
The law is so warped under the wig of legalese that it cannot function efficiently or effectively.The law is like an electric vehicle with an inability to fully charge,complex and unfathomable that no one can repair without it being scrapped.Too complex and expensive to fix a common sense vehicle is needed.
'Common sense' usually just means that 'whatever I think, is right and should be what's done'. But ten other people will think that it's common sense to do something completely different.
The point about law is that it can be applied consistently and not depend upon the individual views of people. This makes it more fair. Relying on 'common sense' would mean that the same conduct would be dealt with completely differently depending on whose 'common sense' applied, and this would be unfair.
There are good reasons to make it really difficult to remove a judge. This prevents governments from interfering in judicial decisions and ensures that the system is independent and fair. This is why the same or similar constraints apply in nearly all democratic countries.
@@constitutionalclarion1901common law could be regarded as natural law, but as the people are just free-range slaves these days a law including opinions of corrupted people will be corrupt
The the flip is the ''commonwealth constitution" ? Do you mean *The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia Act 1901* OR The Australia Constitution 2001.... Hmmm.
@@R0d_1984 The Commonwealth Constitution and the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 are two different documents.
The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 was an act of the UK Parliament that passed and was given Royal Assent on the 9th of July 1900.
The Commonwealth Constitution was enacted by clause 9 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900. The Commonwealth Constitution came into force on the 1st of January 1901.
The CoAC Act is the shell that gave life to the CC, meanwhile the CC is the chicken that hatched from that shell.
Regardless of all this, there is no “Australia Constitution 2001”. Sometimes the Commonwealth Constitution is sometimes colloquially referred to as the Australian Constitution.
Neither of the two purported Acts you cite exists. Perhaps you mean the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 - which is the British Act which contains the Commonwealth Constitution in s 9.
We need to become a Republic and begin modernising our out dated and ineffective political/ legal frameworks. It astounds me that the political class keeps the status quo so easily, but then again most Australians are more interested in whats on Netfix or there football leagues. Imagine dismantling lobbyland in Canberra ??? The Americans would not allow it to happen.
Americans wouldn’t….. ha ha ha! Yeah mate!
We don't have an ineffective legal framework, its nonsense to suggest such a thing.
Yeah, we really need a system as corrupt and dysfunctional as the US. A system that has more lobbyists than any other government. We need legislation, based on bills that are regularly hundreds, and often thousands of pages, long. Pfft
@@solovjud Yeah .... Because republics don't ever come in Westminster parliamentary style - apparently.
@@peterk2455 I don't know any republic supporter (including me) who wants a US style executive presidential republic.
Westminster system is the worst.
Not my king either, go back to england.
Yes you want to be a slave but not under a king.
Would you stand under Jesus as king?
@@sammyd7857why would anyone want to stand under some middle eastern self proclaimed prophet from 2000 years ago? So No to that.
This is the crazy woman who believes in a “King of Australia” 😂😅😂
There is a King of Australia, Charles III.
Royal Styles and Titles Act 1973 refers to the King/Queen of Australia
If you don't like the lifestyle , leave.
Charles is The King of Australia.
@@andhewonderstrue.😅
The authority is given because it says "unless"
I had the same thought
😂yep
The politicians are responsible to their funders, not WeThe People.
Health, Education, Judicial and policing are responsible to regulations and regulators who are responsible to bureaucrats and technocrats.
At the top its a very small group of participants, who are also not interested in We The People of Australia.
❤🇦🇺🪃🙏🥷✅️
Yes and no doubt you think you speak for we the people or at least your insane orange demagogue from the US does.