Wednesday, October 22, 2008
"Government is seeking to withhold evidence ..."
.
Gazetteer has left a new comment on "Mark Hume says: Corruption trial for political aides set to start in January":
Regardless of the dates, this business of the CONTINUED suppression of hundreds of documents due to government claims of 'solicitor/client privilege' is just ridiculous all these years later.
Because if even one single, solitary solicitor-client privilege-protected document contains information regarding matters of 'innocence at stake', as has already been defined by the presiding Justice in the case, it is, in my opinion, a travesty of justice (not to mention stonewalling on an epic scale that would make even the ghost of Richard Nixon's jaw drop).
But you don't have to take my word for it. Instead, you can just revisit the conclusory sentences from a most excellent editorial in the Victoria Times-Colonist from February of 2008:
"....there is no requirement that solicitor-client privilege be maintained; it is not law. The government is not a defendant in these proceedings.
"It (the government) could choose to be open, transparent and co-operative and provide the evidence.
"Instead, it is seeking to withhold the evidence."
Posted by Gazetteer to The Legislature Raids at October 22, 2008
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Gazetteer has left a new comment on "Mark Hume says: Corruption trial for political aides set to start in January":
Regardless of the dates, this business of the CONTINUED suppression of hundreds of documents due to government claims of 'solicitor/client privilege' is just ridiculous all these years later.
Because if even one single, solitary solicitor-client privilege-protected document contains information regarding matters of 'innocence at stake', as has already been defined by the presiding Justice in the case, it is, in my opinion, a travesty of justice (not to mention stonewalling on an epic scale that would make even the ghost of Richard Nixon's jaw drop).
But you don't have to take my word for it. Instead, you can just revisit the conclusory sentences from a most excellent editorial in the Victoria Times-Colonist from February of 2008:
"....there is no requirement that solicitor-client privilege be maintained; it is not law. The government is not a defendant in these proceedings.
"It (the government) could choose to be open, transparent and co-operative and provide the evidence.
"Instead, it is seeking to withhold the evidence."
Posted by Gazetteer to The Legislature Raids at October 22, 2008
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Comments:
<< Home
Thanks for posting up my comment Mary.
Here's the link to the original TC Editorial from February of this year.
And here is what I had to say about it at the time.
Thanks again,
RossK
______
(I'll also have more to say about this shortly at my place)
Post a Comment
Here's the link to the original TC Editorial from February of this year.
And here is what I had to say about it at the time.
Thanks again,
RossK
______
(I'll also have more to say about this shortly at my place)
<< Home
