u/Worldly_Tomorrow_869

>Last month, alleged intruder Joshua Trethewey was alegedly shot by home owner Keith Blessing at his property about 65 kilometres south-west of Tenterfield.

>The 34-year-old was charged with two counts of wounding with intent to murder and one count of aggravated break and enter and committing an indictable offence.

>Ms Thom said it was "likely" Mr Blessing would also be charged.

This is really poor form on behalf of the ABC IMHO. Given the circumstances I don't see why any sensible person would consider it "likely" that he would be charged. Claims like this just add credibility to claims by certain people that "you can't defend yourself".

Leaving to one side the questionable ethics of developers making million dollar "loans" to politicians, I think we now know why she pulled her matter.

In another humiliating backdown by the Victorian Liberal Party Executive, Deeming has withdrawn here Supreme Court application.

But, she has still not walked back the allegations "In her statement to the party's state executive, Mrs Deeming continued to allege she was "grabbed, held and pulled with force that caused me pain and distress"."

"During a five-week trial, LN, who has been diagnosed with dissociative identity disorder (DID), was sworn in as three separate identities known as alters."

That's pretty wild and begs the question, who goes to gaol if the alter commits perjury?

Appears that the defence did not object to the alters giving evidence at trial.

[At 11] "Dr Blair-West, who interviewed and assessed LN, said he was left in no doubt that LN is correctly diagnosed as having DID.    He explained that a person with DID has quite distinct parts to them and that those various parts have a separation of memory such that each part of the person has its own set of memories. He said that this is the case with LN, who has various “alters” or “system members”. It was on the basis of her diagnosis of DID that LN gave evidence without objection as more than one identity in the trial, each having a different name. Her evidence commenced with her presentation as LN, but shortly after this, she “switched” in the presence of the jury to the alter known as “Em”. LN thereafter gave evidence over numerous days either as LN or as the alter Em, Heather or Maisy, and she was also cross-examined as those various alters."

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/198588c1757c0ad742dfb897

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/19ee020f0dbeb8e43fc472bd

The decision

The irony appears to be that , has they waited until late 2015 before making the application, they would have satisfied the 12 year requirement.

The plot thickens.

In what will come as a surprise to no one.

Sorry u/manwithdominantclaw , it looks like these idiots have a tame MP on side, and it will have to wait until the next sitting of parliament before a vote can be taken to kill this.

https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r7479

It will be interesting to see the uptake on this. Before Cannabis could be prescribed there was a compassionate use scheme which gave people who registered and their carers a free pass on Cannabis possession, but very few people registered.

>Solicitor Advocate Danielle Captain-Webb said the Kuzmins family was concerned about the lack of strip searches on Ms Kuzmins's arrival in custody, adding that stronger systems should be in place to prevent future oversight of a "critical safeguard".

It's going to be interesting to see what recommendations the Coroner makes on this one given that strip searches have been widely condemned.

>On Tuesday, the NSW government helped pass a scaled-back version of its reforms, removing good character as a mitigating factor for sexual offences.

>NSW Premier Chris Minns had wanted to abolish the consideration of an offender's good character for all crimes.

Has this really shifted the needle? Athos v R already allowed limited weight to be given to character for certain offences.

Edited the title because it was ambiguous. They are attempting to change the law to stop DV offenders from receiving the estate of a former partner despite a binding beneficiary nomination.

>The first proposal by the federal government would allow a super fund to overrule a binding death benefit nomination if it believes "on a fair and reasonable basis" the chosen beneficiary has perpetrated abuse.

>The two other proposed 0ptions would require the courts to determine whether domestic violence was present in the relationship before a super fund could decide death benefit payments.

Now, here's the scary bit.

>

Jasmine Opdam from the Redfern Legal Centre says involving the courts is unacceptable.

Fortunately the industry is having none of it.

>"Death benefits are legal entitlements that belong to beneficiaries under trustee law. They are not discretionary payments. Stripping someone of a legal entitlement requires an objective, legally defensible finding, particularly where criminal conduct is alleged," said Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia's (ASFA's) CEO Mary Delahunty in a statement to the ABC.

>"Unlike judicial bodies, super fund trustees do not have investigative powers or mechanisms to test contested claims about criminal conduct in a procedurally fair way,"

I think some people have been drinking the coolaid for too long on this one. There is an arguable benefit to initially doing away with some aspects of procedural fairness when DV is alleged, to ensure that a person who may be at risk of harm is protected as soon as possible.

There are downsides to that path, but they all end in a Court so everyone at least gets heard.

Some of these payouts are significant, and I think Family Law is a great example of where the truth can take a back seat when emotions are high, and money is at stake. Not involving a fact finding body of some description, be that a court or tribunal, would be a mistake IMHO.

I'm not sure I would want to be the practitioner coming before the Court to explain this one. I definitely wouldn't want to be the accused seeking bail, ever, but specifically so in this case. It feels like they are poking the bear on this one.