Lets take this back several notches
Stage 1He 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 2He was involved in an assault -
Which he initiated by pushing another person, this is defined as common assault under Australian law.
Stage 3His 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 4As 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 5VISA 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 6He 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?