Another idiotic decision from Triggs

[thebaldfacts]

And yet another idiotic decision from Triggs.

As exclusively reported in the Australian, one has to wonder if Triggs is off with the fairies.

"A New Zealand-born kidnapper and armed robber convicted of ramming his car into a drunk pedestrian to �scare� him deserves a $100,000 payout because he was detained ahead of his deportation from Australia, says Human Rights Commission president Gillian Triggs.

After serving a seven-year jail term for the �callous and deliberate� road-rage attack, Phillip Shayne Tapara, 49, was deemed an �unacceptable risk to the community� and remained in detention for 17 months while he launched unsuccessful legal �appeals against the Gillard government�s efforts to deport him.

Professor Triggs, in a report �tabled in parliament this month, argued the government�s failure to restrain Tapara in a �less �restrictive� way � such as in the community with reporting conditions, travel restrictions or a curfew � was arbitrary and breached his rights under international law.

Tapara, who married Australian woman Michelle Dunn three months after receiving parole in 2012, unsuccessfully argued on appeal that he should live in �Brisbane with Ms Dunn and her three children who viewed him as their �dad�.

Tapara was convicted in 2010 of intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm on a drunken pensioner, whom he ran down in his car to �scare him� after they scuffled at Southport Workers Club on the Gold Coast in February 2009.

Professor Triggs found his �detention also arbitrarily interfered in relationships with his relatives, including with Ms Dunn and her children. The Abbott government �rejected Professor Triggs�s call for $100,000 compensation and an apology, noting it facilitated �numerous home �visits for Tapara despite him being a �high-risk� detainee.

In its response, the Immigration Department claimed �Tapara also misled Australian �officials about his criminal record in New Zealand, which included convictions for his role as the �driver in a kidnapping and aggravated burglary with a firearm in the early 1990s. There were conflicting views about Tapara�s chances of reoffending. In 2010, then Queensland Supreme Court judge Richard Chesterman found Tapara �deeply regrets� his ��aberrant� actions and was �by and large, if not completely, committed to a peaceful and law-�abiding life�.

However, in 2011, the Admin�istrative Appeals Tribunal �expressed �serious doubts� about the likelihood of him not committing another violent crime, noting his evidence �did not suggest clear insight � or genuine remorse� for the offences that demonstrated �a ruthless disregard for life and liberty�.

Complaints to the Human Rights Commission are assessed against international treaties rather than Australian law.

In Tapara�s case, the government allegedly breached the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights.


The Coalition renounced confidence in Professor Triggs over alleged political bias for delaying an inquiry into children in immigration detention until after the 2013 election. Professor Triggs has also drawn fire for recommending $350,000 compensation to an �Indonesian refugee, John Basikbasik, who has been detained for seven years after serving jail time for bashing his pregnant spouse to death with a child�s bicycle.

In other cases, Professor Triggs recommended $140,000 for a British-Afghan dual-citizen who was detained for more than two years while he pursued a �futile� asylum claim, and $300,000 for an American con artist who was held for 22 months while he mounted legal arguments later �rejected as �frivolous, vexatious, embarrassing and (lacking) any support�. Professor Triggs has recommended $6 million worth of compensation payouts since joining the commission in July 2012."

[Tannin]

Troll

[David]

This is why tabloid moralists shouldn't comment on legal issues. They just make themselves look silly.

Triggs is 100% right, of course. Governments should be obliged to follow legal statutes at all times, regardless of whether it "feels good" or they think a certain person really, really deserves unlawful treatment.

[Tannin]

He was imprisoned without a trial. End of story.

Remember, he had already served his term when he was illegally imprisoned without trial. If you feel that term was too short (and I would not argue with you), then your beef is with the sentencing judge not doing his job properly, or possibly with the sentencing laws that constrained his judgments. It is not acceptable to simply break the law and imprison a man without trial or right of appeal. If it was felt that he posed an unacceptable risk of reoffending, the law provides for fair and legal ways to deal with this which the authorities could and should have employed. Instead, they just broke the law because, like most Liberal scum, they don't think the law applies to them.

My sympathy for this scumbag? Zero. Don't care what he gets.

My concern for the progressive and accelerating contempt for due process and the rule of law the Abbott government displays: deep and significant. This is far from the only example. Abbott and his goons are fast destroying much of the progress towards fairness and democracy we made over the past 500 years. His is not the first government to try that on. The Nazis in Germany started in exactly the same way, and with exactly the same barely-veiled contempt for the laws which keep us all safe. This is the road to ruin we are on. We are not a long way down that road yet, but we are heading firmly in the direction of totalitarian disaster and must change our course as a matter of urgency. The further down that road you go, the harder it becomes to turn aside.

[Skids]

[Skids]

[Tannin]

[Pies4shaw]

[pietillidie]

^I was praying for your intervention.

How do you explain to a duck that it can't do calculus when it thinks that's just a liberal conspiracy?

[HAL]

You could write a whole essay on that question.

[stui magpie]

[thebaldfacts]

Clearly the Government does not agree with Trigg's interpretations and has rejected them. Not surprising given the quality, or lack thereof, of her decisions. Notably, even the ALP in power ignored her recommendations..

[watt price tully]

[David]

[thebaldfacts]

And another example of her extremely poor judgement.

Even the ANZ is treating her as a bit of a laughing stock after politely declining her request that they apologise to a convicted bank robber (who lied about his past), whom they refused to hire.

Excellent article from the Australian again.

"ANZ has rejected a recommendation by Human Rights Commission president Gillian Triggs to apologise to a man it refused to hire because of his conviction for an armed robbery offence and subsequent five-year jail sentence.

The man, referred to as Mr AN in Professor Triggs�s report to protect his privacy, complained that the bank had discriminated against him on the basis of his criminal record.

However, AN warranted that he had no former criminal convictions when labour-hire company Robert Walters secured him a position at the ANZ in 2013.

When a criminal check disclosed the 1979 prior conviction, AN told a consultant for Robert Walters he had grown up in a rough neighbourhood in Brisbane and fallen in with the wrong crowd. He served 13 months of the five-year sentence.

AN also defended his suitability for the position after finding an email on networking site LinkedIn for an ANZ program director who had interviewed him for the job.

ANZ withdrew the job offer, citing the conviction and false warranty as reasons.

Professor Triggs noted AN was highly qualified, had no subsequent convictions, received the National Emergency Medal for services as a firefighter during the Black Saturday bushfire disaster and had been only 21 years old when the offence occurred.


�It is difficult to see what more Mr AN could have done to rehabilitate himself,� she said. �I am not persuaded that there is a sufficiently tight or close correlation between the inherent requirement of the position and the exclusion of Mr AN.

�I consider that ANZ�s decision not to engage Mr AN constituted discrimination.�

Professor Triggs recommended ANZ update its anti-discrimination policies and make a �formal written apology� to AN for its �discriminatory conduct�.

In response, ANZ said it would conduct �refresher training� with recruitment workers but explicitly rejected giving an apology.

�ANZ respectfully declines to provide a formal written apology to Mr AN,� it said.

ANZ justified the refusal by saying AN had not disclosed his criminal record when required and said he had provided conflicting information on his reasons.

It also argued AN�s conviction meant he could not fulfil the requirements of the role."









