How much does this cost and who pays for it?

Court grants Tamil family legal reprieve. Comes with this: Tamil asylum case sets path for 6000 others. From this second story:

Scott Morrison has vowed to send home more than 6000 illegal immigrants who have had their refugee claims rejected, as he brushed off Labor attempts to drag his religious faith into the debate over the deportation of a Sri Lankan family.

Are you aware that the judge who made the decision to delay the deportation was the same judge who presided over the Andrew Bolt Case in the Federal Court?

In the meantime, who is paying for all of these people to go to trial? And what does it cost?

This entry was posted in civil society, Rule of law. Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to How much does this cost and who pays for it?

  1. PB

    We must learn to be multi-cultural or we will not survive (or so we were told).

    Its all in the Protocols.

  2. calli

    Unlike his inflexible, heroic namesake, this one wants to be popular.

  3. Ellen

    It would be cheaper to be merciful. That’s an option for Morrison to act as a Christian and save taxpayers’ money at the same time.

  4. Scott Osmond

    He needs to go back.

  5. cuckoo

    In the meantime, who is paying for all of these people to go to trial? And what does it cost?

    Shhh! You might as well ask, how often do ‘refugees’ return on holiday to their country of origin once they’ve obtained permanent residency?

  6. Roger

    In the meantime, who is paying for all of these people to go to trial? And what does it cost?

    Whomever the funding agency is, you can be reasonably sure the funds are originally from the tax payers’ pockets, most of whom could not afford to fund a court case to defend their rights.

  7. Rex Mango

    Refugee Industrial Complex paying the bills.

  8. Sunni Bakchat

    Judicial activism at its worst.

  9. nfw

    Not good old Mordecai Bromberg who can determine “tone” in written words? Not the failed candidate for Labor pre-selection who instead ended up almost un-sackable job (isn’t that like everybody else Mordy?)with a nice paying tax payer funded job and pension so he can make laws without the bother of Parliament? Is it him? Isn’t it nice of him to be spreading more taxpayer funds around lawyers over a bloke who could return to Sri Lanka time and again and not be in fear? Isn’t he a great bloke?

  10. I_am_not_a_robot

    Judge Bromberg has extended an injunction for a further two days to allow lawyers more time to find legal loop-holes.
    How long can this go on?
    Who’s running the country, the people through parliament or a bunch of activist lawyers⸮

  11. Damienski

    Answer No. 1. A lot.
    Answer No 2. You do.
    Next?

  12. Robbo

    Who is paying for this legal feast? The answer is bloody obvious. The Australian taxpayers (that shrinking section of the nation) are footing the bill for all of those lawyers, judges and a raft of other immoral parasites, who are pushing and shoving to get their dirty snouts into the trough of public money. Is there a lawyer anywhere in Australia who is actually honest and would not contemplate getting involved in this disgusting charade?

  13. ken beattie

    also the judge most responsible for Toyota leaving Australia. His decision to favour the Union over the workers eventually overturned – too late – on appeal…

  14. Richard Bender

    Was the judge’s decision in either this case or the Andrew Bolt case wrong in law? Or do you expect the judge to make a decision that suits your views regardless of what the law says?

  15. rickw

    How much does this cost and who pays for it?

    Around 10 times what your que jumping illegal will ever produce, funded by people who are legally here and who comply with the law.

  16. Tim Neilson

    Richard Bender
    #3147735, posted on September 4, 2019 at 7:11 pm

    I believe the Bolt judgement was defective as a matter of simple logic applied to the statute.

    The decision could not have been reached without a finding that Bolt’s comments were made by reason of either the complainant’s race or their skin colour. Bromberg found it was on the basis of race.

    That’s fundamentally flawed. Suppose it now transpired that one of the complainants had no indigenous ancestry at all. Does Bromberg believe that Bolt would now say “oh, sorry, now that I know you’re not indigenous at all I withdraw my criticism”? Bolt’s remarks would apply equally to people who choose to “identify” as indigenous on the basis of real but minute indigenous ancestry and those who choose to “identify” as indigenous baselessly. That is, Bolt’s comments aren’t by reason of race at all – unless there was a finding that the complainants weren’t really indigenous and it was that lack of indigeneity that caused Bolt’s comments. And there was certainly no such finding.

    That leaves skin colour. But that wasn’t a ground given by Bromberg for his decision. And it’s of course readily apparent why Bromberg refrained from making any finding about that. It would have showcased the absurdity of the whole goat rodeo if Bromberg had made a finding that, yes, the complainants had very pale skin and that was what motivated Bolt’s remarks.

    So, yes, I think that judgement was wrong in law.

    The other one I don’t know enough about just from the media reports. But Bromberg had better have some very good reasons for delaying a deportation that had been confirmed by the High Court. These days activist judges often turn a blind eye to lower courts displaying open contempt for the government, the legislature, the public, or just about anyone – but any hint of lese majeste towards themselves is vewwy vewwy diffewent.

  17. jupes

    Scott Morrison has vowed to send home more than 6000 illegal immigrants who have had their refugee claims rejected,

    Those 6000 illegal immigrants have been here since Labor was in government.

    How the fuck did we end up with a system that takes six years to send the first of these criminals (well not quite yet) home? No seriously, this is a stupid beyond belief.

    In a fair system it would take six days maximum.

  18. Neil

    Apparently there were 30,000 boat people in detention when Abbot won govt in 2013. Don’t know how they were housed but I suspect most were in community detention. Apparently there are still 15,000 in community detention costing us $1B/year. Not sure why all the media is focused on Manus Island when most refugees are on the mainland costing us $ 1B/year

  19. Bruce in WA

    Who’s paying?

    You

    Me

    Us

  20. Lazlo

    There is no point arguing about the law Tim. If you have met Bromberg in the flesh, it explains everything.

  21. Mark A

    Lazlo
    #3147839, posted on September 4, 2019 at 11:33 pm

    There is no point arguing about the law Tim. If you have met Bromberg in the flesh, it explains everything.

    You poor man, I feel for you.

  22. Lazlo

    I appreciate your sympathy Mark A. I still have sleepless nights, feelings of oppression and lack of privilege when I think about it. Mercifully, I was in the company of a highly paid but chivalrous SC when we crossed swords (successfully) with MB.

  23. Buccaneer

    The cost is in the distraction from ALP corruption allowing them to avoid proper reform and in properly holding the political class to account. A further cost is in the deliberate incuriousness of the media class as to how our judiciary is now playing culture war games instead of just sending them back to Sri Lanka.

  24. Ceres

    1. Cost of EIGHT Court appeals?
    2. Cost of Charter flights?
    Do your job reporters and find out and publicise the millions of taxpayers’ money, down the drain in this ongoing fiasco.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.