No inquiry could come to any conclusion about the allegations. However, an inquiry that examines the impact of the allegations on the capacity of Christian Porter to hold office as the first law officer and as the person responsible for the administration of justice at the Commonwealth level is required.
What to do about Christian Porter, the ambitious federal Attorney-General who finds himself under siege over untested allegations by a woman, now deceased, that he sexually assaulted her in 1988? Some aspects of this matter bear reflection. The attitude in some quarters of the community, including among some lawyers, has an element of wanting to hold Porter to account because he is the embodiment of a powerful, white male. There is a parallel with the Pell case here.
But there is, on the other hand, also the fact the he holds a position in the Australian legal system that carries with it the grave responsibility of being the first law officer of the Commonwealth. Serious allegations against anyone who holds that position need to be assessed in some way to ensure confidence in the legal system.
Let’s deal with this latter issue first. There have been a number of calls for an inquiry into the allegations against Mr Porter. These have included calls by legal groups such as Australian Women Lawyers and the deceased woman’s lawyer and Crikey columnist Michael Bradley for what would in effect be an investigation into whether or not the allegations of sexual assault are true, or at least that the alleged sexual assault can be seen as more likely than not to have occurred.
The difficulty is that it is highly unlikely any person conducting an inquiry of this sort could come to any conclusion about the allegations. On the one hand would be the materials the woman put together and authored, and which have found their way into the media. On the other is the emphatic denial of Mr Porter that the allegations in respect of him are wrong. In the absence of any capacity to speak with the accuser, and the likelihood that Mr Porter would simply repeat his denials if questioned, there is little that can be said other than what we know now. That is, serious allegations are made and the accused person denies the allegations. What good would such an outcome do anyone?
But an inquiry that examines the impact of the allegations on the capacity of Mr Porter to hold office as the first law officer and as the person responsible for the administration of justice in Australia at the Commonwealth level, has merit and should take place.
The Attorney-General’s office is a unique one in the Westminster system. Not just a a member of Cabinet but also holding the role described earlier. It is important that the legal system and the office of Attorney-General not be undermined for the obvious reason that community confidence in the legal system is a key component of a liberal democracy.
An inquiry, headed by a retired Federal or High Court judge, conducted in private, with findings released in public, should examine the question of whether the nature of the allegations made against Mr Porter is such that, despite the presumption of innocence (a broader concept than simply operating when a charge is laid or a person is on trial), the real possibility of an erosion of trust and confidence in the legal system and the office of Attorney-General means he should not remain in the position.
More broadly, there are signs the Porter case is heading into the same dangerous waters that we saw operating in the case of Cardinal George Pell. Cardinal Pell became the key target for the deep community loathing and disgust at the Catholic Church because of its culture of sexual abuse in the past and the not too distant past at that.
Pell’s aloofness, arrogance and perceived lack of empathy for victims of abuse made him an easy target for savaging by the media and the broader community. Pell faced saturation hostile media before his trials in 2019 for alleged sexual assaults. He was acquitted in a unanimous decision of the High Court last year. But the disturbing point was that because of his image, many believed him guilty before he went to trial, and many still believe him guilty today despite his acquittal by the highest court in the land.
There is a sense that it is similar with Porter. While he will not face a criminal trial he is assumed to be guilty of what he is accused of despite the fact that there has been no forensic assessment of the allegations. A two-minute read of Twitter and other social media has Porter associated with defamatory hashtags. There is, in some sections of the community, a strong desire to see the allegations successfully pinned on Porter. This is why some want an investigation so there can be some “finding” of guilt made against him.
Why is there such a dangerous suspension of circumspection and rational discussion about the Porter matter? Porter is a convenient target for rage and anger about privileged white men who are the upholders of a patriarchal society. Porter is arrogant, self-serving and his clinging to the idea of the rule of law sticks in the craw when one considers his trashing of the concept in, for example, the case of Bernard Collaery, who dared to lift the lid on illegal activity by Australia against East Timor in the early 2000s.
But he is a citizen with the same rights as the rest of us. Trial by social and traditional media that views some individuals as representative of a class or group we despise and therefore not entitled to be treated with fairness, cannot become the norm in cases of high-profile individuals.
Greg Barns SC is National Criminal Justice Spokesman for the Australian Lawyers Alliance
Comments
50 responses to “Porter a convenient target for rage but must be accorded fairness”
I have an abiding respect for Greg Barns. I appreciate his lucidity and his willingness to speak in public about even some very difficult issues – of which I believe this is one. I do not know his partisan bias (I cannot infer one) and, in terms of what I wish to say here, such bias would be inconsequential.
I am one of those who dearly wish arrogant, privileged white collar males to be brought to account – where possible. So, emotionally, yes, I would wish this MacBethianly ambitious role-player of an Attorney-General to be brought to heel.
And, yes, here goes the “but”!
Two points. One simple; one far more complex.
The simple point is the behaviour of the High Court in relation to the accusations of abuse alleged against the former Justice Dyson Haydon. His former colleague High Court Justices recognised what I regard as a fundamental precept of government: that (at least) Governmental senior officers are presumed, both by official honorific title and community expectation, to be “honourable”. That is the case for both Ministers and senior Court Justices.
I believe that, in holding an inquiry into the behaviours of Justice Haydon, the High Court (our third arm of Government) was simply manifesting an appropriate meeting of the Australian community’s reasonable expectations that an accurate and credible description of at least Haydon’s behaviours was necessary, at a minimum to maintaining community confidence in the High Court as an institution. I note also that their holding of such enquiry also offered the characterisation of ‘precedent’.
I further note that my reasoning implies that it would not just be the position of the nation’s “Chief Legal Officer” who invites such repugnement. Any Minister of the Crown or senior Court Judge (one bearing the title ‘Honourable’), does so. As a result, any Minister or senior Court Judge (bearing the title ‘Justice’) wears an onus: to have to be able, on the balance of probabilities, to be believed by the community in his/her address of any incident so serious as to warrant a commissionable inquiry. I believe that such is no more nor no less that what is connoted by the public title ‘Honourable’.
So I go much further than those who distinguish the position of Attorney-General as itself so critical to Government as to necessitate a credible enquiry. It is germane to any position awarded the honorific of ‘Honourable’. That honorific then places an onus on its wearers to demonstrate, on the balance of probabilities, through a credible and objective inquiry, that their alleged abuse(s) are not to be believed.
The complex factor is the effective interdependency between an individual and his/her social context. I have mentioned ‘Dark Triadism’ in earlier contributions. “Dark Triadists” are an amalgam of machiavellianism, narcissism and psychopathology. Excellent examples include Trump, Putin, Xi Zinping, Bolsinaro and Orban. Given Christian Porter’s self-confessed ambition (narcissism) and political instrumentality (machiavellianism), those of us with ‘uncommon’ sense are entitled – and should – ask the obvious question: is Porter also psychopathic? If he were to be, we could then, POLITICALLY, reasonably believe, on the balance of probabilities, that he did indeed psychopathically rape the unnamed immensely talented and vibrant 16 y. o. in 1988.
This Prime Minister seems rivetted (if not addicted) to the idea that his authority alone is sufficient to predominate. I invite you to form your judgement as to whether he, too, is a ‘Dark Triadist’.
This is an instance of where this blog can become truly influential. If Phil Gaetjens reads a contribution like this one: he sees the writing, not just on the wall but certainly also very large.
What like the fairness he afforded those falsely accused of defrauding Australia’s social security? Not likely.
The muddling of the criminal with the civil is so irritating. In my mind, it is simply the question of the reputation and integrity of his office. If he considered his office before himself he would have gone of his own volition in order to protect it. And surely that rather antique ethos is what we need. He can’t be convicted of anything, and should not be considered of guilty of what cannot be tried. And since he probably cannot be vindicated either (although that might be possible), he should protect his office and its reputation. It’s a great personal sacrifice when fault is not established, but he would join a line of people who did the right thing, rather than line in which he is currently standing comprising those who hold on at all costs.
Greg, your account of the role of our law in the Porter case is sound and incontrovertible. You correctly say that any enquiry could not reach a definitive conclusion, and that under our law Porter is innocent of the charge. How, then, can you defend having an enquiry into his suitability for the job based on this allegation? Would that not require a basis to presume he could be guilty? But under our law he cannot be presumed guilty. Checkmate, surely. Elizabeth Minter has collated a number of issues that could form the basis of an enquiry into his suitability, and that would be based on actual facts, not allegations. Even so, is it fair to blame one member for the policy chicanery of a whole government.
I recommend all commentators read the feature by Henry Ergas in today’s Australian (Friday 5 March)
Yes Ergas writes an elegant and erudite piece but omits a few facts: Porter has refused to put his own side except in fevered denials reminiscent of Kavanagh; he denies absurdly having even read the accusations; he has not submitted himself to any sort of investigation; nor have the NSW police ‘investigated’ – risible though that often seems to be especially in sexual assault cases [7% ‘success’] – they decided NOT to investigate; and yes, old grudges are potentially destructive and very difficult, but on that basis does Professor Ergas suggest we should not have held war crimes trials? He may indeed, and that would be consistent, but does not say so here.
And for the record as someone who has participated in the Twitter discussion this week, I reject and strongly object to being called a mob [Morrison] or a barbarian [Ergas]. I am neither. I am a woman who has experienced much but not the worst of what Ms Higgins and so many many Australian women have experienced time and time and time again and I have had enough. I will not be governed by those who are the true barbarians, by entitled thugs.
Hi Deb. You are making a lot of assumptions about Christian Porter. I am a fellow West Australian but I have never met him. I did send him an email on the religious discrimination bill. I know his electorate reasonably well. It was a woman who stood against him in the 2019 election for Labor. As I recall, she was a member of the WA police force. The next federal election is a year away. Jeremy Ludlow’s point below on the South Australian Coroner’s Court makes sense. Because of all this fury I watched his statement and saw no reason to doubt him. We are witnessing a kangaroo court on Pearls and Irritations. I dislike it intensely.
Thanks Jerry I cannot see that I have made ‘a lot of assumptions’ about Christian Porter. Indeed I was actually commenting, at your suggestions – thanks – on Professor Ergas’s take on the issue, rather than on Christian Porter directly.
In respect of Mr Porter, my comments relate to what I have seen: the press conference in full, which by the way was not to the Gillard standard of every question responded to.
He stated he had not read the letter which seems truly remarkable for a lawyer in every respect, and has been commented on elsewhere;
He denied the allegations repeatedly and heatedly and he stated that any sort of investigation would be the ‘end of the rule of law’ in Australia. [the full quote from the transcript is ‘My guess is that if I were to resign and that set a new standard, there wouldn’t be much need for an Attorney-General anyway, because there would be no rule of law left to protect in this country.’]
This last seemed like hyperbole to me and I note to others writing and commenting in P and I.
So I am a little bewildered by your statement honestly. Not at all sure where the ‘kangaroo court’ to which you refer is being held on Pearls and Irritations but so far I have only seen respectful agreement and also disagreement on a range of aspects of the issue, as is usual. But thanks for the referral to the Ergas piece. As you can see I took your advice.
Jerry, no kangaroo court that I can see.
Let me sow a bit of doubt for you. Porter talked about her ironing his shirt, the ball, … nothing else about that night. And gave the impression that he had not seen her since. It seems that his mates have now said that it is not impossible that the two might have dined togetrher in Perth in 1994 (?). I feel this gives a candle to why Porter said that he did not read the letter and have no memory of anything. Being endowed with the highest intellect we have yet to be exposed to his ingeniously crafted strategy. The first leg of that strategy seems to be to keep any evidence that might be relevant from the light of day. Rule of law, eh!
How can one read Ergas when public matters are privatised, the privation of the self, of what is the self, the publicness of the self, the destruction of the being-there-too and being-there-with.
Another suggestion has been a specialist court possibly with no juries. Would there be more guilty pleas when the judge was female?
There is merit in this suggestion as a cursory examination of social media shows the level of prejudice in the community at large about victims’ provocative behaviour and false accusations by complainants despite contrary research findings on the topic. It would be easier to keep specialist judges up to date with current research than would be the case with the general public. Let’s face it, the process of jury selection is bizarre and barely an improvement on the ducking stool.
It is a pleasure to find such a reasoned debate as is the case here. I trust this important issue has been good for business for P + I
I strongly suspect that behind all the anger of many females (and males like me) on this topic is the understanding that in cases of rape, the complainant almost never succeeds in court. In Australia, a recent estimate is that 3% of cases where the person raped complains formally, only 3% result in a conviction. Therefore, a woman who has been raped – and it is most often the case that there are no witnesses, or witnesses willing to testify – faces a 97% chance of not getting a convection. The complainant will nevertheless face aggressive denial and an aggressive barrister’s questions. The court process apparently can be really ugly in many cases.
The extraordinarily strong need to change the legal processes and criteria away from the traditional – unsuccessful – ones from the current “rule of law” seems to be overwhelming. When there are only two parties, why not apply “the balance of probabilities”? The recent Royal Commission into institutional sexual abuse demonstrated through the overwhelming heartfelt evidence that these abuses did occur, despite few being able to trigger the high bar required to get traditional “rule of law” criminal convictions. The Australian Institute of Criminology showed that the most frequently raped female group was of those between 10 and 16 years. How could such young females succeed in our police and court systems?
What is complete rubbish is the assertion that the weight of evidence necessary for a private citizen to be prosecuted is the same as that necessary for an Attorney General to be relieved of his position. Whereas a suspect private citizen may be allowed to slink away unprosecuted, an Attorney General must be beyond reproach.
It is the level of gratuitous mud-throwing in Parliament that makes it difficult for any minister to be “beyond reproach”, and possible for a suspected rapist to hold the office of Australia’s chief law officer.
This is the most sensible analysis of the issue I have read so far. I particularly agree with its observation as to the breadth of the presumption of innocence. But I don’t agree with its conclusion. It is not appropriate for the federal government to appoint an inquiry prompted by the publication of allegations in an unsigned (probably draft) statement of a deceased witness who told the police that she suffered from “dissociation” and, later, that she no longer wished to pursue the matter. The proper forum for any inquiry is the SA Coroner, who can examine the deceased’s state of mental health and express some views on the veracity of her unsigned statement. Some of the published allegations allegedly made in that statement don’t seem to make much sense. For example, the allegation that Porter put the deceased in a bath. University colleges where I’ve stayed don’t have baths. They have showers. Did the media fact check that allegation before publishing it?
Jeremy – The Women College was established in 1892 or so. The original residential building is known as ‘Main’ and within this part of the complex there was a small nook which contained a working bath in good order. Certainly the additional residential wings of the college have showers only. Even if subsequent renovations to Main have now removed this bath, it is quite probable that the Main bath was there in 1988.
I note that Andrew Bolt claims that he has sighted plans of the Womens College of four years ago and there are no baths only shower facilities – from this he concludes that the allegation of rape is ‘falling apart’. But what is relevant is was the bath that certainly did exist within Main, still there in 1988. Not hard for a journalist to fact check. Too hard for Andrew Bolt.
Andrew Bolt didn’t publish the allegations. Other media did. Bolt was referring specifically to the y-shaped building which you appear to agree has only showers. I looked at the plans of the whole complex myself before publishing my post. They are available online in pdf form. There appear to be two ensuite graduate rooms in the Maples building that are equipped with a bath. Those rooms would almost certainly not have been accessible to Porter and the deceased unless one of them was staying in one of the rooms. I couldn’t see any evidence of any other bath. Let’s assume that there was one other bath in the complex. Could I be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Porter took the deceased out of his or her room and put her in that bath? I don’t think so.
Since I published my post I have read two articles published in The Guardian and Crikey about the psychiatric treatment the deceased was allegedly receiving in 2019. Given the well-known controversy over “repressed memories”, those articles raise serious issues as to the nature and effect of that treatment. I expect the SA Coroner would want to investigate that treatment, if he decides to hold an inquest.
An Inquiry cannot find “guilt”, no one wanting one is saying that. Rather, is the A-G a fit and proper A-G? Secret courts are troubling and other problems of his policies, not only this possible and unprovable allegation. My concern is Morrison chooses the Justice. Surely the selection should be with the Chief Justice. My preference would be 2-male and female – and their report must be published and the investigation must be behind closed doors.
As I have reflected on the unfolding of this case and the public nature of this allegation of serious crime, I thought how it seems like the reversal of the Gospel account of the woman accused of adultery.- with the men ready to stone her quite publicly. Makes me wonder even more what Jesus did write in the sand! Whatever it was it brought about a just and compassionate resolution so all could move forward as a wounded yet redeemed human community. Hopefully one of the outcomes of this public dilemma might bring a more heart consciousness into the arid ground of the law and our shared life together. May Justice and Peace greet each other.
I put the Witness K prosecution decision down to inexperience. A more experienced Attorney General would have taken more time, thought through the politics and over-ruled the legal advice.It seemed to me the prosecution was bad politics, creating more problems for Australia than it solved, but I don’t have any inside information. I have appreciated Porter’s ability to keep the religious discrimination bill in the too-hard basket. I expect he was under pressure from the right to bring this divisive bill forward but he has consistently managed to tone it down. Morrison is now adding up the positives and negatives. Will the government lose more points if it backs down or if he and Porter tough it out? Or is it 50 — 50?
As I recall his predecessor, George Brandis, refused to prosecute: either Witness K or Bernard Collarey. Given his public persona before his recent come down Porter is unlikely to have not made a no nonsense decision to prosecute.
Thanks Chek. I had forgotten about Brandis but that supports my point about political experience.
Jerry, I don’t think I can be as generous as you.
I feel it is more a case of “I’ll show you” with Porter. Brandis comes across as a more cerebral person, even though I did not warm to his public persona. Yet one evening, years ago, inside the QANTAS Lounge my heart almost melted when I saw Brandis’s smile for the female Minister I was with.
I’m not sure I follow the author’s logic. As far as I can tell it maters not what people say on twitter or in the news, our Government and other non elected officials simply do what they want anyway, with zero consequence. George Pell is a example that actually negates his argument, where a small group of elite judges overturned a trial conviction. Pell was never tried by media, does the author not recall there was an unprecendented medial ban during his trial?
Seriously what a load of drivel!
In any normal business or public situation when someone is accused of such a crime, they are at the very least stood down so that the “trial by media” can be calmed. One has to wonder that by Mr Porter staying in his job it gives him fuel for mounting such an argument.
And where is our erstwhile leader during all of this? Complicit as usual
Good onyer, Greg. Trying to argue the number of angels able to stand on a pin-head – if indeed any can – is what comes to mind here – Pell and Porter, eh? I think an examination of Porter’s life – that is – Charles Christian Porter – to give him his two given names in appropriate order – is needed. How has that worked out for him in its ugly and “entitled” and vomitous and misogynistic trajectory. By their deeds/acts/friends shall we know them – to paraphrase slightly. I think we know CC Porter – much more than the weepy performance two afternoons ago in Perth. And the PM is the enabler should Porter remain (though I can’t believe he will) – a role he has already assumed in a number of other sex-related scandals. Just ask Jen what she thinks and she’ll tell him to think of their girls – and resign for their own unsullied/untainted futures – surely!
I presume the deceased is also a citizen and therefore entitled to be treated with fairness. As it stands it seems inescapable that we are more or less encouraged to entertain the “reasonable doubt” that the deceased was just another “lying cow”? Is Greg Barns a mere apologist for opportunistic non-action, as so many hired-gun barristers defending rapists so often contrive to do, with the greatest arsenal assembled about years of practice?
And as I recall the police in Victoria, many years ago, were told not to investigate allegations against priests unless it was murder.
Rule of law seems to benefit most those with the money for the most pugnacious barristers, and friends in high places to encourage judges to take account of the esteem they hold of the accused – as I read in Louise Milligan’s book Witness.
Porter may have the same rights, but he has rather more responsibilities; unless he is prepared to relinquish them and surrender his seat. What his case shares with Pell is that we hear the denials and defences but the details of the complaint or Pell’s accuser’s testimony was not seen or heard. Why would people not expect to have access to both and to withhold judgment until then? Especially when Porter vehemently denies allegations he has not bothered to read or inquire about lest he need to answer them.
In the light of the MeToo revelations, there might be IEDs from her (female) friends in the complainant’s dossier. Have the PM and the AG been “briefed” not to read them? We aren’t allowed to know.
Aside from the points made by Alison in regard to Porter’s suitability, there is also his stacking of the AAT with mates, those owed favours and past colleagues all outside due process. Porter’s Robodebt scheme was found to be illegal and lacked fundamental fairness but neither he or the PM could offer an apology although forced to pay a pitiful recompence. Porter, against overwhelming advice, accross the board, killed off the Family Court. An Attorney General out to destroy the ‘rule of law’ and due and fair process?
It is fair to say given Porter’s presentation of himself is superficial (prone to exageration, glib statements and grandiose performances in the Parliament and on stage), doesn’t accept responsibility as demonstrated above, and as his ‘panic’ response to the “rape that didn’t happen” belies his lack of empathy, a feeling of insincerity in his self-centered focus, and aggressive demand that it wasn’t true.
Finally, Porter has demonstrated through this allegation, his university days ,marriages, and subsequent behaviour in Canberra that can only be described as antisocial at best and seriously compromising in his day job.
Well said John, what was the saying – look after your friends on the way up, as you may meet them on the way down. I feel that we the public are treated as mugs from Mr Morrison/Porter.
Having observed these characters very carefully over time I am pretty confident that both are dangerous psychopaths. I hope that Porter crosses paths with the right psych.
Another lump under the Morrison government’s carpet, and a sizeable and fairly reeking lump it is.
I continue to be amazed at how ineffectual Albanese is in getting any traction. Admittedly, I do not follow MSM news sources. Perhaps he is gaining momentum there in this election year. I hope so.
Traction when in opposition is up to Murdoch. And if the government avoids parliamentary sittings of shuts down debates, do you have any suggesions?
With apologies to Albanese, but I do not think he has the charisma, the oomph to carry the fight to Morrison. He is, and again I apologize, wet.
You ask for a suggestion. Fair enough. Stand down. Plibersek is the obvious replacement, and with the national disgust following on from the Porter fiasco, she could galvanize the electorate in a positive direction.
Morrison is as hollow as an emptied egg. He is vulnerable.
And as for Murdoch, let’s see him take Plibersek on. Bullies tend to fade when confronted. It’s high time Australia confronted Murdoch.
Hope you are not too optimistic about Plibersek.
A return to her earlier days when she showed fearless principled leadership might do the trick though. But she would have to ascend without the shackles of the faction bosses, and feel strong enough to take charge on day one. That was a principal determinant of Turnbull’s demise.
Hope you are not too optimistic about Plibersek.
A return to her earlier days when she showed fearless principled leadership might do the trick though. But she would have to ascend without the shackles of the faction bosses, and feel strong enough to take charge on day one. That was a principal determinant of Turnbull’s demise.
One is barely recovered from his shameless and sexist misuse of his three handmaids back in the Shire, now here he is squawking inflammatory exaggerations about the “mob” and the “tribe”. At times, he makes evil John Howard look pretty damn classy.
And his repugnant treatment of Michael Towke during preselection.
If as Greg says, Porter deserves the same legal treatment as the rest of us, has he not already forfeited it by his treatment of Witnesses K and J, Bernard Collaery and David McBride? To say nothing of his willingness to leave ‘British justice’ to take its course in Julian Assange’s case. The best we can hope for is that this brush with the law will make him reflect on who is equal before it and who, thanks to him, is not.
No.
But guilty of hypocrisy.
And i’d guess ‘No’.
Regards
Alison your comment is very pertinent. Christian Porter has shown himself to be totally lacking in impartiality in all the cases that you mention. He has shown no consideration for the rights before the law of these men, but of course demands it for himself. Whether he is found guilty of rape or not, his past behaviour demonstrates that he is unfit to be an attorney general.
Despite this, our legal system follows the principle of the presumption of innocence until proven otherwise. I think this is a good principle and should apply to him even if he has not shown this towards others.
We are definitely dealing with a person who like many in the LNP believe that they have a divine right to rule no matter how they behave.
When we compare the assumption of guilt in the Porter situation with that of George Pell , it is plain to see that both men have behaved in ways that have caused widespread public anger as Greg argues. However, it was not just a “perceived lack of empathy for victims of abuse” on Pell’s part that led to the public anger against him, The record clearly shows that he did bully and demean the victims of abuse who sought justice.and this was unforgiveable.
This is the most sensible account I have seen. Mob violence is nothing new just because it appears on Twitter instead of in the streets or the village. Think of the New England Witch Trials, the French Revolution, Jewish Pogroms in Russia and Germany and so on.
The consequences in those cases were rather more dire than merely losing one’s job. Government minsters are fond of telling up how many they have created.
We are asking for an investigation, not a lynching, nor a trial, nor riot, murder or mayhem. Calm down Cavan. We are not ‘a mob’ nor barbarians. We want to understand why the most senior law officer in the land whose key job is to ensure faith in that legal system seems to believe he is somehow entitled – and I use that word advisedly – to an exemption from any sort of examination.
Annabelle Crabb wrote:
The “rule of law” is a fine thing. It is, at its simplest, the principle that laws be applied equally, that an accused is innocent until proven guilty, that proper checks and balances exist upon the exercise of power, that access to justice be available for all.
Christian Porter — the Attorney-General, the custodian of Australian laws — this week appeared drawn and pale as he confronted the disorienting prospect of a world in which the rule of law did not apply.
Anyone who has witnessed the frightening power of online mobs or the ability of demagogues to inflame real-world violence with lies cannot help but feel sympathy for his shaken plea that order be restored, that due process govern the dispensing of justice amid the most “wild, intense and unrestrained series of accusations I can remember in modern Australian politics”.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-03-05/christan-porter-rule-of-law/13216806?
The Rule of Law Education Centre defined Rule of law
https://www.ruleoflaw.org.au/principles/
The principles include:
“All people are presumed to be innocent until proven otherwise and are entitled to remain silent and are not required to incriminate themselves.”
A further principle points out:
The law and its administration is subject to open and free criticism by the people, who may assemble without fear.
Under Australian law, Christian Porter is innocent, but his alleged crime will forever go unpunished, as his accuser is deceased. However, in the court of public opinion, the stench will forever remain, and will follow him to his grave.