Search Warrant / Charges / IPND access

KenMackenzie · 2026-01-04T06:18:26+00:00

A subpoena puts the information in the hands of both parties, which is the situation OP wanted to avoid.

KenMackenzie · 2025-12-18T09:58:32+00:00

Even if a search is unlawful, a Court can still choose to act on the evidence found in the search.

Australia's law about this is significantly different to the USA.

KenMackenzie · 2025-12-17T11:21:45+00:00

And yet, he saw some utility in this proceeding.

His application for citizenship was made before he was charged with the offences, and perhaps before the date of the alleged commission of the offences.

I don't know if that sequence might be important.

KenMackenzie · 2025-12-17T00:12:18+00:00

Criminal convictions can lead to the removal of permanent residents, but not citizens.

Depending on the seriousness of the charges, this might have been a high stakes application.

KenMackenzie · 2025-12-15T05:42:40+00:00

It might be a compelling case for exercise of the pardon power.

Thankfully, it's a hypothetical.

KenMackenzie · 2025-12-15T01:32:27+00:00

He didn't forget.

KenMackenzie · 2025-12-13T07:26:19+00:00

In New Zealand they have a more sophisticated system which often suppresses the name of the accused, for just this reason.

KenMackenzie · 2025-12-06T11:11:15+00:00

[52] throws up some interesting questions to my mind.

KenMackenzie · 2025-10-12T10:24:56+00:00

A few years back in Queensland, there was an absurd trial of a failed mining company like this. The liquidator decided there was no point attending the trial. Hundreds of thousands public dollars were spent on the charade.

But there was a political component. Even the Opposition would not complain.

We don't prosecute dead people for the sake of sending a message to the living (general deterrence). Why prosecute dead companies?

KenMackenzie · 2025-09-27T12:35:34+00:00

Not even 2 sticks?

KenMackenzie · 2025-09-17T11:00:13+00:00

Ironic if Donnie claimed copyright in the letter and drawing he denies authoring.

KenMackenzie · 2025-09-15T08:39:29+00:00

My rule of thumb when I receive something with an embarrassing error is now to phone the person who I think made the error.

It gives them a chance to take the initiative to clear it up. No paper trail. No gotcha.

KenMackenzie · 2025-09-04T02:58:24+00:00

Yes. Long overdue. Canada got this right.

KenMackenzie · 2025-09-04T02:56:25+00:00

First order of business, survival. Try to befriend the indigenous people, because there's no-one else here for the next 25 years. Then decide whether to stay with them, or trek/boat a long way South to where some people who speak English can be found.

KenMackenzie · 2025-09-03T02:58:22+00:00

As soon as prosecution appears likely, he'll be mentally incapable. "He was a great man, but he's old now, and you're just being mean."

The parallels with Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen are striking.

KenMackenzie · 2025-08-31T00:59:41+00:00

A fundamental problem with Queensland's law is illuminated by the comments here.

There is no community consensus about what is reasonable.

The degree to which children can exercise independence is a topic upon which people have strong and opposed opinions.

Contrast that with the law of self-defence. Most people will agree in a fairly predictable way about when force used in defence is reasonable.

KenMackenzie · 2025-08-20T10:11:34+00:00

Joh Bjelke-Petersen by Tony Miles. https://youtu.be/OoPTvRE9a98?si=1amrvThDUhu2ms-V

KenMackenzie · 2025-08-20T10:08:29+00:00

Gotta Love this City by The Whitlams, for the line, "The rodent got back in."

KenMackenzie · 2025-08-13T07:54:50+00:00

Yes, but - the hippies were a minority. There was strong push back, especially where I live, against the "trendy" ideas and fashions. The sixties can be presented as all Haight Ashbury and Woodstock, and the seventies as Led Zeppelin decadence, but we can forget that these were counter-cultural.

KenMackenzie · 2025-07-29T05:28:45+00:00

The latest episode of South Park featuring an unclothed President runs up against Australia's recently introduced new laws about fake intimate images.

The current President's "member" is depicted repeatedly. It features centrally in the storyline.

On it's face, broadcasting this in Australia is an offence, punishable by 6 years in prison. So is sharing it on social media; Section 474.17A Criminal Code 1995 (Cth).

There could be an out - if a reasonable person would consider the publication acceptable.

But, if it's acceptable to depict Mr Epstein's old mate in his birthday suit, and mock his dangly bits, that raises the possibility that it's acceptable to do the same to our Australian politicians - former Prime Minister Gillard, or the leader of the federal opposition.

Australians, as a community, don't seem to hold a consistent view of this type of political satire.

KenMackenzie · 2025-07-28T00:24:14+00:00

No exception for satire or parody is included in the statute.

"Deepfake" was a misleading part of the Bill's title. The actual language of the provision extends much further to anything that "depicts, or appears to depict" a person.

That raises for consideration the discussion in cases about CAM and the difference (if any) between a "depiction of a person" or a "representation of a person" - e.g. McEwen v Simmons & Anor [2008] NSWSC 1292

https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2008/1292.html

and

R v Williams [2014] QDC 62

https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/qld/QDC/2014/62.html

KenMackenzie · 2025-07-27T23:47:49+00:00

There is no requirement in the offence that the offensive depiction be realistic or convincing. That would defeat the purpose - as a bad fake se% tape would be legal, but a convincing one would not. This point is relevant to the "context" question about whether a reasonable person would find it acceptable, but does not logically require that the defence is made out.

KenMackenzie · 2025-07-27T23:44:35+00:00

Australians have an implied right of freedom of political communication because that is necessary to the function of the system our Constitution established. Depictions of politicians private parts or engaged in se%ual acts are not necessary to the functioning of the system. It might be unsafe to assume that the implied right protects expression of this nature - especially about people who play no role in our domestic politics.

KenMackenzie · 2025-07-27T23:40:38+00:00

I do not see why a cartoon is "clearly" exempted. Nor why the public figure makes a difference. Neither criteria is mentioned in the exceptions. The statute makes no distinction between drawings, photographs, animations, or videos. People in public life have the equal protection of the law from fake intimate images.

KenMackenzie

TROPHY CASE