Victoria's preferred style for noting silken appearances ... High quality exotic entertainment in Adelaide ... Telegraph v Slipper ... Royal Commission to put DPPs in the box ... Dyse distracted ... Soapy sooling s.18C onto the ABC
Learned in the law
NICE touch by the Vic Supremes and others in burnishing the already brightly buffed plumage of the gilded silks.
From now on, in the appearances noted with judgements, it's not just regular Cecil Beaton QC for the plaintiff, or the criminal, etc.
It's, "Cecil Beaton, One of Her Majesty's Counsel".
Here's an example of what we're on about ...
Down Yarraside way they've gone berko for Betty Battenberg.
Judgments bulletin
IF you want a potted history of Christianity in Ethopia you can do no better than visit Master Sanderson's judgment (WA Supremes) in Yemo v Ethopian Orthodox Tewahido Church of Debre Medhanit Medhane Alem Inc.
In a brisk 14 paragraph judgment, the Master squeezes in reference to three separate books of the New Testament.
Sando signed off with this advice, which should be included in a parting salutation in all judgments:
" 'Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand': Matthew 12:25. It is time the parties put their words into practice."
And here we find the Full Court of the SA Supremes grappling with the trying issue of whether showgirls and disc jockeys are "workers" for the purposes of SA workers comp legislation.
The Palace Gallery wants the benefit of their work without having too fork out the nasty expenses.
In particular, Tom Gray J notes:
"The plaintiff, The Palace Gallery Pty Ltd, describes itself as Adelaide's premier gentleman's club, providing the highest quality in live exotic entertainment in a luxurious and sexy environment."
Field agents report that on the basis of late night activities in the billiard room, this is also an apt description of The Australian Club in Macquarie Street, Sydernee.
Page placement
YOU'LL remember that the Daily Smellograph in April 2012 splashed the Ashby v Slipper story on page one, when it got the inside drop from the friendly people at Team Ashby.
The story also ran across page two and most of page three.
This was a political stitch-up of monumental proportions, with the honey trap suing the Speaker of the House of Reps and the Commonwealth in an attempt to bring down the government.
The day after the story splashed Slippery Pete stood aside as Speaker.
When Steven Rares J threw the case out as an abuse of process The Smello ran the news on page 17.
The Australian Press Council upheld a complaint by journalist Margo Kingston that the report of Rares' decision did not give sufficient prominence to the news in light of the newspaper's very prominent and detailed coverage of the sex harassment case.
See: Press Council adjudication.
On June 18, the honey trap pulled the pin on his sexual harassment claims.
Where was that news run by the Smello?
Why, page 17.
Must be a coincidence.
DPPs in the dock
ON July 7, the Royal Commission into child sexual abuse turns its attention to allegations of kiddie fiddling in swimming pool.
It will probe the responses of the DPPs in both NSW and Queensland to allegations of child sexual abuse made against former Olympic swimming coach Scott Volkers.
Volkers was charged in 2002 with seven counts of indecently assaulting three girls he coached during the 1980s.
He denied the allegations. The charges were dropped by the Queensland DPP after Volkers' lawyers said they had evidence which established his innocence.
It subsequently emerged that the DPP had not interviewed all those relevant witnesses.
In 2003, there were further allegations against Volkers, but after consulting the NSW DPP, the Queensland prosecutor did not pursue the case.
See more here.
The McClellan Commission wants to understand why DPPs in both States were so accommodating to the swim coach.
Prosecutors in this country traditionally conduct their affairs with secrecy worthy of Kim Jong-un, so it will be exciting to get even a tiny a shaft of light into the way they think.
Book of the year
UNFORTUNATELY, I missed all the fun of the Quadrant dinner ($89 per person) at the University & Schools Club for Prof James Allan, the flat-earth legal academic who has scuttled around the world trying to avoid living in any place where there's a human rights regime.
Now he's found Queensland and he's deliriously happy.
Anyway, James has written a fetching book called Democracy in Decline, and who better to pen an endorsement than Dyse Heydon.
However, it looks as though the former High Court judge has been dipping into the "drowsy syrups", because his rousing approval included this uncharacteristic blooper.
"[The book] never loses sight of the main elements of the argument.
Those elements centre on the primary threats to majoritarian democracy in the United States and four other states which owe many of their political institutions primarily to the British Isles - the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand."
Should that be "three other"? Never mind. Prof Allan's doorstopping tome gets stuck into all the usual beasties: activist judges administering bills of rights; threats posed to the United Kingdom by the European Union; and the evil spread of international law.
Dyse concludes:
"For those whose worldview is shaped by academia, by the public service ethos, by the metropolitan press, and by judicial-political consensus which does not tolerate dissenting opinions, the book will seem deeply shocking.
For anyone else it will be wonderfully refreshing and cleansing, like a sudden storm after a long succession of oppressively sultry days."
Grounds for complaint
IT was lovely to see Attorney General George (Soapy) Brandis leaping to the defence of the Finance Minister following a post-budget interview on ABC radio in Adelaide.
One of the breakfast boys on 891, Matthew Abraham, asked the minister, who was born 44 years ago in the riotously raunchy East Belgium town of Eupen, could he really understand the Australian mindset and culture, compared to other politicians who have been here a lot longer than 1986?
It was in the context of Cormann applying budget measure to reshape chunks of Australian society.
The minister didn't seem to mind the question and said that he was going his "best every day to contribute to help make my adopted country a better place".
However, the canine's friend and ABC watchdog Chris Kenny minded and he managed to extract some quotes from Senator Brandis, who also minded.
Abraham's question was "preposterous", fumed the AG. Furthermore, he suggested that Cormann "would have good grounds for a complaint under section 18C [of the Racial Discrimination Act]".
Hang about. I could have sworn this is the very provision Brandis and Kenny want to abolish because it allegedly interferes with free speech and the right to be a bigot.
Can anyone work out what is going on?