Craig Thomson FWA Update

Posted: April 26, 2013 in HSU Saga, Politics

Today in court the case against Craig Thomson weakened, as it would seem that Fair Work Australia backs away from its allegations against the Federal MP.

A judge has decided to adjourn the hearing on virtually all of Fair Work Australia’s civil matters against Thomson, these include allegations around travel, accommodation, meals, cash withdrawls, and of course the allegations of brothel use.

All that remains of the civil matters is the allegations surrounding Thomson’s use of Union funds for the purpose of campaigning for the Federal seat of Dobell. These are claims that Thomson has not denied, in fact was quick to point out that the HSU which was affiliated with the ALP at the time, did indeed provide campaign funds for the seat, as it was one of the seats that the ACTU had indicated as focus electorates for that campaign.

What this means is that FWA does not believe it holds enough evidence to mount a civil suit against Thomson on these matters, and will await the outcome of the criminal proceedings. If Thomson is aquitted in criminal proceedings then the whole matter is dead and buried and no further cases on these issues can be made against Craig Thomson.

Craig and Zoe Thomson- good news at last

Craig and Zoe Thomson- good news at last

The criminal case against Thomson has been dealt a massive blow by this court action today, as the civil proceedings run to a vastly lower standard to criminal proceedings. The chances of Thomson being found guilty of any of these charges in a criminal court can now best be described as remote as there is not even enough evidence to support a civil case.

Thomson’s Barrister, Chris McArdle who attended court today claimed that today’s news “further vindicated his client” and was “Another step towards to total exhoneration of Craig Thomson”

I asked Mr McArdle if this meant a greater chance of defamation cases against Kathy Jackson and some of her Coalition friends, to which he responded “Absolutely”

Bring it on I say….

Like Wixxyleaks on Facebook here

Like Wixxyleaks on Facebook here

Comments
  1. hilderombout says:

    Oh Peter i am so glad with this news. I really hope for Craig and Zoe that this is the end of this story for them. i realise the criminal case is still to happen but should end in the same way. Thank you so much for your investigation into this affair! Well done and what a good outcome so far!

    • helenmarg says:

      Thank you Peter , I have always believed this would happen. Now a investigation into other matters affected by Abbott and his henchmen.

  2. lmrh5 says:

    Reblogged this on lmrh5.

  3. Joy Cooper says:

    That is wonderful news, Wixxy, although I do realise it is just the beginning for Craig & his family. Nonetheless it must be a huge relief to them. Do hope it upsets Kathy Jackson while she is busily preparing for her wedding extravaganza. That is what she is doing atm isn’t it? 🙂

    Wonder if this will gain a mention in the MSM. Doubt it as it’s the “wrong” type of news for them.

  4. […] Craig Thomson FWA Update. […]

  5. Heather says:

    That’s absolutely brilliant. Let’s hope the criminal case is soon resolved in his favour also. Particularly before the election.

  6. eric hardcastle says:

    your reporting on this has been excellent and valuable Peter Wicks. I am so disappointed in the Fairfax Media who would have once produced what you have done.

  7. […] POST SCRIPT! 26/04/13 Big win for Craig Thomson […]

  8. Is Craig still left out of pocket for his own legal expenses regarding the civil case?

  9. dafid1David says:

    Thats the best news for yonks, wonderful for Craig and his family and right up the gunger for Abbott, Bishop and Pyne, you evil hypocritical criminals. Must pop over to ‘The Pub’ shortly and join the team there for a few celebratory pints for Craig and his brilliant legal team.

  10. patriciawa says:

    The apology I really want to see before any others is from Reverend Tim Costello for his comment on Q&A in May, last year! There are plenty of others, of course, but many of them can claim Parliamentary privilege. The Rev Tim certainly can’t as I and thousands of others can attest!

    “I Don’t Believe Him! Do You? He’s Guilty!”

    “No, I don’t believe him!” said Reverend Tim,
    As if weight of judgement lay with him.
    Thousands watching shared his thought,
    Nationwide jury in a kangaroo court.

    Outrage required a penalty paid,
    To be decided once a charge was laid.
    Meanwhile the rack would do or pillory
    Watched by his friends and family.

    His accuser, once colleague, is feted,
    Whistleblower, congratulated,
    With much to gain and nothing to lose
    She stars in many media interviews.

    She had long sought that in years before,
    Has no need now to seek it for sure.
    So why have journalists no suspicions
    As she’s taken up by politicians?

    We need research, more facts on this lady.
    Her partner’s role for a judge seems shady.
    The public should know if they’ve broken the law.
    Isn’t that what a free press is for?

    With that Fair Work Report now proven wrong,
    Will the media sing a different song?
    Are all his critics going to eat crow?
    If they follow their leader, the answer is “NO!”

    POST SCRIPT 22/08/12 added after the KPMG review of the FWA report

    With the Fair Work Report described as ‘deficient’
    Will the media at last think that’s proof sufficient?
    Wil all of his critics now have to eat crow?
    Eric Abetz is leading the field with a very loud, “NO!”

    http://polliepomes.wordpress.com/2012/05/15/i-dont-believe-him-do-you-hes-guilty/

    • Wayne Milton says:

      I suggest you read the Judgement link someone added below, the FWA claim still stands in its entirety, just the JUDGE cant hear the parts of the claim that are ALSO being heard in the criminal court at the same time. That’s against the rules.lets hope Thomson gets a quick conviction, he stole from all Union members and spent it on hookers.

      • Blinking Red Light says:

        Yes, let’s see this corrupt example of taxpayer ineptitude drown in the ocean of shit he has swum in for years.

        Hopefully it will spur on the removal and incarceration of Mr’s Ludwig Sr and Jr, Mr McDonald, Mr Carr, Mr Sartor, Ms Gillard, Mr Obeid, Mr Swan, Mr Roozendal et al.

        All of whom are criminally involved in matters that need to be exposed and dealt with in the justice system.

        Fuck your claims of defamation, When you vote for criminals to run the country then you shouldn;t wail and moan when they carry on like criminals.

        Wake up to yourselves, anyone who supports Williams, Thompson and the rest of those corrupt self-serving union scumbags needs a slap.

      • wixxy says:

        Yes, we are waiting for the real criminals to be charged….

        You clearly know your stuff, I believe you mean Williamson?

        There’s only one member of parliament that throws punches at women that I know of….

      • Blinking Red Light says:

        Yes, Williamson included. A typo, my apologies.

        The bloke lives 600m down the road from me in Mirrabooka, in a lavish waterfront home bought using criminally defrauded HSU funds. Oooh, libelous claims right here. It’s true enough. He threw out HSU stamped office material, photo copiers, printers, phones etc, in a recent council cleanup (6 months ago) all of which was bought using taxpayer funds, all of which strangely found their way to his own residence. Oh, yes, he “works” from home.

        The man is corrupt, and so is Thompson. And the rest of the dirt mentioned in my previous.

        Sad thing is is that they will both walk, or at the most get a “smack” on the wrist. As will the rest of the fingers in the taxpayer pies. And that in itself is criminal.

  11. silkworm says:

    This is good news which needs to be spread far and wide.

  12. Marilyn says:

    And David Marr who pursed his lips and whinged like an old virgin prude at a christening.

  13. Le blogeur gai says:

    This is good news.

    Looking forward to defamation proceedings against Pyne, Abbott etc.

    I have always maintained that this was a stitch up. It is my opinion that it is a conspiracy by Kathy Jackson and Co, in concert with the Coalition and the Murdoch Press.

    How mysteriously and uncharacteristically silent Jackson has been of late.

    It is my firm opinion that the Thomson case, along with the Slipper case, are both conspiracies to bring down the democratically elected Government of Australia.

    Those responsible must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

  14. Bob Lloyd says:

    Another great article that we won’t see splashed over any MSM newspaper front pages or 6 or 7 o’clock news programs. Well done again Wixxy. You legend.

  15. DP says:

    Top reporting Peter.

    I remember watching QandA on the night both David Marr and Barry Humphries called Craig Thomson a liar. Both men I once admire but turn off that night because of their ‘assumption’.
    They BOTH owe him an apology. As well I would like to see a newspaper front page with the editor resembling Pinocchio. Then all is well.
    Keep up the good work as you are the only one that told the whole story that I know of.

    • sulphurcrested says:

      I remember that night on Q&A also. And like you DP, my estimation of both men fell instantly.

      Great news for Craig and his family.
      Now, if only the sh!te would hit the fan on what really went on and all those involved in this dirty affair.

  16. Anthony hodgson says:

    I knew this man was innocent the moment he fronted the media. Innocent people don’t hide, they fight. They don’t settle out of court. They don’t have to lie. Because their story is the story.

  17. Dennis Ball says:

    Truth will be the winner here. All the liberal propaganda on this subject will be exposed for the garbage it is.

  18. rodfairgo says:

    I can’t wait for Craig’s deformation case against the Pinocchio nose story. Regards WIXXY.

  19. Angela says:

    Craig has always claimed his innocence – guilty people cave in and give up the fight because they know they’re guilty! We’re voting for Craig without a doubt this coming election. I can’t wait to see all the published apologies from those who so eagerly ran with the lynch squad lead by Abbott!

  20. Pete says:

    Excellent. The power-hungry animal leading the Opposition has been dealt a killer blow. Hopefully this coiuld also thwart his greedy plans for a no-confidence motion and the ultimate reward for narcissistic greed will be prison. I’m not a Chrsitian and don’t believe in God, but Karma is one all-mighty B****.

  21. Medusa Knows says:

    Read today’s Federal Court judgment re Thommo
    http://www.federalcourt.gov.au/case-management-services/access-to-files-and-transcripts/online-files/fwa-v-thomson …http://www.federalcourt.gov.au/case-management-services/access-to-files-and-transcripts/online-files/fwa-v-thomson

  22. Clem cooper says:

    Great news Craig I am just one of your lowly volanteers on election days and have I not had some words with so called friends who do not understand the Westminster system and listen to shock jocks and read News Ltd papers. We Will Overcome. Good luck to you and your Family. Clem.

  23. Jean Johnston says:

    Oh ! what good news, I don’t know you Craig but I wish you & your wife all the very best —
    they tried it with Peter Slipper, then you — anyone else in the line up !@#$%^&*
    Cheers, jay jay

  24. Jade W says:

    Civil Court is expensive – and unnecessary prior to Criminal proceedings. If the Criminal Case falls over you can bet your booties they will proceed with the civil case they have already have waiting as a contingency plan.

    • Marilyn says:

      If there is no criminal case they can’t go back for a civil case without looking like complete prats.

      They are trying on a retrospective fit up over a card that was not governed by any rules.

  25. Wayne Andrews says:

    The criminal matter is an entirely different kettle of fish, the Police Prosecuter has more resources and powers than FWA and hopefully FWA are just doing the smart thing and waiting for the criminal conviction and let the cops do the leg work. Where there’s smoke there’s fire and I would love to see this scumbags explanation of where the 500,000k went and why we’re all the debits on his credit card marked “Madam Lash”s House of Pleasure”, sorry the “lent the visa card to a friend” excuse doesn’t work unless your friend comes forward and admits he stole the money.

  26. Wayne Andrews says:

    I wonder if this wife will see the light like his first two wives and do a runner.

  27. Wayne Milton says:

    OMG…..who wrote this dribble, did they read the same JUDGEMENT as I just read, the FWA didn’t decide to discontinue any of the claims, Thomsons lawyers got a stay from the Judge on them being heard BECAUSE proceedings for the same offenses can’t be heard in a civil claim at the same time as they are being tried in a criminal court. In other words the criminal case has right of way over the civil claim. At the moment the only matters being heard in the civil matter are parts of the FWA claim that are not included in the criminal matter. I wish the author would do some homework.

    • wixxy says:

      Utter crap, if you were right then the whole lot would have been adjourned

      The hope was that FWA would not proceed with civil at the same times as criminal but they chose to do just that.

      Do your homework before commenting next time

      • Brown says:

        Wixxy, no offence mate, but you are completely wrong on this.

        I worked as defence counsel for over a decade, and where there are civil charges brought at the same time as criminal charges, those civil charges are inevitably adjourned until after the trial of the criminal charges (but not any appeal).

        The reason for this is simple: given the higher standard of proof required in the criminal proceedings (beyond reasonable doubt vs balance of probabilities) then if Thomson were found guilty in the criminal court there is no reason to run them again in the civil.

        However, conversely, were Thomson acquitted on the criminal charges they still could proceed against him on the civil, as whilst the charges couldn’t be proven “beyond a reasonable doubt” they might be able to be proved “on the balance of probabilities”.

        It would be highly unlikely to adjourn “the whole lot” as you claim, it just doesn’t happen.

        Those additional charges that don’t form part of the civil claim but not the criminal still need to be heard in any event, and the Court will be anxious to keep it moving towards a trial.

        I don’t know your background, and maybe you were a criminal lawyer (or prosecutor) in the past, but I doubt that given that you don’t seem to understand these basic principles.

        Lastly, please don’t take what McArdle says as gospel. You should ask a few legal industry professionals as to what the fraternity think about him and his ability. You might be surprised at the level of regard (or possibly lack thereof) his skills are held in.

  28. Wayne Milton says:

    This is some really sloppy journalism, one would wonder if the author has a degree. The Criminal Case has not been dealt any blows, either massive ones or minor ones by the Judge of the civil matters suspending hearing parts of the proceedings that are being heard in the criminal court, I believ the judge refered to it as a s312 application by the respondent (Thomson). At least MSM get facts right because they are trained journalists.

    • wixxy says:

      If you can’t prove a matter in civil court you will struggle in criminal court

      The facts in my article are just that, facts, whether you like them or not.

      I spoke to Chris McArdle regarding the matter who does have a law degree, was there, and may just know a thing or two more than you on the matter

    • Jade W says:

      Okay, I’ll bite. Highly trained MSM journalists have to deliberately get the facts wrong and set out to deceive the public with Murdoch propaganda if they want to pay their mortgage. Alternative and independent media didn’t arise for no reason. It is because the thinking public are hungry for the truth. I think the only thing author may have done wrong, if anything, was to put too much emphasis on the word of a paid to be bias lawyer, who misconstrued how the legal process works to him or her. Unlike Murdoch journalists, the author did not set out to mislead. I had already made the same point about criminal/civil – but far more politely. There was no need for you to prance around as a right wing tosser. If MSM is your bag, hopefully you will spend more of your time there, instead of here.

  29. Joy Cooper says:

    Oh dear, Wixxy. You seem to have attracted the Waynes to this blog post as well. They were predictably & boringly pedantic in your Honor Roll blog post just as they are here.

    • Wayne Milton says:

      You don’t need a law degree to read do you, it’s set down in the Judgement here :http://www.federalcourt.gov.au/case-management-services/access-to-files-and-transcripts/online-files/fwa-v-thomson
      DO SOME READING.
      Everything you said is WRONG, admit it, come on be a man? It’s the Judge who put a hold on the case because of the Criminal Trial, not the FWA. Putting a hold on hearing certain matters in the Civil Court BECAUSE it’s being heard in a Criminal Court doesn’t weaken a case, HOW COULD IT? Hopefully Thomson gets jailed for his thieving then deported back to NZ.

      • wixxy says:

        If a matter doesn’t stack up civilly then it won’t stack up criminally

        Like it or not 90% of the matter is going to wait on the criminal case, we will see what happens there.

        There were many factors involved in the judges decision

      • Joy Cooper says:

        Good grief, you wouldn’t want Wayne Milton on any jury. He already has found a defendant guilty BEFORE a trial. Now THAT is judgemental in the extreme. Disgraceful & high-handed.

  30. Well it looks like you can get away with anything these days with a bit of cash…Do you think he will go to the brothel to celebrate. If so whose money will he use?

    • wixxy says:

      Yeah, didn’t McClymont report $60 cash in account??? Big bucks indeed

      How much cash do FWA have at their disposal again?

    • Wayne Milton says:

      He hasn’t got away with anything, still facing 149 counts in the Criminal Court and when that’s finished it can all go to the a civil a court Regardless of the criminal courts outcome. The Police wouldn’t have made such a public arrest unless they had him cold, the smoking gun as they say. You have to also remember what it written by the author here is so wrong and not what has happened at all.

      • wixxy says:

        I am not going to debate you all day, I have far more productive things to do with my time.

        If you don’t agree with the way the court case went or the outcome, so be it.

        If you want to debate the judgement, do what I did, talk to an expert who was there.

        Chris McArdles contact details are in the phone book, debate it with him and write your own blog

    • Marilyn says:

      He has not been to a brothel you dingbat. He was touring with his wife in Perth when he was supposed to be in the brothel in Sydney, it is a fit up.

  31. Wayne Milton says:

    The decision actually went against Thomson, his application was trying to get all counts held in accordance of section 312 of the RO Act, the reason he gave and that’s detailed in the Judgement is that it could prejudice the jury in a criminal trial if they read in the media that he has been found guilty in the Civil Proceedings. He wasn’t able to get a full stay, only those matters that are also before the Criminal court. Here’s the judgement

    25    For the above reasons, save with respect to the residue of the allegations in Parts F.2, F.3, F.4 and F.5 of the Statement of Claim not stayed by the operation of s 312 of the RO Act, there will be no order staying any part of this proceeding.

    s312 of the RO Act is : 312    Criminal proceedings during civil proceedings

    (1)    Proceedings for a pecuniary penalty order against a person or organisation are stayed if:

    (a)    criminal proceedings are started or have already been started against the person or organisation for an offence; and

    (b)    the offence is constituted by conduct that is substantially the same as the conduct alleged to constitute the contravention.

    You see, if Criminal proceedings commence than Civil Proceedings have to be stayed BY LAW. if you bothered to read you would not have put out this rubbish. Tha FWA stopped nothing, the Judge did because it’s the law. UNDERSTAND.

    • Marilyn says:

      There is no pecuniary anything for almost all the claims made by the FWA mob, they know it and said it at the time.

      They are using Craig Thomson as an example and they admitted that at the time.

  32. Ewan Lambert says:

    In fact the case hasn’t weakened at all but has been put off until after the criminal court case is heard, and it was put off at Thomson’s request. If you all remember the criminal case was asked to be put off until after the civil case is heard, again at Thomson’s request, just tactics to delay facing justice and most assuredly not the actions of an innocent man!

    • Marilyn says:

      OK moron what is he guilty of? Come on you tell us then they can dispense with courts, cops and others and just convict him on your say so.

      The fact is this.

      THERE WERE NO RULES GOVERNING THE USE OF THE CREDIT CARD. THEY CANNOT BE MADE UP YEARS LATER.

      • Wayne Milton says:

        That’s not correct, there are rules governing the use of company credit cards, them bing that they must be used on official employer business, this was made clear to me when I signed for my work visa cards 10 years ago.

      • wixxy says:

        Wow, I didn’t realise you worked for the HSU
        Because everybody has the sakes rules and regulations…., right?

      • Wayne Milton says:

        The rule you think doesn’t exist is in fact called FRAUD, yes it does exist and is a serious crime.

      • wixxy says:

        As the NSW Police said originally there is no case for fraud

        The card in question bore Craig Thomson’s name and he had authorization to use it. This means unless somebody else was using it and forging his signature there is no fraud committed….

      • Wayne Milton says:

        So your implying that anybody who gets an employer credit card can go out spend on anything, withdraw as much money as they want and put into their own bank and they can legally do this? No, they can’t, there are fraud and embezzlement laws for a reason, why do you think he was handcuffed and dragged away and put in jail? Do you actually think the Police Prosecutor would pursue this case if no crime had been committed. Why do you think it was the Fraud Squad that arrested him, why do you think he has been charged with 149 counts of Fraud?

      • wixxy says:

        I’m not implying anything, I am simply stating that different organisations have different rules and regulations
        You seem to think they all operate under some sort of universal set of rules.

        We will see how many of those charges hold up in court in Vic. NSW refused to go there,,,,

      • Paul Whickham says:

        Wixxy….I found the rules for you governing the HSU credit card use, I believe this one covers what Craig has or hasn’t done

        HSU Rule 36(b) not to expend funds of the HSU unless the expenditure:

        a. had been authorised by the National Council or the National Executive; or

        b. was expenditure on the general administration of the HSU or for purposes reasonably incidental to the general administration of the HSU.

        So the 150 counts he’s been charged with are all individual items of expenditure on his Visa Card that have nothing to do with the HSU e,g dinners, brothels, holidays etc. So all he has to do is explain to a Judge, convincingly, how those charges came to occur on a Credit Card he was issued with. Shouldn’t be a problem right, bearing in mind just about every person in the world with a credit card keep it in their wallet.

      • wixxy says:

        The entire point is that he had the permission to spend up to $50K on transactions

        This permission came from the National executive

        so even if the allegations are correct, he is still in the clear

      • Paul Whickham says:

        Wow, I’m just reading the evidence against him, like this handy little snippet

        27. The Respondent:
        a. flew from Melbourne to Sydney on or about 11 June 2005;
        b. had both the CT Credit Cards in his possession on both 11 and 12 June 2005;
        c. attended the Australian Labor Party NSW Branch (NSW ALP) State Conference, which
        was held on 11 and 12 June 2005;
        d. stayed the night in Sydney on both 11 and 12 June 2005.

        28. On or about 11 or 12 June 2005, while in Sydney, the Respondent:
        a. caught a taxi from the city to Taylor Square, which is approximately 500 metres from 99
        Albion Street, Surrey Hills; and
        b. used the CT CBA Mastercard to purchase services from a brothel called Tiffany’s operated
        by Nolta Pty Ltd at 99 Albion Street, Surry Hills, at a cost of $418.00.

        PARTICULARS

        Particulars CT CBA Mastercard transaction:
        Date on credit card. Transaction details statement. Amount
        11 June 2005. “NOLTA PTY LTD SURRY HILLS AU”. $418.00

        Wow, pretty damning stuff

      • wixxy says:

        We have all read the papers Paul, and no matter how damning you think that wording as specific as “on or about” is, the fact is the NSW Police even with all of this “damning stuff” you speak of dropped the case as even if the allegations were true, and they are disputed, no crime was committed due to the terms of use of the credit card.

        You are about 8 months behind the conversation….

      • Adam Smith says:

        Even the Commissioner of Police, their heads of departments have a corporate charge card. I think that the Highway Patrol Officer has a corporate charge card? Judges use them, prosecutors use them and so on.

      • Paul Whickham says:

        The term “on or about” is the term used by prosecutors, even if you got caught robbing a bank by the police when you get charged they use the same phrase, LEGAL SPEAK. it’s great to know that he has it in writing that he can spend up to $50,000 a month on anything he likes,strange the ASU are seeing him then for the money, did he pay tax on this Fringe Benifit or will the ATO be chasing him next?

      • wixxy says:

        You may think it strange that people have credit cards and travel for work, which involves food, drink and accomadation, I don’t.

        Why would the ATO chase him? Having to travel for work is not a benefit, in fact many companies pay a living away from home allowance for the inconvenience.

        I assume that Craig found being away from his family to not be beneficial, you apparently don’t feel that way about yours

      • Adam Smith says:

        The Corporate charge card is as old as when American Express was first invented. The holder of the Corporate charge card is given permission either by himself, by his partners, or by the directors etc to use it according to agreements made in house. Even Government Departmental Heads, Ministerial and Non Ministerial, members of parliament and so on, they’ve all held corporate charge cards and used them according to agreements entered into by others etc.

      • Paul Whickham says:

        Hotels, food, car hire are all ok, they can be easy explained and paid for by visa Card, $102,000 in cash withdrawals on top of these are not, neither are flights for his wife. The $150,000+ salary was compensation for being away from home. I suppose the brothels were because he missed his family?

      • wixxy says:

        As I said, these are disputed, and unless over $50K were already allowed at any rate….

        But hey, I’m sure you’d know more than the NSW police force….

      • Adam Smith says:

        It’s entirely in the hands of our judges. But not in the hands of a newspaper writing in ways that can lead to you know what!

  33. silkworm says:

    There are two different interpretations of the court decision. One has been made by friends of Craig Thomson and the other by enemies of Craig Thomson. Both sides claim to be objective. I am afraid that I am not in a position to decide which side is right. There is a need for futher debate on this issue.

    • Wayne Milton says:

      No, There is only one correct one and that’s taken from what the Judge said in his judgement, the link to that is up the page.its written in plain English.

  34. Dave says:

    Great work Peter! This is really good news for Craig and his family….. Funny how there’s not much coverage in the MSM! Look forward to seeing Jackson in court ….. Sooner the better!

  35. Jade W says:

    Wixxy, I know you are having fun this Wayne Milton character, but he’s getting really boring. A notification comes in, and it turns out to be just the same old shite.

  36. Adam Smith says:

    I have watched and listened to questions in parliament; reports in the media; concerning the allegations made against Mr Thompson MP; and I remain of the opinion, that he has no case to answer, unless of course, evidence still awaiting examination must be considered by our esteemed legal system. But I do appreciate that in our legal system, our courts have very powerful rulings about hearsay. As I understand, the rule against hearsay prohibits witnesses repeating out-of-court statements made by others in order to establish the truth of those statements. It will be interesting to see the matter further unfold and it will also be interesting to observe how questions by Mr Abbott MP including his Liberal parliamentary members “attack dogs” continue to use privilege in the parliament to advance either facts or fiction.

    • Paul Whickham says:

      Your beliefs on the meaning of hearsay are wrong, if you overheard a hooker talking to a friend and she said Craig Thomson paid her for sex that’s not hearsay, if a friend told you that she heard a hooker say that she had sex with Thomson that is hearsay.

  37. Adam Smith says:

    @ Paul Whickham. Well, what can I say, except that the judge will decide and rule accordingly on hearsay. Of course the burden or onus of proof as it is often referred to, requires a duty that lies on a party either to introduce evidence so that the party’s case, or a particular defence, may be left to the jury (the evidential burden) or to ultimately persuade the jury that a party has established a case, or a particular defence (the legal burden). We must not confuse the newspapers reporting of parliamentary question time or its problematic party political ‘shadow-boxing’ concerning the charges as laid before a proper court of law, which is totally separate from any public (hearsay) opinion on this interesting matter.

  38. Adam Smith says:

    @Paul Whickham. I suspect that you may know this man personally. Myself, I do not know this man. However, the law is made by us. I’m interested in the way in which our elected members of parliament use their position of privilege; how our elected law makers conduct themselves. I’m not impressed with Mr Abbott MP at all. Especially on this particular issue, where privilege has been trashed. In my opinion, the Opposition leader has shown himself to be a man of no principle. He has broken one of the Ten Commandments. Should he be elected to the position of PM, I can only pray, that he doesn’t award himself the ministerial position of Attorney General of Australia.

  39. Adam Smith says:

    Can I recommend that all who are interested in the Law, view “Judge John Deed”… and you’ll see examples of hearsay.

  40. John Mackay says:

    What an arrogant prat you are Wixxy. Wayne Milton is 100 per cent correct, you have it totally wrong yet won’t admit it. Quoting Chris McArdle doesn’t impress me either … don’t you remember what a goose he made of himself when the story first came to llight? And @ Bob Lloyd, the reason we won’t see Wixxy’s ‘scoop’ splashed over the mainstream media is because it’s utter crap.

    • wixxy says:

      Actually it was all over the mainstream media….
      As was the story I broke tonight…

      • Adam Smith says:

        @wixxy. The sycophants, the News, the commentators not interested in revealed truth, always work at concocting stories, so as to allegedly mislead public opinion. These are the “shock jocks” using half truths bordering on telling lies so that they are able to “manufacture consent” as it were, from amongst innocent people, like many of us. These liars hope that we might just vote against own best social interests by supporting the Abbott led Liberal Party of Australia. Observers of this Australian “Tea” Party kind of behaviour, was also at it during the US Presidential election campaign. But a great many US voting citizens saw through the Fox et-al News process and re-elected President Obama for a second term. In the end, most liars always reveal themselves. In the case of the HSU, I believe that we must disengage ourselves from the politics, run by certain members of parliament sitting in the House of Representatives Chamber and in The Senate Chamber where they enjoy and are under rules of privilege et-al. We must allow our respected Judges to do their work correctly, so that the prosecution and the defence can reveal the truth of the alleged matters put before them and the jury. We should also apply the same attitude of behaviour to the people appointed to the Royal Commission investigating the truth about child sex abuse and so on. The ongoing examination of the order of witnesses, be they hostile or unfavourable, their memories and so on, is where our Judges are more or less totally focused, so as to decide what is hearsay and what is admissible as credible evidence. That is why I recommend for those interested, to watch the great TV Series “Judge John Deed”.

  41. John Mackay says:

    Show me a mainstream media story saying the case against Thomson just got weaker.

    • wixxy says:

      You didn’t say one that agreed with me, I say half full, they said half empty what a surprise.

      As for quoting McArdle, he is Thomson’s lawyer, would quoting someone totally unrelated to the case make it more impressive? After all, you are the person I was setting out to impress…

  42. Adam Smith says:

    What do the public already know the $6000 plus tax-payer expense payment, reportedly claimed by the well-known politician author of “Battle-lines” (Mein Kampf?) as reported by a certain high profile journalist writing in another blog? What can you tell us about that John Mackay? Or is that the Liberal Party telling the truth?

  43. oldfart says:

    at long last, a smidgeon of a mention over at Abbotts Bulletin Corporation.
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-30/thomson-asks-public-to-donate-to-legal-defence/4661000

  44. Colin wellington says:

    Good news, I lived on the Central Coast for many news & found Craig to be an honest family man, it sickens me with the constant trash by Abbott, Pyne etc.

  45. Kim says:

    craig thomson is a slimy piece of crap
    he can go to Bali but not pay his bills???
    rot in jail !!

    • wixxy says:

      He has paid his bills….
      Who the hell are you to judge if his family deserve a holiday or not?

      • David says:

        No surprise the likes of Kim exist in Abbottsville, the hate and venom Kim demonstrates is a pre requisite for the adoration of the leader Abbott.
        Of course this member of the intelligentsia Kim is in full possession of the facts eg..did a friend, benefactor shout Craigs family the holiday or perhaps he decided to give his wife and kids a break from the continual personal attacks and humiliation they have suffered with whats left of his savings.
        I am not religious by any yardstick, far from it but brought up in a Christian family a saying my mum handed down from her mum may be food for thought for the person Kim.

        Matthew 7:1-5

        “Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye. .

    • Joy Cooper says:

      The dreadfully judgemental comment by Kim is so typical of the vicious nastiness which has overwhelmed our society since the days of Howard. Not an ounce of empathy left in this type of thinking.

  46. John Mackay says:

    Can’t work this out Wixxy … you told us the case against Thomson was getting weaker. Now he’s been charged with 19 more offences. How could this have happened?

    And that goose McArdle has backed off on some of his ridiculous claims too.

    If I had McArdle representing me I’d just throw up my hands and plead guilty.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s