NSW Parliament removes Magistrate

Conduct of Magistrate Brian Maloney

Printing Tips | Print selected text | Full Day Hansard Transcript | « Prior Item | Item 4 of 40 | Next Item »

About this Item
Speakers	Gay The Hon Duncan; Shoebridge Mr David; Searle The Hon Adam
Business	Business of the House

CONDUCT OF MAGISTRATE BRIAN MALONEY

Page: 2620

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Minister for Roads and Ports) [9.36 a.m.], on behalf of the Hon. Michael Gallacher: I move:

1. That in view of the report of the Conduct Division of the Judicial Commission of New South Wales concerning complaints against Magistrate Brian Maloney, dated 6 May 2011, and tabled in this House on 2 June 2011, Magistrate Brian Maloney, a Magistrate of the Local Court of New South Wales, be called on to address the House and show cause why he should not be removed from office.

2. That this House grants leave for Magistrate Brian Maloney to attend at the Bar of the House on Thursday 23 June 2011, at 3.30 p.m., in person or by his legal representative, to show cause why he should not be removed from office on the grounds set out in the report of the Conduct Division.

3. That in attending at the Bar of the House, Magistrate Brian Maloney or his legal representative be allowed a time not exceeding 75 minutes to address the House only in relation to matters set out in the Report of the Conduct Division.

4. That this resolution be communicated by the President in writing to Magistrate Brian Maloney and seeking a written reply by 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday 21 June 2011 as to whether or not Magistrate Brian Maloney or his legal representative will appear at the time and place appointed.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [9.37 a.m.], by leave: I am sure all members would like to hear from Mr Maloney and deal with his complaint as quickly as possible. I think he deserves the right to be dealt with, with due dispatch. I am concerned that the requirements for petitioning the Governor for the removal of a magistrate or judicial officer require both Houses to resolve the matter in the same session of Parliament. This session of Parliament will come to an end on Thursday. Therefore, if this House were to resolve that in this parliamentary session—and I am in no way prejudging the outcome of either my debate or the outcome of the majority of members in this House—the session would have ended before the matter could be presented to the other House. We would then be required to repeat the process in the next session.

In order for a petition to find its way to the Governor both Houses in the same session must resolve in that manner. That is a difficulty with which we will be faced if we deal with Mr Maloney's case on Thursday. For that reason we should give further consideration to this matter throughout the day and there could be further discussion amongst members. I ask the House to consider not resolving this matter immediately in favour of the motion being presented. That may be the best course of action. I ask that the motion be stood down to a later hour so that members are able to further consider the matter. I am concerned that the House may have to go through the process twice. I thank the House for granting me leave to speak. I ask that the Minister consider my request and that the House stand the matter down to a later hour of the day.

The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [9.40 a.m.], by leave: Our concern is somewhat different to that expressed by Mr David Shoebridge. If Magistrate Maloney were heard on the last day of this sitting, the House would not be able to resolve the matter one way or the other unless we sat very late or dealt with it five weeks later when Parliament resumed. I note the problem identified by Mr David Shoebridge, but I believe it should be the other way around. If the House were to resolve the matter one way or the other on the Thursday, the lower House would not be able to consider the matter. The better course of action in that situation would be to postpone the matter for five weeks. The House would not debate the matter until then and both Houses would be able to consider the matter. In that situation I am concerned that Magistrate Maloney's matter would be unresolved for five weeks. However, I understand that his representatives may have requested a postponement. If this matter were stood down to a later hour, members would have an opportunity to consider the issues.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Minister for Roads and Ports) [9.41 a.m.], by leave: I acknowledge the concerns raised by Mr David Shoebridge and the Hon. Adam Searle. I understand, although I am not sure, that the date set for the matter to come before the House was to suit the convenience of Magistrate Maloney. Given the concerns that have been raised, the proper course of action would be to stand the matter down until 3.30 p.m. when Government business takes precedence. That will give members time for clarification. Even if Magistrate Maloney made his speech on the Thursday, deliberation by this House could take place on that day. However, I note the concern about consideration of the matter by the lower House. Given that this is an important matter, standing the matter down to a later hour will give the House an opportunity for proper clarification. This matter comes before the House as a matter of process. The Government and this House did not willingly bring on this matter: we are fulfilling a process under the Constitution of the State. In order to deal with this matter appropriately, the best course of action is to stand the matter down until 3.30 p.m. when Government business takes precedence.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Duncan Gay, by leave, and set down as an order of the day for a later hour.

James Packer/ Gambling Licences / corrupt directors
So it appears   there is an inquiry that James Packer is a suitable person to hold the  Gaming Licence at Barangaroo and assessments are currently  carried out by the Independent Liquor and gaming Authority in  NSW.
I am unaware of the  integrity of this NSW Authority though the Victorian  Commission Gambling and Liquor Regulation's Adam Toma, director of  Licensing and Approvals is shonky and corrupt and in his previous position as National Enforcement Manager at AFSA or ITSA protected fraud.

Abuse of Discretion

A failure to take into proper consideration the facts and law relating to a particular matter; an Arbitrary or unreasonable departure from precedent and settled judicial custom.

Where a trial court must exercise discretion in deciding a question, it must do so in a way that is not clearly against logic and the evidence. An improvident exercise of discretion is an error of law and grounds for reversing a decision on appeal. It does not, however, necessarily amount to bad faith, intentional wrong, or misconduct by the trial judge.

For example, the traditional standard of appellate review for evidence-related questions arising during trial is the "abuse of discretion" standard. Most judicial determinations are made based on evidence introduced at legal proceedings. Evidence may consist of oral testimony, written testimony, videotapes and sound recordings, documentary evidence such as exhibits and business records, and a host of other materials, including voice exemplars, handwriting samples, and blood tests.

Before such materials may be introduced into the record at a legal proceeding, the trial court must determine that they satisfy certain criteria governing the admissibility of evidence. At a minimum, the court must find that the evidence offered is relevant to the legal proceedings. Evidence that bears on a factual or legal issue at stake in a controversy is considered relevant evidence.

The relevancy of evidence is typically measured by its probative value. Evidence is generally deemed Probative if it has a tendency to make the existence of any material fact more or less probable. Evidence that a murder defendant ate spaghetti on the day of the murder might be relevant at trial if spaghetti sauce was found at the murder scene. Otherwise such evidence would probably be deemed irrelevant and could be excluded from trial if opposing counsel made the proper objection.

During many civil and criminal trials, judges rule on hundreds of evidentiary objections lodged by both parties. These rulings are normally snap judgments made in the heat of battle. Courts must make these decisions quickly to keep the proceedings moving on schedule. For this reason, judges are given wide latitude in making evidentiary rulings and will not be over-turned on appeal unless the appellate court finds that the trial judge abused his or her discretion.

For example, in a Negligence case, a state appellate court ruled that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting into evidence a posed accident-scene photograph, even though the photograph depicted a model pedestrian blindly walking into the path of the driver's vehicle with the pedestrian's head pointed straight ahead as if she was totally oblivious to the vehicle and other traffic. Gorman v. Hunt, 19 S.W.3d 662 (Ky. 2000). In upholding the trial court's decision to admit the evidence, the appellate court observed that the photograph was only used to show the pedestrian's position relative to the vehicle at the time of impact and not to blame the pedestrian for being negligent. The appellate court also noted that the lawyer objecting to the photograph's admissibility was free to remind the jury of its limited relevance during cross-examination and closing arguments.

An appellate court would find that a trial court abused its discretion, however, if it admitted into evidence a photograph without proof that it was authentic. Apter v. Ross, 781 N.E.2d 744 (Ind.App. 2003). A photograph's authenticity may be established by a witness's personal observations that the photograph accurately depicts what it purports to depict at the time the photograph was taken. Ordinarily the photographer who took the picture is in the best position to provide such testimony.

Further readings

Cohen, Ruth Bryna. 2000."Superior Court Affirms Non Pros for Failure to Subpoena Own Witness; Trial Court Did not Abuse Discretion in Its Application of Civil Procedure Rule 216." Pennsylvania Law Weekly (October 9).

Hamblett, Mark. 2001. "Circuit Panel Issues Recusal Guidelines; Says Rakoff Acted Properly In Not Stepping Down." New York Law Journal (February 26).

Riccardi, Michael A. 2002."Polygraph Evidence OK to Prove Probable Cause, Circuit Judges Say; No Abuse of Discretion in Relying on 'Lie Detector' for Limited Purpose." Pennsylvania Law Weekly (April 29).

Cross-references

Appeal; Bad Faith; Error; Evidence; Precedent; Probative; Relevancy.

West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

Ads by Google

Defamation Lawyer
Experienced Defamation Specialists 28 years experience in defamation
australian-defamation-lawyers.com.au

Reply to the Australian Government Solicitors



To
David Nguyen
Australian Government Solicitors
MLC Cente
Martin Place 2000

Dear Mr Nguyen
I respond to your letter dated 17th December 2013 where you intend to set my subpoena aside once again.
As I believe you must be of some intelligence I would recommend that you read the statements provided to the Australian Federal Police by Veronique Ingram , Adam Toma, Mathew Osborne Mark Findlay and Cheryl Cullen and you may come to your own ( even if it is limited ) conclusion why AFSA wants this subpoena set aside. Therefore it is the intention of the Australian Government Solicitor and AFSA to protect systemic corrupt conduct and I understand you are again asking a court and magistrate to comply with your request.

You also may feel obliged to inform your "ÇLIENTS'' of the consequences of perjury and the requirements of the Australian Public Service Code of conduct..........................
and may also feel obliged to inform Veronique Ingram of her obligation as a Government Agency Head and the responsibility this carries.
You are also aware I am not obligated in informing you how I intend to use the documents I have subpoenaed to use in my defence however you are clearly aware it relates to the systemic failure of senior Management at AFSA.
Thank You
Fiona Brown

Anyone wanting to testify against Veronique Ingram/ AFSA

If you have had difficulties with shonky Veronique Ingram Inspector General in Bankruptcy and  the systemic corrupt conduct this bitch is protecting at  the Australian Financial Security Authority or the old ITSA come and testify against  against her at the Downing Centre in Sydney...
Email me fionabrown01@hotmail.com if interested*****************

 Complaints about AFSA/ ITSA/ Veronique Ingram / Matthew Osborne/ Mark Findlay
If you have  had problems with ITSA / AFSA and would like to have the matter heard before a magistrate in a court of Law please contact me
fionabrown01@hotmail.com
and have your say in court.
This matter is to expose systemic corrupt conduct and corruption!!!!
Particularly if you   have had dealings with any of the following.....
Veronique Ingram, shonkey Inspector General in Bankruptcy
Adam Toma EX corrupt National Enforcement Manager
Matthew Osborne principal Legal Officer providing corrupt legal Advice to Trustees
Mark Findlay 
Gavin McCosker
Cheryl Cullen
Florence Choo 
Guilia Inga
Also anyone who has experience difficulty with Tibor Karolyi who originally worked for ITSA/ AFSA and now works for  de Vries Tayeh

 Complaints about AFSA/ ITSA/ Veronique Ingram / Matthew Osborne/ Mark Findlay
If you have  had problems with ITSA / AFSA and would like to have the matter heard before a magistrate in a court of Law please contact me
fionabrown01@hotmail.com
and have your say in court.
This matter is to expose systemic corrupt conduct and corruption!!!!
Particularly if you   have had dealings with any of the following.....
Veronique Ingram, shonkey Inspector General in Bankruptcy
Adam Toma EX corrupt National Enforcement Manager
Matthew Osborne principal Legal Officer providing corrupt legal Advice to Trustees
Mark Findlay 
Gavin McCosker
Cheryl Cullen
Florence Choo 
Guilia Inga
Also anyone who has experience difficulty with Tibor Karolyi who originally worked for ITSA/ AFSA and now works for  de Vries Tayeh