Rules of Evidence in Australia
Rules of Evidence in Australia
The answer, gentlemen is Yes.
But it cannot be pursued within Australia.
The Australian Constitution, which I found online and have had numerous discussions about both online and in person, is only a suggestive document. Because Australia is really a confederation of states, each state defines the civil and human rights in terms of the mandates to the Ombudsman.
Victoria, as in most states, defines the Civil and Human Rights Ombudsman to defend workers against abuses by government and business entities, excluding the courts.
What that means is that civil and human rights abuses by one individual against another -- whether a father, partner, disabled or elderly family member -- are simply not covered. The Civil and Human Rights Ombudsman is essentially an Industrial Relations office -- This is also for the Disabled Rights Ombudsman.
Since the Ombudsmen's mandates do not cover such issues, Australia relies on specific laws to protect its citizens.
That fact leaves abscesses in the law which are often exploited by cruel-minded, greedy families with the help of equally cynical lawyers.
It is not a crime in Australia to abuse the elderly or disabled within their own homes.
Victoria tried to pass a law against abuse of the elderly recently and it was defeated. It was spurred by a series of stories about abuses in elderly care homes, but the elderly didn't have the political clout to overcome the pressures from the industry.
If it can be shown that you have assaulted them, that law can be applied, but it is unrealistic to expect effective protections. After all, it means a person in diminished capacity has to literally testify against the people who care for them -- Biting the hand that feeds them, so to speak.
And it is worth mentioning the difficulty of asking someone in a diminished physical and mental state to turn on their loved ones.
The Intervention Order laws were put forward by well-meaning people who wanted to be able to protect not only women, but also the elderly and disabled, along with others. If properly implemented with attention to internationally recognized standards of western law such as equal protection under the law and proper evidence, Intervention Orders would have been a valuable and useful legal device.
Simply, many lawyers -- and later other unscrupulous professionals and agencies -- realized that there were not adequate protections under the law in Australia and have made profitable careers from this gaping hole in the law.
Canberra cannot dictate to the states what laws to enforce or how.
From my own experience, including a letter from Rob Hulls' Department of Justice sitting on my desk right now, state administrations will not exercise oversight because of the prevaling political climate.
Each state having its own Rules of Evidence has resulted in effectively no Rules of Evidence. The effective implementation in the courts is simply: the magistrate allows whatever evidence s/he chooses, and ignores the rest.
The state governments have reneged on their responsibilities to oversee the actions of magistrates for whatever reasons they may give. The most specious argument is to cite the concept of separation of powers. However, it is precisely that concept of checks and balances which requires the state Department of Justice to maintain the performance of the courts.
I have a letter here on my desk from the Victorian DoJ citing exactly that concept as a reason for not pursuing charges of abuse of the disabled, extortion, and admitted theft.
In the face of such a prejudiced and politicized process, there are few alternatives for Australians and those who live under Australian law. Inequities such as this erode the public confidence in the government at a visceral level, far beyond any political preference. It contaminates the relationships between the citizenry and the nation.
The alternative is to wait while Australia suffers through what will be perhaps 20-40 years -- two or three generations of children -- of battles much like we have recently endured.
--Paul
The answer, gentlemen is Yes.
But it cannot be pursued within Australia.
The Australian Constitution, which I found online and have had numerous discussions about both online and in person, is only a suggestive document. Because Australia is really a confederation of states, each state defines the civil and human rights in terms of the mandates to the Ombudsman.
Victoria, as in most states, defines the Civil and Human Rights Ombudsman to defend workers against abuses by government and business entities, excluding the courts.
What that means is that civil and human rights abuses by one individual against another -- whether a father, partner, disabled or elderly family member -- are simply not covered. The Civil and Human Rights Ombudsman is essentially an Industrial Relations office -- This is also for the Disabled Rights Ombudsman.
Since the Ombudsmen's mandates do not cover such issues, Australia relies on specific laws to protect its citizens.
That fact leaves abscesses in the law which are often exploited by cruel-minded, greedy families with the help of equally cynical lawyers.
It is not a crime in Australia to abuse the elderly or disabled within their own homes.
Victoria tried to pass a law against abuse of the elderly recently and it was defeated. It was spurred by a series of stories about abuses in elderly care homes, but the elderly didn't have the political clout to overcome the pressures from the industry.
If it can be shown that you have assaulted them, that law can be applied, but it is unrealistic to expect effective protections. After all, it means a person in diminished capacity has to literally testify against the people who care for them -- Biting the hand that feeds them, so to speak.
And it is worth mentioning the difficulty of asking someone in a diminished physical and mental state to turn on their loved ones.
The Intervention Order laws were put forward by well-meaning people who wanted to be able to protect not only women, but also the elderly and disabled, along with others. If properly implemented with attention to internationally recognized standards of western law such as equal protection under the law and proper evidence, Intervention Orders would have been a valuable and useful legal device.
Simply, many lawyers -- and later other unscrupulous professionals and agencies -- realized that there were not adequate protections under the law in Australia and have made profitable careers from this gaping hole in the law.
Canberra cannot dictate to the states what laws to enforce or how.
From my own experience, including a letter from Rob Hulls' Department of Justice sitting on my desk right now, state administrations will not exercise oversight because of the prevaling political climate.
Each state having its own Rules of Evidence has resulted in effectively no Rules of Evidence. The effective implementation in the courts is simply: the magistrate allows whatever evidence s/he chooses, and ignores the rest.
The state governments have reneged on their responsibilities to oversee the actions of magistrates for whatever reasons they may give. The most specious argument is to cite the concept of separation of powers. However, it is precisely that concept of checks and balances which requires the state Department of Justice to maintain the performance of the courts.
I have a letter here on my desk from the Victorian DoJ citing exactly that concept as a reason for not pursuing charges of abuse of the disabled, extortion, and admitted theft.
In the face of such a prejudiced and politicized process, there are few alternatives for Australians and those who live under Australian law. Inequities such as this erode the public confidence in the government at a visceral level, far beyond any political preference. It contaminates the relationships between the citizenry and the nation.
The alternative is to wait while Australia suffers through what will be perhaps 20-40 years -- two or three generations of children -- of battles much like we have recently endured.
--Paul
posted by Unknown at
9:52 AM
Social bookmark this
1 Comments:
How can this happen?
It's the training they recieve.
Lawyers, social workers, and even the staff at the courthouse have been trained that 8 out of 9 (87%) of Australian men in relationships are abusers. It's a "fact" taught at Chisholm and Monash.
The fact that this statistic is far out of line with hundreds of studies around the world, including Australia, is ignored. In hundreds of studies, men and women are about equally abusive, and even violent.
What's the problem? -- The real story isn't driving the politics because those who know the truth are too intimidated by the current system to speak it.
By
Unknown, at 10:14 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home