http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-13/who-was-christmas-island-refugee-fazel-chegeni/6940110

As investigators piece together how this week's riot on Christmas Island unfolded, a clearer picture of the man whose death prompted the destruction is also starting to emerge.

Iranian Kurd, Fazel Chegeni, arrived by boat in Australia four years ago to seek asylum.

He was granted refugee status but was held in the Curtin Detention Centre for final security checks before being granted a visa.

It was there an incident occurred that shaped the rest of his life.

Mr Chegeni was involved in a fight inside the detention centre's canteen.

CCTV vision obtained by 7.30 shows Mr Chegeni pushing another detainee who then hits him with a plate.

The fight then degenerates into a brawl.

It is all over in less than a minute, but the brawl condemned Mr Chegeni to never being settled in Australia.

More than a year later, Mr Chegeni and four other men were charged with assault.

His solicitor, Matthew Wilson, said a strategic decision at the trial backfired, sealing Mr Chegeni's fate.

After initially entering a plea of not guilty, the five men changed their plea on legal advice when it appeared that the court was unlikely to be sympathetic to their argument of self-defence.

"Fazel and our other four clients elected to plead guilty, allowing them to express their remorse for their involvement in the fight and throw themselves at the full mercy of the court," Mr Wilson said.

http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Matthew-Wilson/463663917

Matthew holds a Bachelor of Arts (History and Literature Major) and a Bachelor of Laws with Deans Honours from Deakin University.

Matthew joined Robert Stary Lawyers in April 2011, having worked previously at Slater and Gordon Lawyers and the Australian Council of Trade Unions.

Matthew has held volunteer positions at the Western Suburbs Legal Service and the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre.

Doesn't surprise me one bit. These people need to learn that they can't behave like criminals just because they're growing impatient. They'll never be settled here.

The Libs never take responsibility for their failure.

It's always someone else's fault.

Dnarever wrote on Nov 14^th, 2015 at 7:25am:

The Libs never take responsibility for their failure. It's always someone else's fault.

What failure num nuts ? ;) ;)

aussie100percent wrote on Nov 14^th, 2015 at 7:41am:

Dnarever wrote on Nov 14th, 2015 at 7:25am: The Libs never take responsibility for their failure. It's always someone else's fault. What failure num nuts ? ;) ;)

hahahahaha


everything mate everything....to hear dna and kat whinge and whine their lives have been in purgatory since 2013....

dna is now desperate after the expose of the unions in the witch hunt... ::) ::)... so this is all he has got be kind to him...... his lot want to bring back the boats.. IMAGINE>.. ;D ;D ;D ;D

cods wrote on Nov 14^th, 2015 at 7:54am:

aussie100percent wrote on Nov 14th, 2015 at 7:41am: Dnarever wrote on Nov 14th, 2015 at 7:25am: The Libs never take responsibility for their failure. It's always someone else's fault. What failure num nuts ? ;) ;) hahahahaha everything mate everything....to hear dna and kat whinge and whine their lives have been in purgatory since 2013.... dna is now desperate after the expose of the unions in the witch hunt... ::) ::)... so this is all he has got be kind to him...... his lot want to bring back the boats.. IMAGINE>.. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Maybe they want to enter them into The America's Cup..........where is Alan Bond when ya need him?  ;D ;D

cods wrote on Nov 14^th, 2015 at 7:54am:

aussie100percent wrote on Nov 14th, 2015 at 7:41am: Dnarever wrote on Nov 14th, 2015 at 7:25am: The Libs never take responsibility for their failure. It's always someone else's fault. What failure num nuts ? ;) ;) hahahahaha everything mate everything....to hear dna and kat whinge and whine their lives have been in purgatory since 2013.... dna is now desperate after the expose of the unions in the witch hunt... ::) ::)... so this is all he has got be kind to him...... his lot want to bring back the boats.. IMAGINE>.. ;D ;D ;D ;D

SHAME LABOR SHAME

cods wrote on Nov 14^th, 2015 at 7:54am:

aussie100percent wrote on Nov 14th, 2015 at 7:41am: Dnarever wrote on Nov 14th, 2015 at 7:25am: The Libs never take responsibility for their failure. It's always someone else's fault. What failure num nuts ? ;) ;) hahahahaha everything mate everything....to hear dna and kat whinge and whine their lives have been in purgatory since 2013.... dna is now desperate after the expose of the unions in the witch hunt... ::) ::)... so this is all he has got be kind to him...... his lot want to bring back the boats.. IMAGINE>.. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Waffle.

The lawyer was correct to advise the men to plead guilty....Initiating the physical altercation would negate the self defence argument and diminish any argument of remorse....How the man escaped the detention centre and was later found dead is the responsibility of the Federal Government and staff at the detention centre!!!

::) ::) ::)   

philperth2010 wrote on Nov 14^th, 2015 at 11:19am:

The lawyer was correct to advise the men to plead guilty....Initiating the physical altercation would negate the self defence argument and diminish any argument of remorse....How the man escaped the detention centre and was later found dead is the responsibility of the Federal Government and staff at the detention centre!!! ::) ::) ::)

And it is not the man himself's fault?

mariacostel wrote on Nov 14^th, 2015 at 12:29pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Nov 14th, 2015 at 11:19am: The lawyer was correct to advise the men to plead guilty....Initiating the physical altercation would negate the self defence argument and diminish any argument of remorse....How the man escaped the detention centre and was later found dead is the responsibility of the Federal Government and staff at the detention centre!!! ::) ::) ::)    And it is not the man himself's fault?

Its the Leftists , the lawyer and then his own fault - yep everyone except for the people responsible for holding him with the legal duty of care responsibility.

As I said it is always someone else's fault.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 14^th, 2015 at 12:29pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Nov 14th, 2015 at 11:19am: The lawyer was correct to advise the men to plead guilty....Initiating the physical altercation would negate the self defence argument and diminish any argument of remorse....How the man escaped the detention centre and was later found dead is the responsibility of the Federal Government and staff at the detention centre!!! ::) ::) ::)    And it is not the man himself's fault?

I would point to the outrage from the right about the deaths under the pink batts scheme where the right placed the entire blame on the Labor Government despite contractors having OHS responsibilities that they failed to uphold....I would also like to point out that the OP placed the blame on a lawyer for giving advise which was correct....Blaming the deceased man without any information to form an opinion is bullshit in the extreme....The Federal Government is fully responsible for people under their care!!!

::) ::) ::)

philperth2010 wrote on Nov 14^th, 2015 at 11:19am:

The lawyer was correct to advise the men to plead guilty....Initiating the physical altercation would negate the self defence argument and diminish any argument of remorse....How the man escaped the detention centre and was later found dead is the responsibility of the Federal Government and staff at the detention centre!!! ::) ::) ::)

If he didn't try to escape then he would still be alive

So the lefties will say - when escaped he didn't anticipate on dying or anticipate his risk of death would increase

FFS - take personal responsibility!!

It's always someone else's fault

Maqqa wrote on Nov 14^th, 2015 at 1:11pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Nov 14th, 2015 at 11:19am: The lawyer was correct to advise the men to plead guilty....Initiating the physical altercation would negate the self defence argument and diminish any argument of remorse....How the man escaped the detention centre and was later found dead is the responsibility of the Federal Government and staff at the detention centre!!! ::) ::) ::)    If he didn't try to escape then he would still be alive So the lefties will say - when escaped he didn't anticipate on dying or anticipate his risk of death would increase for goodness sake - take personal responsibility!! It's always someone else's fault

Really....Yet here you are blaming the lawyer and then the victim....It is always someone else's fault when the LNP are involved accept those charged with the responsibility of their safety and care....How do you reconcile this with the outrage of the pink batt deaths where you placed full responsibility on the Labor Federal Government....The LNP are responsible for the safety of detainees under their care not a bloody lawyer???

[smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

philperth2010 wrote on Nov 14^th, 2015 at 2:14pm:

Maqqa wrote on Nov 14th, 2015 at 1:11pm: philperth2010 wrote on Nov 14th, 2015 at 11:19am: The lawyer was correct to advise the men to plead guilty....Initiating the physical altercation would negate the self defence argument and diminish any argument of remorse....How the man escaped the detention centre and was later found dead is the responsibility of the Federal Government and staff at the detention centre!!! ::) ::) ::)    If he didn't try to escape then he would still be alive So the lefties will say - when escaped he didn't anticipate on dying or anticipate his risk of death would increase for goodness sake - take personal responsibility!! It's always someone else's fault Really....Yet here you are blaming the lawyer and then the victim....It is always someone else's fault when the LNP are involved accept those charged with the responsibility of their safety and care....How do you reconcile this with the outrage of the pink batt deaths where you placed full responsibility on the Labor Federal Government....The LNP are responsible for the safety of detainees under their care not a bloody lawyer??? [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

The lawyer gave advice in a court of law

In Australia when someone gives advice under a licensing arrangement then he/she is responsible and therefore liable for the consequences of that advice

Maqqa wrote on Nov 14^th, 2015 at 2:19pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Nov 14th, 2015 at 2:14pm: Maqqa wrote on Nov 14th, 2015 at 1:11pm: philperth2010 wrote on Nov 14th, 2015 at 11:19am: The lawyer was correct to advise the men to plead guilty....Initiating the physical altercation would negate the self defence argument and diminish any argument of remorse....How the man escaped the detention centre and was later found dead is the responsibility of the Federal Government and staff at the detention centre!!! ::) ::) ::)    If he didn't try to escape then he would still be alive So the lefties will say - when escaped he didn't anticipate on dying or anticipate his risk of death would increase for goodness sake - take personal responsibility!! It's always someone else's fault Really....Yet here you are blaming the lawyer and then the victim....It is always someone else's fault when the LNP are involved accept those charged with the responsibility of their safety and care....How do you reconcile this with the outrage of the pink batt deaths where you placed full responsibility on the Labor Federal Government....The LNP are responsible for the safety of detainees under their care not a bloody lawyer??? [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] The lawyer gave advice in a court of law In Australia when someone gives advice under a licensing arrangement then he/she is responsible and therefore liable for the consequences of that advice

What a load of bullshit....The lawyer gave the right advice, as self defence would not be accepted by the court because the defendant initiated the physical altercation...The defendant is also free to reject this advice if they believe it will be detrimental to their case....Who is responsible for the safety and care of detainees.....The lawyer or the Government???

:-? :-? :-?

The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 - 1900), The Gay Science, section 191

The guy was ruled to have been a genuine refugee and was still locked up in poor conditions 4 years later.
Very surprising that he snapped.

philperth2010 wrote on Nov 14^th, 2015 at 2:14pm:

Maqqa wrote on Nov 14th, 2015 at 1:11pm: philperth2010 wrote on Nov 14th, 2015 at 11:19am: The lawyer was correct to advise the men to plead guilty....Initiating the physical altercation would negate the self defence argument and diminish any argument of remorse....How the man escaped the detention centre and was later found dead is the responsibility of the Federal Government and staff at the detention centre!!! ::) ::) ::)    If he didn't try to escape then he would still be alive So the lefties will say - when escaped he didn't anticipate on dying or anticipate his risk of death would increase for goodness sake - take personal responsibility!! It's always someone else's fault Really....Yet here you are blaming the lawyer and then the victim....It is always someone else's fault when the LNP are involved accept those charged with the responsibility of their safety and care....How do you reconcile this with the outrage of the pink batt deaths where you placed full responsibility on the Labor Federal Government....The LNP are responsible for the safety of detainees under their care not a bloody lawyer??? [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

Only so far. Past that point people are responsible for themselves and when they escape and die, the fault is theirs

mariacostel wrote on Nov 14^th, 2015 at 3:40pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Nov 14th, 2015 at 2:14pm: Maqqa wrote on Nov 14th, 2015 at 1:11pm: philperth2010 wrote on Nov 14th, 2015 at 11:19am: The lawyer was correct to advise the men to plead guilty....Initiating the physical altercation would negate the self defence argument and diminish any argument of remorse....How the man escaped the detention centre and was later found dead is the responsibility of the Federal Government and staff at the detention centre!!! ::) ::) ::)    If he didn't try to escape then he would still be alive So the lefties will say - when escaped he didn't anticipate on dying or anticipate his risk of death would increase for goodness sake - take personal responsibility!! It's always someone else's fault Really....Yet here you are blaming the lawyer and then the victim....It is always someone else's fault when the LNP are involved accept those charged with the responsibility of their safety and care....How do you reconcile this with the outrage of the pink batt deaths where you placed full responsibility on the Labor Federal Government....The LNP are responsible for the safety of detainees under their care not a bloody lawyer??? [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] Only so far. Past that point people are responsible for themselves and when they escape and die, the fault is theirs

So authorities have no responsibility for people under their jurisdiction once they escape....Yet you blame the ALP for people drowning at sea despite it being their own choice knowing the risks....You also blame the ALP for pink batts deaths despite employers being responsible for OHS....You also have no idea what circumstances led to this mans death but place the blame on the deceased....Using your analogy once a prisoner escapes custody the authorities have nothing to answer for....So far all the deaths and rapes under the LNP have resulted in not one person being held to account apart from the victims!!!

:-? :-? :-?

Phil with the calm commonsense.

This board needs you!

philperth2010 wrote on Nov 14^th, 2015 at 4:14pm:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 14th, 2015 at 3:40pm: philperth2010 wrote on Nov 14th, 2015 at 2:14pm: Maqqa wrote on Nov 14th, 2015 at 1:11pm: philperth2010 wrote on Nov 14th, 2015 at 11:19am: The lawyer was correct to advise the men to plead guilty....Initiating the physical altercation would negate the self defence argument and diminish any argument of remorse....How the man escaped the detention centre and was later found dead is the responsibility of the Federal Government and staff at the detention centre!!! ::) ::) ::)    If he didn't try to escape then he would still be alive So the lefties will say - when escaped he didn't anticipate on dying or anticipate his risk of death would increase for goodness sake - take personal responsibility!! It's always someone else's fault Really....Yet here you are blaming the lawyer and then the victim....It is always someone else's fault when the LNP are involved accept those charged with the responsibility of their safety and care....How do you reconcile this with the outrage of the pink batt deaths where you placed full responsibility on the Labor Federal Government....The LNP are responsible for the safety of detainees under their care not a bloody lawyer??? [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] Only so far. Past that point people are responsible for themselves and when they escape and die, the fault is theirs So authorities have no responsibility for people under their jurisdiction once they escape....Yet you blame the ALP for people drowning at sea despite it being their own choice knowing the risks....You also blame the ALP for pink batts deaths despite employers being responsible for OHS....You also have no idea what circumstances led to this mans death but place the blame on the deceased....Using your analogy once a prisoner escapes custody the authorities have nothing to answer for....So far all the deaths and rapes under the LNP have resulted in not one person being held to account apart from the victims!!! :-? :-? :-?

Top points for the passion, phil. Failing grade for the logic. You know what I mean, but you are so intent on having YOUR point that you deliberately minsinterpret what anyone says.

The guy is to blame himself.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 14^th, 2015 at 4:38pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Nov 14th, 2015 at 4:14pm: mariacostel wrote on Nov 14th, 2015 at 3:40pm: philperth2010 wrote on Nov 14th, 2015 at 2:14pm: Maqqa wrote on Nov 14th, 2015 at 1:11pm: philperth2010 wrote on Nov 14th, 2015 at 11:19am: The lawyer was correct to advise the men to plead guilty....Initiating the physical altercation would negate the self defence argument and diminish any argument of remorse....How the man escaped the detention centre and was later found dead is the responsibility of the Federal Government and staff at the detention centre!!! ::) ::) ::)    If he didn't try to escape then he would still be alive So the lefties will say - when escaped he didn't anticipate on dying or anticipate his risk of death would increase for goodness sake - take personal responsibility!! It's always someone else's fault Really....Yet here you are blaming the lawyer and then the victim....It is always someone else's fault when the LNP are involved accept those charged with the responsibility of their safety and care....How do you reconcile this with the outrage of the pink batt deaths where you placed full responsibility on the Labor Federal Government....The LNP are responsible for the safety of detainees under their care not a bloody lawyer??? [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] Only so far. Past that point people are responsible for themselves and when they escape and die, the fault is theirs So authorities have no responsibility for people under their jurisdiction once they escape....Yet you blame the ALP for people drowning at sea despite it being their own choice knowing the risks....You also blame the ALP for pink batts deaths despite employers being responsible for OHS....You also have no idea what circumstances led to this mans death but place the blame on the deceased....Using your analogy once a prisoner escapes custody the authorities have nothing to answer for....So far all the deaths and rapes under the LNP have resulted in not one person being held to account apart from the victims!!! :-? :-? :-? Top points for the passion, phil. Failing grade for the logic. You know what I mean, but you are so intent on having YOUR point that you deliberately minsinterpret what anyone says. The guy is to blame himself.

How do you know....You do not even know how he died yet you blame him regardless....At least you did not try to blame the lawyer and just made baseless assumptions to support your claim....Everyone else's fault accept those who are responsible for the safety of detainees....This is becoming a pattern for the LNP!!!

::) ::) ::)

philperth2010 wrote on Nov 14^th, 2015 at 4:59pm:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 14th, 2015 at 4:38pm: philperth2010 wrote on Nov 14th, 2015 at 4:14pm: mariacostel wrote on Nov 14th, 2015 at 3:40pm: philperth2010 wrote on Nov 14th, 2015 at 2:14pm: Maqqa wrote on Nov 14th, 2015 at 1:11pm: philperth2010 wrote on Nov 14th, 2015 at 11:19am: The lawyer was correct to advise the men to plead guilty....Initiating the physical altercation would negate the self defence argument and diminish any argument of remorse....How the man escaped the detention centre and was later found dead is the responsibility of the Federal Government and staff at the detention centre!!! ::) ::) ::)    If he didn't try to escape then he would still be alive So the lefties will say - when escaped he didn't anticipate on dying or anticipate his risk of death would increase for goodness sake - take personal responsibility!! It's always someone else's fault Really....Yet here you are blaming the lawyer and then the victim....It is always someone else's fault when the LNP are involved accept those charged with the responsibility of their safety and care....How do you reconcile this with the outrage of the pink batt deaths where you placed full responsibility on the Labor Federal Government....The LNP are responsible for the safety of detainees under their care not a bloody lawyer??? [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] Only so far. Past that point people are responsible for themselves and when they escape and die, the fault is theirs So authorities have no responsibility for people under their jurisdiction once they escape....Yet you blame the ALP for people drowning at sea despite it being their own choice knowing the risks....You also blame the ALP for pink batts deaths despite employers being responsible for OHS....You also have no idea what circumstances led to this mans death but place the blame on the deceased....Using your analogy once a prisoner escapes custody the authorities have nothing to answer for....So far all the deaths and rapes under the LNP have resulted in not one person being held to account apart from the victims!!! :-? :-? :-? Top points for the passion, phil. Failing grade for the logic. You know what I mean, but you are so intent on having YOUR point that you deliberately minsinterpret what anyone says. The guy is to blame himself. How do you know....You do not even know how he died yet you blame him regardless....At least you did not try to blame the lawyer and just made baseless assumptions to support your claim....Everyone else's fault accept those who are responsible for the safety of detainees....This is becoming a pattern for the LNP!!! ::) ::) ::)

You do not know how he died and yet you are blaming everyone ELSE.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 14^th, 2015 at 7:12pm:

You do not know how he died and yet you are blaming everyone ELSE.

is he? where? :D :D

Maqqa wrote on Nov 14^th, 2015 at 2:19pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Nov 14th, 2015 at 2:14pm: Maqqa wrote on Nov 14th, 2015 at 1:11pm: philperth2010 wrote on Nov 14th, 2015 at 11:19am: The lawyer was correct to advise the men to plead guilty....Initiating the physical altercation would negate the self defence argument and diminish any argument of remorse....How the man escaped the detention centre and was later found dead is the responsibility of the Federal Government and staff at the detention centre!!! ::) ::) ::)    If he didn't try to escape then he would still be alive So the lefties will say - when escaped he didn't anticipate on dying or anticipate his risk of death would increase for goodness sake - take personal responsibility!! It's always someone else's fault Really....Yet here you are blaming the lawyer and then the victim....It is always someone else's fault when the LNP are involved accept those charged with the responsibility of their safety and care....How do you reconcile this with the outrage of the pink batt deaths where you placed full responsibility on the Labor Federal Government....The LNP are responsible for the safety of detainees under their care not a bloody lawyer??? [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] The lawyer gave advice in a court of law In Australia when someone gives advice under a licensing arrangement then he/she is responsible and therefore liable for the consequences of that advice

Quote the law that states this, bozzo. You have no idea what you're talking ahout.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 14^th, 2015 at 3:40pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Nov 14th, 2015 at 2:14pm: Maqqa wrote on Nov 14th, 2015 at 1:11pm: philperth2010 wrote on Nov 14th, 2015 at 11:19am: The lawyer was correct to advise the men to plead guilty....Initiating the physical altercation would negate the self defence argument and diminish any argument of remorse....How the man escaped the detention centre and was later found dead is the responsibility of the Federal Government and staff at the detention centre!!! ::) ::) ::)    If he didn't try to escape then he would still be alive So the lefties will say - when escaped he didn't anticipate on dying or anticipate his risk of death would increase for goodness sake - take personal responsibility!! It's always someone else's fault Really....Yet here you are blaming the lawyer and then the victim....It is always someone else's fault when the LNP are involved accept those charged with the responsibility of their safety and care....How do you reconcile this with the outrage of the pink batt deaths where you placed full responsibility on the Labor Federal Government....The LNP are responsible for the safety of detainees under their care not a bloody lawyer??? [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] Only so far. Past that point people are responsible for themselves and when they escape and die, the fault is theirs

You are acting like detention centres are for safety?  Have you honestly become so thick, longie?  Whats your logic here, that if a person decides to walk through a street at 3am and subsequently gets killed its their own fault? Ffs, we dont know how he died but we can sure bef that under most circumstances no one would suggest personal responsibility for an unnatural death. 

mariacostel wrote on Nov 14^th, 2015 at 7:12pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Nov 14th, 2015 at 4:59pm: mariacostel wrote on Nov 14th, 2015 at 4:38pm: philperth2010 wrote on Nov 14th, 2015 at 4:14pm: mariacostel wrote on Nov 14th, 2015 at 3:40pm: philperth2010 wrote on Nov 14th, 2015 at 2:14pm: Maqqa wrote on Nov 14th, 2015 at 1:11pm: philperth2010 wrote on Nov 14th, 2015 at 11:19am: The lawyer was correct to advise the men to plead guilty....Initiating the physical altercation would negate the self defence argument and diminish any argument of remorse....How the man escaped the detention centre and was later found dead is the responsibility of the Federal Government and staff at the detention centre!!! ::) ::) ::)    If he didn't try to escape then he would still be alive So the lefties will say - when escaped he didn't anticipate on dying or anticipate his risk of death would increase for goodness sake - take personal responsibility!! It's always someone else's fault Really....Yet here you are blaming the lawyer and then the victim....It is always someone else's fault when the LNP are involved accept those charged with the responsibility of their safety and care....How do you reconcile this with the outrage of the pink batt deaths where you placed full responsibility on the Labor Federal Government....The LNP are responsible for the safety of detainees under their care not a bloody lawyer??? [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] Only so far. Past that point people are responsible for themselves and when they escape and die, the fault is theirs So authorities have no responsibility for people under their jurisdiction once they escape....Yet you blame the ALP for people drowning at sea despite it being their own choice knowing the risks....You also blame the ALP for pink batts deaths despite employers being responsible for OHS....You also have no idea what circumstances led to this mans death but place the blame on the deceased....Using your analogy once a prisoner escapes custody the authorities have nothing to answer for....So far all the deaths and rapes under the LNP have resulted in not one person being held to account apart from the victims!!! :-? :-? :-? Top points for the passion, phil. Failing grade for the logic. You know what I mean, but you are so intent on having YOUR point that you deliberately minsinterpret what anyone says. The guy is to blame himself. How do you know....You do not even know how he died yet you blame him regardless....At least you did not try to blame the lawyer and just made baseless assumptions to support your claim....Everyone else's fault accept those who are responsible for the safety of detainees....This is becoming a pattern for the LNP!!! ::) ::) ::) You do not know how he died and yet you are blaming everyone ELSE.

Have a geek at the title and who posted it ?

Lets take this back several notches

Stage 1
He was given refugee status and issued a VISA

Stage 2
He was involved in an assault

Stage 3
His lawyer advised him to plea guilty even though a guilty plea meant he would lose his VISA

Stage 4
As the result of his guilty plea he fails the character test and lose his VISA

Stage 5
VISA revoked and he was kept in detention for deportation

Stage 6
He tried to escape and died. Investigations underway for cause of death


The point of this thread is - in Stage 3 his lawyer failed him.

Lefties continue to focus on Stage 6

We need to accept that this isn't even about refugees at all really, nobody really gives a f--ckin fat rats arse about the refugees, Left or Right, this is 100% about politics, just like everything else in life, the only thing we think about when those reffo dregs are sailing over the horizon is how is this going to help my political position.     :(

Maqqa wrote on Nov 14^th, 2015 at 1:11pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Nov 14th, 2015 at 11:19am: The lawyer was correct to advise the men to plead guilty....Initiating the physical altercation would negate the self defence argument and diminish any argument of remorse....How the man escaped the detention centre and was later found dead is the responsibility of the Federal Government and staff at the detention centre!!! ::) ::) ::)    If he didn't try to escape then he would still be alive So the lefties will say - when escaped he didn't anticipate on dying or anticipate his risk of death would increase for goodness sake - take personal responsibility!! It's always someone else's fault

Have a look at your title to this topic and the lead comment - seems you started out blaming the Lawyer and the Leftists ?

Dnarever wrote on Nov 15^th, 2015 at 7:59am:

Have a look at your title to this topic and the lead comment - seems you started out blaming the Lawyer and the Leftists ?

That would be the Right way to take responsibility would it not?

Maqqa wrote on Nov 14^th, 2015 at 1:11pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Nov 14th, 2015 at 11:19am: The lawyer was correct to advise the men to plead guilty....Initiating the physical altercation would negate the self defence argument and diminish any argument of remorse....How the man escaped the detention centre and was later found dead is the responsibility of the Federal Government and staff at the detention centre!!! ::) ::) ::)    If he didn't try to escape then he would still be alive So the lefties will say - when escaped he didn't anticipate on dying or anticipate his risk of death would increase for goodness sake - take personal responsibility!! It's always someone else's fault

If he didn't try to escape then he would still be alive

Probably but had he been released in a timely fashion following being identified as a genuine refugee he also would likely still been alive. Had he not been imprisoned for 4 years having committed no crime he also would still be alive.

However we don't know how he died, he may have died from a stroke which could have occurred in any scenario or it could have been a heat attack which should have been treated and the blame falls on his lack of treatment and the due diligence of his captors and the nastiness of the governments.

rightie logic

lock them up until they go mental and then blame them for going mental  :D :D :D :D

John Smith wrote on Nov 15^th, 2015 at 8:59am:

rightie logic lock them up until they go mental and then blame them for going mental  :D :D :D :D

Seems to have worked well for over 2 decades now - why change a winning formula ?

Maqqa wrote on Nov 15^th, 2015 at 12:30am:

Lets take this back several notches Stage 1 He was given refugee status and issued a VISA - Because he was found to be a genuine refugee and of sound character, until he assaulted another detainee. Then the Immigration Minister cancelled his visa because he believed the man failed the character test. Peter Dutton obviously thought the assault was serious enough to take this action. Stage 2 He was involved in an assault - Which he initiated by pushing another person, this is defined as common assault under Australian law. Stage 3 His lawyer advised him to plea guilty even though a guilty plea meant he would lose his VISA - There were no grounds for self defence as the accused initiated the physical contact. The accused was also free to reject the lawyers advice if he thought it would be detrimental to his defence. Not accepting responsibility and showing no remorse would have resulted in a harsher penalty. He would have lost his visa anyway and suffered a harsher penalty from the court. Stage 4 As the result of his guilty plea he fails the character test and lose his VISA - As a result of the defendant initiating a common assault he failed the character test and would have lost his visa no matter how he pleaded. Any lawyer would advise their client to plead guilty when they are in fact guilty. Stage 5 VISA revoked and he was kept in detention for deportation - Where the responsibility for his incarceration and safety are the sole responsibility of detention centre staff and the Immigration Minister. Stage 6 He tried to escape and died. Investigations underway for cause of death - The investigation will also examine how was able to escape and the circumstances that lead to him being found deceased. The point of this thread is - in Stage 3 his lawyer failed him. - You are incorrect, the lawyer gave his client the correct advise. Do you think a plea of self defence would have been accepted by the court when the defendant initiated the physical assault? Lefties continue to focus on Stage 6 - You continue to fail in your interpretation of common law and who is responsible for anyone who is interned by the Government for any reason. If a prisoner escapes custody who is responsible, the authorities charged with ensuring his safety and the safety of the public or the person who escaped.

Using your flawed analogy and adverse impacts on a person who is incarcerated is the fault of the lawyer who represented them not those charged with their care. I a prisoner escapes jail it is the lawyers fault? 

It may well be that this man escaped and committed suicide or had a tragic accident....However the lawyer is not responsible for his incarceration and safety is he....That responsibility falls on the Immigration Minister Peter Dutton?

::) ::) ::) 

philperth2010 wrote on Nov 15^th, 2015 at 10:09am:

Maqqa wrote on Nov 15th, 2015 at 12:30am: Lets take this back several notches Stage 1 He was given refugee status and issued a VISA - Because he was found to be a genuine refugee and of sound character, until he assaulted another detainee. Then the Immigration Minister cancelled his visa because he believed the man failed the character test. Peter Dutton obviously thought the assault was serious enough to take this action. That is mentioned in Stage 3. So my logic is not flawed. It's just you can't read Stage 2 He was involved in an assault - Which he initiated by pushing another person, this is defined as common assault under Australian law. Stage 3 His lawyer advised him to plea guilty even though a guilty plea meant he would lose his VISA - There were no grounds for self defence as the accused initiated the physical contact. The accused was also free to reject the lawyers advice if he thought it would be detrimental to his defence. Not accepting responsibility and showing no remorse would have resulted in a harsher penalty. He would have lost his visa anyway and suffered a harsher penalty from the court. If there were mitigating circumstances then this should be presented. If there were no mitigating circumstances then this guy is stuffed. If this is the case then why are lefties defending him? Stage 4 As the result of his guilty plea he fails the character test and lose his VISA - As a result of the defendant initiating a common assault he failed the character test and would have lost his visa no matter how he pleaded. Any lawyer would advise their client to plead guilty when they are in fact guilty. If so then why are lefties defending this guy? Stage 5 VISA revoked and he was kept in detention for deportation - Where the responsibility for his incarceration and safety are the sole responsibility of detention centre staff and the Immigration Minister. Not if he's suicidal. If he wants to kill himself then he will kill himself. Don't pin that one on someone else Stage 6 He tried to escape and died. Investigations underway for cause of death - The investigation will also examine how was able to escape and the circumstances that lead to him being found deceased. That should set an example for others not to do the same The point of this thread is - in Stage 3 his lawyer failed him. - You are incorrect, the lawyer gave his client the correct advise. Do you think a plea of self defence would have been accepted by the court when the defendant initiated the physical assault? If as you said he's guilty beyond doubt then why are lefties defending him? Lefties continue to focus on Stage 6 - You continue to fail in your interpretation of common law and who is responsible for anyone who is interned by the Government for any reason. If a prisoner escapes custody who is responsible, the authorities charged with ensuring his safety and the safety of the public or the person who escaped. If it is as you have interpret then someone would be prosecuted for every single death in custody Using your flawed analogy and adverse impacts on a person who is incarcerated is the fault of the lawyer who represented them not those charged with their care. I a prisoner escapes jail it is the lawyers fault?  It may well be that this man escaped and committed suicide or had a tragic accident....However the lawyer is not responsible for his incarceration and safety is he....That responsibility falls on the Immigration Minister Peter Dutton? ::) ::) ::)  You can't read

John Smith wrote on Nov 15^th, 2015 at 8:59am:

rightie logic lock them up until they go mental and then blame them for going mental  :D :D :D :D

They might not go mental if they stopped by the first come they come across

But instead pinned all their hopes and money on a destination that will not put up with their cr#p

What country do you think he should have stopped at?

"Because he was found to be a genuine refugee and of sound character, until he assaulted another detainee. Then the Immigration Minister cancelled his visa because he believed the man failed the character test. Peter Dutton obviously thought the assault was serious enough to take this action."

Doesn't sound like much of an assault and nothing uncommon in an area where people are packed cheek by jowel and under pressure.  Not something that required the draconian punishment of eternal banishment to the outer darkness never to return.

That's just tub-thumping by a minister of a government with no real policy for handling people in a humane manner.

The 'court' should have accepted his 'assault' was miniscule and offered the same kind of punishment anyone else would have received - a caution and see ya later.

Does anyone really imagine the courts here are clogged up with assault charges against people who pushed someone else?

Authorities who charged the defendant with common assault obviously believed he was guilty or they would not have pressed charges against him....The Immigration Minister obviously thought the charges were serious enough to revoke his visa and deport him....All a lawyer can do is instruct his client, he cannot force them to accept his advice....Where the authorities wrong to charge this man with common assault and was the Immigration Minister wrong to revoke his visa....Over to you Maqqa???

:-? :-? :-?

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Nov 15^th, 2015 at 11:18am:

"Because he was found to be a genuine refugee and of sound character, until he assaulted another detainee. Then the Immigration Minister cancelled his visa because he believed the man failed the character test. Peter Dutton obviously thought the assault was serious enough to take this action." Doesn't sound like much of an assault and nothing uncommon in an area where people are packed cheek by jowel and under pressure.  Not something that required the draconian punishment of eternal banishment to the outer darkness never to return. That's just tub-thumping by a minister of a government with no real policy for handling people in a humane manner. The 'court' should have accepted his 'assault' was miniscule and offered the same kind of punishment anyone else would have received - a caution and see ya later. Does anyone really imagine the courts here are clogged up with assault charges against people who pushed someone else?

Exactly Grapp....It was not the lawyer who charged the man with assault or revoked his visa....The penalty was handed down by a Minister who thought the punishment fitted the crime!!!

:-? :-? :-?

philperth2010 wrote on Nov 15^th, 2015 at 11:19am:

Authorities who charged the defendant with common assault obviously believed he was guilty or they would not have pressed charges against him....The Immigration Minister obviously thought the charges were serious enough to revoke his visa and deport him....All a lawyer can do is instruct his client, he cannot force them to accept his advice....Where the authorities wrong to charge this man with common assault and was the Immigration Minister wrong to revoke his visa....Over to you Maqqa??? :-? :-? :-?

Yes - nobody in the street would be charged with that unless it was against a police officer, and we all know the streets are just filled with people who decide to take on police for no good reason, even when they've never committed any wrong in the past  ;D  ;D

Maqqa wrote on Nov 15^th, 2015 at 10:56am:

John Smith wrote on Nov 15th, 2015 at 8:59am: rightie logic lock them up until they go mental and then blame them for going mental  :D :D :D :D They might not go mental if they stopped by the first come they come across But instead pinned all their hopes and money on a destination that will not put up with their cr#p

yeah I know gumpy, it's never the govt.s fault when its a liberal govt.  Where should he have stopped? Malaysia? Indonesia? Perhaps China? which of those countries would have allowed him to start anew do you think? :D :D :D


Maqqa wrote on Nov 15^th, 2015 at 10:54am:

If as you said he's guilty beyond doubt then why are lefties defending him?

no one is defending him or his actions, some however, are questioning the governments duty of care. That you cannot distinguish between the two shows just what a fool you are. Face it Gumpy, you're a hypocrite. You have one standard for the libs, and another standard for everyone else.

Run Forrest Run ;D ;D

Even now after it has been shown beyond doubt that there are terrorists amongst refugees, that want to murder our children, the idiot left is more determined than ever to bring them in, the idiot left are lemmings and they are taking the rest of us off the cliff with them.  :(

John Smith wrote on Nov 15^th, 2015 at 1:01pm:

no one is defending him or his actions, some however, are questioning the governments duty of care. That you cannot distinguish between the two shows just what a fool you are. Face it Gumpy, you're a hypocrite. You have one standard for the libs, and another standard for everyone else. Run Forrest Run ;D ;D

Look jack sheet

He was safe in detention - he died while escaping

Its immigration detention - i.e. an administration function

He's been safe since 2011 so there's a long history of safety and duty of care if you follow the rules

Maqqa wrote on Nov 15^th, 2015 at 1:58pm:

John Smith wrote on Nov 15th, 2015 at 1:01pm: no one is defending him or his actions, some however, are questioning the governments duty of care. That you cannot distinguish between the two shows just what a fool you are. Face it Gumpy, you're a hypocrite. You have one standard for the libs, and another standard for everyone else. Run Forrest Run ;D ;D Look jack sheet He was safe in detention - he died while escaping Its immigration detention - i.e. an administration function He's been safe since 2011 so there's a long history of safety and duty of care if you follow the rules

that you believe that shows what a gullible fool you are


  :D :D :D :D

John Smith wrote on Nov 15^th, 2015 at 8:58pm:

Maqqa wrote on Nov 15th, 2015 at 1:58pm: John Smith wrote on Nov 15th, 2015 at 1:01pm: no one is defending him or his actions, some however, are questioning the governments duty of care. That you cannot distinguish between the two shows just what a fool you are. Face it Gumpy, you're a hypocrite. You have one standard for the libs, and another standard for everyone else. Run Forrest Run ;D ;D Look jack sheet He was safe in detention - he died while escaping Its immigration detention - i.e. an administration function He's been safe since 2011 so there's a long history of safety and duty of care if you follow the rules that you believe that shows what a gullible fool you are   :D :D :D :D

It's a fact that he was safe until he "got dead" while escaping

And who put him there?

Himself and his lawyer

bullshit ... you still pretending he escaped?  ;D ;D ;D

John Smith wrote on Nov 15^th, 2015 at 9:11pm:

bullshit ... you still pretending he escaped?  ;D ;D ;D

That's what the reporting says

If you have information to the contrary then lets see it but until then this is the way it happened

Maqqa wrote on Nov 15^th, 2015 at 9:09pm:

John Smith wrote on Nov 15th, 2015 at 8:58pm: Maqqa wrote on Nov 15th, 2015 at 1:58pm: John Smith wrote on Nov 15th, 2015 at 1:01pm: no one is defending him or his actions, some however, are questioning the governments duty of care. That you cannot distinguish between the two shows just what a fool you are. Face it Gumpy, you're a hypocrite. You have one standard for the libs, and another standard for everyone else. Run Forrest Run ;D ;D Look jack sheet He was safe in detention - he died while escaping Its immigration detention - i.e. an administration function He's been safe since 2011 so there's a long history of safety and duty of care if you follow the rules that you believe that shows what a gullible fool you are   :D :D :D :D It's a fact that he was safe until he "got dead" while escaping And who put him there? Himself and his lawyer

Actually the court did not impose a custodial sentence....The Immigration Minister revoked his Visa on character grounds and he was moved the Christmas Island for deportation....Despite being evaluated as a refugee!!!

::) ::) ::)

philperth2010 wrote on Nov 15^th, 2015 at 11:01pm:

Actually the court did not impose a custodial sentence....The Immigration Minister revoked his Visa on character grounds and he was moved the Christmas Island for deportation....Despite being evaluated as a refugee!!! ::) ::) ::)

Actually immigration have the authority to reject a VISA based on character grounds

Watch Border Security much?

Maqqa wrote on Nov 15^th, 2015 at 11:12pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Nov 15th, 2015 at 11:01pm: Actually the court did not impose a custodial sentence....The Immigration Minister revoked his Visa on character grounds and he was moved the Christmas Island for deportation....Despite being evaluated as a refugee!!! ::) ::) ::) Actually immigration have the authority to reject a VISA based on character grounds Watch Border Security much?

Deflection much....The lawyer would have been aware that a trivial common assault would not have attracted a custodial sentence which it didn't....However he would not have been aware that the Immigration Minister would revoke his visa for such a trivial matter....Dutton was going to send this bloke back to Syria FFS despite him being accessed as a genuine refugee!!!

:-? :-? :-?

philperth2010 wrote on Nov 15^th, 2015 at 11:18pm:

Maqqa wrote on Nov 15th, 2015 at 11:12pm: philperth2010 wrote on Nov 15th, 2015 at 11:01pm: Actually the court did not impose a custodial sentence....The Immigration Minister revoked his Visa on character grounds and he was moved the Christmas Island for deportation....Despite being evaluated as a refugee!!! ::) ::) ::) Actually immigration have the authority to reject a VISA based on character grounds Watch Border Security much? Deflection much....The lawyer would have been aware that a trivial common assault would not have attracted a custodial sentence which it didn't....However he would not have been aware that the Immigration Minister would revoke his visa for such a trivial matter....Dutton was going to send this bloke back to Syria for goodness sake despite him being accessed as a genuine refugee!!! :-? :-? :-?

Deflection?

As usual I corrected you!

The power to revoke rests not only in the Minister but also in the hands of Immigration officers

Now you are saying his lawyer didn't know? This is incompetence then!

People get their VISA revoked all the time on character test.

Like I said just watch Border Security and it's very obvious that you would not pass a character test if you have a criminal conviction in the last 10 years

Revoking a visa over a little push and shove? What sort of country have we become?