Today a Brisbane Supreme Court judge adjourned an alleged bikie's bail hearing because of Mr Newman's recent comments that judges should recognise that the community wanted "protection", and should act accordingly.

Justice George Fryberg questioned whether he should hear the DPP's application to revoke 25-year-old Jared Kevin Anthony Brown's bail.

The judge quoted that quoted Mr Newman as saying thathe wanted the Queensland judiciary to act to "protect the community".

Judge says 'it's essential justice be seen to be done', claims Newman's comments compromise that

Justice Fryberg said he was troubled by the comments, which he said could put the public's perception of justice at risk.

"Before I commence hearing this case, I need to know whether the report reflects what the Premier said about this case and whether the DPP reflects that view, or whether they have withdrawn it," he said.

"It is essential in our system that justice be seen to be done.

"If we hear remarks on the record that are not withdrawn, it would be very difficult for members of the public to avoid the conclusion that the court was bending to the will of the government ... justice would not be seen to be done.

"The difficulty I see is the application is being brought by the Government ... the Government's principal spokesman has publicly told the court what the outcome should be."

Adjourning the DPP's application to have the bail decision reviewed, Justice Fryberg asked the DPP to determine whether the media reports of Mr Newman's coments were accurate, whether the Premier had withdrawn what he said, and if not, whether the court ought to hear the matter or stay it indefinitely.

Newman refused to back down in parliament this afternoon

Mr Newman's government has recently pushed through tough new laws aimed at closing down bikie gangs and giving itself the power to rule on whether sex offenders should stay behind bars.

And the Premier refused to back down in state parliament this afternoon, saying he had never commented on specific cases.

"My comments are reflecting what the people of Queensland are saying and thinking," he said.

"My comments are backed by Queenslanders who want the judiciary to listen to them. That's what we're asking [them] to do."

Mr Newman said he was not the first senior politician to question court decisions, and said many Labor politicians had made "direct personal attacks on judges".

"Peter Beattie had a tougher go at the judges... Judy Spence had a bigger go at judges, Anna Bligh had a bigger go at judges, the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia had a bigger go at judges," he said.

'Courts could grind to halt' says Labor

Earlier Opposition Leader Annastacia Palaszczuk warned the state's legal system could be at risk if Mr Newman did not back down.

"I expect the Premier to stand up [in parliament] and withdraw his comments unreservedly, and apologise to the courts for these attacks," she said.

"Otherwise our courts will grind to a halt.

"Today is a wake-up call for the Premier."

The bail hearing will return to court tomorrow.

A judge must judge whether or not the law being applied is LEGAL in and of itself. That is their duty.

For those who missed it - I have proudly put out an assertion on the fundamental difference between three things - legislation, law and Law.

legislation is what is passed through a house of parliament.

law is what is put into the legal system to seek validation of this legislation.

Law is the final determination of the status of that legislation in regard to Law - i.e. whether or not that legislation passes the Rule of Law.

You may recall the attempt to imprison a foreign born doctor here - Dr Haneef, under legislation set in place by the Federal Government, over his ownership of a mobile phone traced to a terrorist suspect.

The government set in train draconian measures that would have seen him imprisoned as an associate of known terrorists.

The Court struck it down.

Do you see the comparison here yet?

A Judge, acting on the Rule of Law, has every right to place a motion from the government on temporary hold, so as to allow the government to consider its position under Law, and hopefully to permit that government to come to the proper Legal decision.

This is a position of moderation taken by a Judge where there is a plain conflict between legislation and Law, and is certainly not cause for vilification.

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Oct 30^th, 2013 at 8:03pm:


Not ever.  This is ground breaking Constitutional stuff.  Unique anywhere in any Democracy where the Westminster system is in place.

This is a direct confrontation between the Government and the Judiciary.............two pillars which must be kept separate for your sake.

Your freedom is at stake.

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 30^th, 2013 at 7:40pm:


Wot?  And you reckon the Judge to whom the hospital pass is given will not do exactly the same?  I can guarantee they will, unless of course you reckon a politician will now select which puppet Judge will do his bidding.  Said Judge does not exist.

Public commentary of the kind Canbull is engaged in, and is encouraging, WHILE relevant decisions are being made is what the Judiciary cannot accept lest their decisions be seen as made not according to Law, but as some political demagogue requires.

Rule of Law/Separation of Powers.

Look them up.

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Oct 30^th, 2013 at 8:10pm:


This morning, Fryberg adjourned it (a request by the DPP to review a decision made in a lower Court to bail a bikie) from today to tomorrow so that the DPP could then (tomorrow) inform him whether the politician had withdrawn his offensive remarks.

This afternoon, the politician made it plain he stood by the remarks Fryberg found intolerable.

If, when the matter returns before Fryberg tomorrow the situation remains the same...........well, Fryberg will do what he said he would...............and that is 'permanently stay' the DPP's request for that review.

The practical affect of that is....the bikie stays on the bail he was given, and if the politician does not like it, he takes it on appeal and that will end up in the High Court where Canbull will have his nazi nuts kicked.

http://oi39.tinypic.com/2u72lj5.jpg

Voting begins now - who needs to swallow this medication -

Fryemberg or Neutman?

                                                                  

(As the Bishop said to the Actress:-  "Unlike the titanic, at least I provide entertainment as I go down!")