Very interested @miguel in why you would think DV victims should be cross- examined by their perp? Or have to cross-examine their perp - if they are self-represented?
It only relates to trial and I did say it needs clarity
Last edited:
NSW Australian Law - Opinions on IVO Changes to the Legislation?
- Thread starter sammy01
- Start date
Very interested @miguel in why you would think DV victims should be cross- examined by their perp? Or have to cross-examine their perp - if they are self-represented?
It only relates to trial and I did say it needs clarity
Because not everyone who claims to be a victim actually is a victim. The system is abused.Very interested in why you would think DV victims should be cross- examined by their perp? Or have to cross-examine their perp - if they are self-represented?
It only relates to trial and I did say it needs clarity
You are so uninformed, it's not funny. God forbid anyone actually listens to you and loses their case. I'm going to ignore you again. I gave up watching sesame street 45 years ago
Very interested @miguel in why you would think DV victims should be cross- examined by their perp? Or have to cross-examine their perp - if they are self-represented?
It only relates to trial and I did say it needs clarity
I'll give an example, theoretical of course;
The motivation to deceive is due to the massive advantages afforded to those who claim DV. I've heard of one case where party x got one due to a claim of intimidation by party y as party y was following a court process in serving initiating papers on party x. Party x misrepresented how many contacts they received.
Party x did this by saying party y was contacting party x without invitation but party x hid the fact that party y was responding to communications by party x. Party x did this by configuring the messaging software to show all communications appearing to have originated from party y.
The magistrate didn't bother too, or perhaps didn't have the IT skills to manipulate the software to show the full conversation. That was enough for an IVO in confetti land. Now party y faces the prospect of +20k legal bills and party x gets legal aid. And party x did this on the day party x was advised of service.
You are wasting your logic on someone who obviously supports flawed notion of justice mate . You are of course spot on.
If the alleged perpetrator cannot afford a lawyer they apply for legal aid.
Remember this situation has come about because some men do assault women. Personally I think having a video link should be sufficient and cross-examinations can take place where the woman is safe.
The new court building in Shepparton allows for this.
Remember this situation has come about because some men do assault women. Personally I think having a video link should be sufficient and cross-examinations can take place where the woman is safe.
The new court building in Shepparton allows for this.
I agree @miguel - it could cause much angst to falsely accused. My views are taken from legitimate DV victims who could be re-traumatised by being cross-examined by the perp. - cross-examining their perp.
As I said in my other posts - in submissions last year - many concerns were raised - including by lawyers - no new concerns to already raised, raised here really. There are many with genuine interest in this legislation.
Nobody wants to see faulty legislation passed - including the legal profession - however - certainly something more needs to be done for DV victims? A DV victim can be female or male.
Wow! What a plan... Simple in its brilliance. It will work perfectly.
Except for:
1: The merits test
2: The income test
3: The merits test
4: The income test
Let me put it even easier for you. If everyone who self-represented and could not afford a lawyer qualified for legal aid, they would not be self-represented and they would have legal aid! As for blaming this on men... jeebus, what is wrong with you?
The only sensible thing you said was about the video link.. but it's still questioning hey? :-D
Hey thatbloke. This is one where we agree... except for the leftist stuff.
I am a lefty... why I disagree? Thanks for asking. I don't think the old left / right paradigm is applicable to some of this stuff. Liberal governments in most states and federally.
But the right to question your accuser is the difference between us and what Arthur Miller wrote about in the crucible... Good movie with Daniel Day Lewis, btw.
And sadly, while you don't agree with my assertion that accepting without admission has merits, can you agree with me that if this debacle gets through, accepting without admission will become the only option for innocent punters that can't afford a beak?
Politely asking you to tone down the language when disagreeing with folk that don't agree with you...
I am a lefty... why I disagree? Thanks for asking. I don't think the old left / right paradigm is applicable to some of this stuff. Liberal governments in most states and federally.
But the right to question your accuser is the difference between us and what Arthur Miller wrote about in the crucible... Good movie with Daniel Day Lewis, btw.
And sadly, while you don't agree with my assertion that accepting without admission has merits, can you agree with me that if this debacle gets through, accepting without admission will become the only option for innocent punters that can't afford a beak?
Politely asking you to tone down the language when disagreeing with folk that don't agree with you...
Similar threads
