'A traumatic experience': Latrell relieved after brawling charges with Wighton thrown out of court

But there is a fundamental failing (actually, several, but I'll focus on one) in that argument. The below paragraph in particular: I mean, the ACT AG isn’t anything like a DA in the states but he is more political that conventional standards. Coming back to the original tongue in cheek comment, are people to judge him by his election promises or fulfilling the role of the AG in keeping the DPP separate from the executive? Would be a lot easier if he wasn’t party leader and AG at the same time. The Attorney General cannot campaign in any election as the AG. There are no election promises to be made by him. I can't recall any politician campaigning for election in their electorate making promises specifically to their ministry that they technically do not hold during caretaker government periods, and may not hold post-election once the party has done a ministerial reshuffle. Shane Rattenbury is part of the junior party of the governing coalition. He cannot presume to know whether he will or will not be the AG after the result of an election (even the Labor or Liberal party can't pre-guarantee ministerial spots). And as the Greens are the junior partner in the Coalition, his capacity to influence any political agenda over the role of the office is incredibly limited. In fact, he is arguably in that role precisely because as you say the AG is meant to be relatively separate from conventional party politics. Him being in that position actually marginalises the Greens further. Quite simply, it is not in the gift of Rattenbury to make any promise on the direction of legal affairs in the ACT before an election. Rattenbury is quite separate from the day to day functioning of the DPP. Even if the cops weren't as corrupt as the day is long, I doubt he would have been been remotely briefed of this case beyond a couple of lines in a weekly update. Why? Because of the facts of the case: IF he was to be updated about two indigenous celebrities being arrested for resisting arrest, he almost certainly would have wanted to prevent it going to court...if he was to have any influence. You're so far off the mark here. You are blinded by your dislike of the Greens and have just spouted irrational gibberish I'm afraid.

This is yet another example as to why the social media barbarians who let loose on players who are charged with anything need zip the old beak up and wait until the matter is resolved. Slagging players while pretending they understand the concept of innocent until found guilty doesn't cut the mustard yet it happens every time. Laying the boot into anyone who is charged and pretending they know the real story is beyond pathetic , yet it keeps on happening. Ironically it's the slaggers who could end up being the one found guilty of something.

Nicolussi's article in the SMH this morning is an interesting read...

Yeah, me too. The CCTV would have been fundamental to any investigation. I've done crim work for over a decade and have never had a witness capitulate so badly on the stand. I just can't understand what happened... Gray-Hand has said in this thread, apparently it's not the practice to vet the witness with the objective evidence prior to trial in the ACT. If that's right, then this kind of thing must be reasonably common in that jurisdiction. Or maybe the witness just crumbled under pressure? Either way, massive self inflicted black eye to the whole box and dice.

May also be a staffing/funding issue. Struggling to attract good staff in my corner of the govt legal sector.

Makes me think that the investigators did not get the CCTV footage, but the defence did. I haven't done crim work but I have done civil. I could be mistaken but I'd be very surprised if the defence had it but not the prosecution. I think the likelier explanation is that the prosecution had it but didn't properly analyse it. Seems like it took a bit of work from the defence to put the pieces together meaningfully.

Stepping away from being silly for a moment, although somehow a lot of people seem to have taken that seriously, the DPP is appointed by the Attorney General who ultimately supervises the office. Of course the AG shouldn't be judged on a couple of stuff ups in the DPP office normally when the office is at arm's length. But the ACT is different politically. Most AGs are chosen to be relatively aloof from party politics, but not this one (hence the initial comment). The ACT has fewer reps and is in minority Government, so the AG is also leader of the minority party in coalition. Apart from the party politics being brought into a position that conventionally is avoided, the ACT AG is much harder to remove when conflicts between the independent DPP and the AG office arise. Other AGs will be quietly moved sideways in ministerial reshuffles, for instance, but this AG is relatively impervious to criticism by the DPP. So, the ACT has an almost unique set of factors in the interactions with the AG and the DPP. If it's a bit of a clown show, and while it appears that way I don't really know, then it really has to be asked whether the ACT would be best to follow other jurisdictions where the AG is expected to step back from party politics when they take their position. Party leaders tend to like taking credit for everything and responsibility for nothing, which is not a good trait for the AG. Obviously I don't think it's a good idea for the AG to be leader, but it's also hard for the AG to step down from the party leadership or from the AG position without losing face, so it can be remarkably hard to shift. I mean, the ACT AG isn't anything like a DA in the states but he is more political that conventional standards. Coming back to the original tongue in cheek comment, are people to judge him by his election promises or fulfilling the role of the AG in keeping the DPP separate from the executive? Would be a lot easier if he wasn't party leader and AG at the same time. Apologies for the long comment well away from any relevance in sport, and hope I didn't bore you with my lack of understanding in civics!

I see. Thanks for responding.

It was the DPP. The Raiders contacted them directly to point out the discrepancies in the evidence.

Fair point. Then it's not just a cultural issue, it's a competence issue.

I ask this because I genuinely don't know the answer. The case was heard in the Magistrates Court. In some jurisdictions, this is exclusively the summary jurisdiction (ie, the lowest jurisdiction). Where I'm from, the DPP is not the only body with a mandate to prosecute, and in most instances of cases in the summary jurisdiction, the police prosecution corps would handle the case. The DPP would be the primary prosecuting body in the higher courts. I don't know if this is the same in ACT. I only ask because it may be that the DPP had nothing to do with the prosecution at all.

Different scenario with Milford and Leilua. It was reasonable to charge both of them. The reason the charges were dropped in Leilua’s case was a lack of cooperation from the victim.

The DPP had the CCTV footage before it went to court. There is clearly a cultural problem in that office.

I dunno if the DPP can be blamed in this instance. It seems more a case of a dodgy cop making a dodgy charge and then lying to the DPP. I mean, if the cop was honest from the get go no way does this go to court. Give the cop his marching orders. He’s an obvious liar, who really can’t be trusted by the public again.

Nice try for trying to get out of the hole you initially dug for yourself.

Same as same as. Milford, Souths contract torn up, charges dropped? Leilua misses the World Cup + 12 games for the Cowboys, charged dropped ?

The closest equivalent in the ACT to an American style district attorney would be the Director of Public Prosecutions, and they’ve already had one of them resign in disgrace earlier this year. There is clearly a real problem in the ACT DPP. Complete clown show.

Exactly, the Attorney General's position is a colonial construct derived from the UK. The attorney-general is at fault for not decolonising his department and himself and therefore must resign... ...is the sarcasm clearer now?

That was actually my point, the Greens call for resignations on the most spurious of grounds. Apologies for the misunderstanding though, the sarcasm was well hidden and context absent on re-reading.

Most Australians equate the AG to the district attorney you see on law and order. If there is one thing that came from the referendum, it's that 95% of Australians badly need to take a few civics classes again.