The AG NSW Mark Speakman, the CJ NSW Tom Bathurst, and their subordinates have demonstrated how queries from journalists can be deemed to be threatening, bullying: Federal Government's toughest anti-trolling laws in the world can be used by politicians, civil servants, and judicial officers to ensure that potentially embarrassing information never comes before them

 by Ganesh Sahathevan 

Zhu Minshen being introduced to Xi Jinping ; NSW Chief Justice Tom Bathurst, his NSW LPAB, and AG NSW Mark Speakman may now deflect questions about their dealings with Zhu Minshen as being intended to “menace, harass or offend" and in breach of the Online Safety Bill

Channel 7 has reported, under the headline  Troll, bully or OFFEND anyone online and you could cop a $110K fine under Federal Government's proposed laws: 

Cyber bullies and online trolls could be slapped with huge fines of up to $110,000 under world-first laws to be introduced by the Federal Government.

The Online Safety Bill will make it illegal to post “seriously harmful content” on websites and social media, such as death threats, revenge porn and comments that intentionally “menace, harass or offend’.’

“We’re taking action to keep Australians safe online,” Federal Minister for Communications and Cyber Safety, Paul Fletcher told Sunrise.

“It’s not good enough that we can have vicious online trolls engaging in terrible attacks against people, which as we know in some situations have been so bad that they have led to suicide.”

Perpetrators of cyber bullying and trolling will be forced to apologise to their victims.

On the face of it these world-first anti-trolling laws seem commendable. However, as this writer has discovered, Australian government agencies  are relying on the excuse of "numerous emails" or worse, perceived threats and intimidation in the language used, to refuse answering questions about their decisions. These excuses seem to be designed to protect civil servants from information that may undermine or compromise their preferred narrative. They can be also preserve their defence of plausible deniability. 

As reported previously on this blog the NSW AG Mark Speakman, and the NSW LPAB, which is  chaired by the NSW Chief Justice Tom Bathurst , have deflected complaints against and questions about the NSW Law Society's College Of Law by deeming the complaints and questions as a form of threat and intimidation. They have also attempted, in the process, to dilute hard won protections provided journalists and whistleblowers, by their very own Supreme Court NSW almost twenty years ago: 

Protection provided journalists,whistle blowers and sources by Carlovers v Sahathevan ,Bond v Barry undermined by NSW judicial body overseen by Chief Justice NSW, and AG Speakman

When judicial officers cannot be trusted to uphold exisiting laws that protect journalists and whistleblowers, the probability that they will rely on laws that even "offend" to protect themselves and their interests is high. The same of course applies to politicians. 

TO BE READ WITH 

Sunday, November 29, 2020

Escalating investigation into the College Of Law Sydney's business in Malaysia calls for intervention by Cth AG Christian Porter : Cth intervention required given regulatory failures by NSW AG Speakman and his officers at the NSW LPAB

 by Ganesh Sahathevan 

The Malaysian investigation into the College Of Law Sydney's business in Malaysia has been escalated. Brought to public attention by a story in the investigative website New Malaysia Times, there is now an official investigation by a Malaysian government agency into the work of senior Malaysian judicial officers who dealt with the College and its officers.

As reported last year on this blog the questions about the College's activities in Malaysia had been put by this writer to the two parties ultimately responsible for regulating the College's activities, the Attorney General NSW Mark Speakman and the Legal Professional Admission Board NSW.

The NSW LPAB and the AG Speakman had however chosen to not act on the information provided, and instead chose to accuse this writer of harassment, and  threatening and intimidating the AG and the College's management.

The NSW LPAB and the AG have gone so far as to object to the Attorney General Malaysia being informed about the  College's activities in Malaysia. 

They have also excluded from the LPAB's 2018 and earlier Annual Reports , which the AG tables in the NSW Parliament, complaints against the College and its management, and in particular statements on the official record that they have made in support of the College in response to the complaints.

NSW AG Speakman's ongoing attempts cover-up these matters despite the College's cavalier conduct overseas while relying on the NSW legal establishment's imprimatur  puts the Commonwealth Attorney General  Christian Porter  in a position where he must intervene in order to save the country  embarrassment. 

TO BE READ WITH 

Sunday, July 21, 2019

Malaysia will investigate NSW AG and LPAB oversight of the College Of Law: College's Malaysian business removes protective mantle; likely to further expose LPAB Annual report exclusions

by Ganesh Sahathevan

by Ganesh Sahathevan


The story below was published by the well connected Malaysian investigative new site New Malaysia Times. An investigation by all the relevant Malaysian authorities can be expected, and that will involve a forensic examination of the College Of Law Sydney.

Questions about the College's activities in Malaysia have been put by this writer to the two parties ultimately responsible for regulating the College's activities , the Attorney General NSW Mark Speakman and the Legal Professional Admission Board NSW.

The queries have been met with accusations, by the LPAB and the AG of harassment , threat and intimidation by this writer of the College's management.They have gone so far as to object to the Attorney General Malaysia being informed about the  College's activities in Malaysia
They have also excluded from the LPAB's 2018 and earlier Annual Reports , which the AG tables in the NSW Parliament complaints against the College and its management; and in particular statements on the official record that they have made in support of the College.

All the above is  now likely to be investigated in Malaysia.
END

Bar Council education ‘JV’ must be clarified

By Editor , in Scandal on July 19, 2019 . Tagged width: College of Law , Fareed Gafoor , Malaysian Bar

KUALA LUMPUR, July 19 – The Malaysian Bar Council launched its first education venture, a LLM in Malaysian Legal Practise (LLM), last year in collaboration with the College Of Law Australia.

The LLM does not seem to have the approval of Malaysia’s Legal Professional Qualifying Board (LPQB) but the website for the course, which is hosted in Australia, prominently displays the Bar Council crest.

The crest has not been used before to promote a course of study, and queries put to Bar Council President Fareed Gafoor about the use of the crest have been acknowledged but remain unanswered.

NMT has however sighted an email from Fareed dated Friday, May 24, 2019 with regards the LLM and the use of the crest where he states:

Dear Rajen,

We can’t remain silent on this.

Abdul Fareed Bin Abdul Gafoor

Sent from my iPad

It is understood that “Rajen” refers to  Rajen Devaraj, Chief Executive Officer of the Bar Council Secretariat in Kuala Lumpur.

The Bar has remained silent for nearly 2 months since.

Key person suddenly retired during extensive query

The College of Law used to be represented in Malaysia by its Director, Peter Tritt. Tritt have been queried extensively about the LLM and about the College’s business in Malaysia but has refused to provide answers. Tritt has been based in Kuala Lumpur since 2017 but announced on Friday that he had “retired” from the College on 30 June 2019.

It is understood that Tritt has forwarded queries sent him to his head office in Sydney and hence it appears that Tritt is under orders from his Chief Executive, Neville Carter, to remain silent.

Questionable advertising claims?

In advertising on the College’s website Carter has claimed that he had established a Professional Legal Training course for Malaysian Law students seeking admission to practise in Malaysia. There seems to be no evidence of such a course, or of any national level training course for the existing Certificate of Legal Practise.

Carter has also claimed to have produced the “inaugural” Handbook in Legal Practise for Malaysia, in the late 80s. A search of the main law libraries in Malaysia directed by the Chief Registrar, Federal Court Malaysia, has not found any such handbook.

He has also claimed to have, during that time to have identified and addressed “gaps” in Malaysian legal practise, but not even those in practice during that period and since have ever heard of him. Nor are senior practitioners aware of  “gaps” that needed that to be addressed by external consultants.

As CEO of the College Carter  has ultimate responsibility for the College’s Malaysian operation headed by Tritt and variously named the “College Of Law Asia Pacific” and the “College Of Law Asia”. A search by NMT has not revealed any entities registered under those names in Malaysia or in Australia, not even a foreign entities registered to conduct business in Malaysia.

Meanwhile the College, in collaboration with the Bar Council continues to sell its LLM and other courses in Malaysia, deriving a fee income from Malaysian courses.

-NMT

See also

AG NSW justifies exclusion of foreign regulatory risks from Dept of Justice annual reports on the basis that he was threatened, intimidated by the information:The matter of Top Group has implications for all regulators (including the NSW Law Soc)