Federal Candidate Jeremy Parker calls for Drug Traffickers to face the Death Penalty in Australia

The indepedendant candidate for Nicholls, Jeremy Parker, has publicly called for a reintroduction of the death penalty for foreigners who traffick Drugs into Australia.

This comes less than four years after the principal members of the Bali nine were executed for attempting to smuggle drugs out of Indonesia and into Australia.

Jeremy outlines his death penalty policy on his candidate website: http://www.jeremyparker.com.au/policies.html

Everyone deserves to be safe and happy. We are seeing our regional towns plagued by drugs which is generating much more crime. If elected, Jeremy will call for the death penalty to be reinstated for foreign drug traffickers that are importing drugs into our country. 

Jeremy Parker 2019

It seems that it is only a matter of time before a major political party picks this up. But lets be real. It’s not like Prison is any better.


Royal Commission questions sex with Pope

The Royal commission into the Lawyer X scandal is developing into an interesting soap opera.

The age has reported that former Assistant Commissioner has given evidence that he has denied having sex with Ms Gobbo, the purported Lawyer X.

On Wednesday, the commission heard Ms Gobbo made allegations that she had a sexual relationship with Mr Pope to detectives Boris Buick and Jason Lebusque in a recorded conversation in October 2011.

“How’s that for (inaudible) for you? Have a look at Boris’ face. I wish I take a photo of that,” she said, according to a transcript shown to the inquiry.

“Yep, I’m telling you the truth … on an off for a few months … I just think it is hilarious. Isn’t that inappropriate? Can you imagine the complaint I could make about that? I bet he hasn’t declared it.”

Mr Pope told the commission he never had a sexual relationship with Ms Gobbo, but she propositioned him when he met her for coffee at the Metropolitan Hotel in 2000 after bumping into her at court.


What a scary thing for Mr Pope to have to deal with.

Poor guy.

Well there are criminal acts, and then there is mass murder.

We have seen it Port Arthur, Hoddle St, Bourke St, and now Christchurch. Call it terrorism, call it ideological, call it mental-illness… It is still cold-blooded murder.

So what does the law do in the rare situations where the perpetrator survives the response to the carnage?

Well, in New Zealand, as in Australia, execution is out of the question. The big question is whether the perpetrator gets life in prison without the possibility of parole.

  • Melbourne’s Bourke Street killer James Gargasoulas got life in prison with a 46 year non parole period.
  • Melbourne’s Hoddle Street Killer Julian Knight gor life in prison with a 27 year non parole period.
  • Tasmania’s Port Arthur Miller Martin Bryant got Life without the possibility of parole.

Of course Julian Knight is now eligible for parole. This understandably irks the government of the day. So they passed a law directed at Julian Knight which says he can only be released if he is physically incapable of harming anyone.

Julian Knight fought the law to the High court on the basis that it was unconstitutional.

He lost, and will likely never be released. See Knight v State of Victoria [2017] HCA 29 (17 August 2017).

So, it seems that James Gargasoulas will face similar issues in 46 years. He will likely never get released.

And the Christchurch killer may face the same fate.

Pell lost because the government made Juries unfair

To suggest that George Pell has had a fair trial is difficult to accept.

One of the greatest safeguards in criminal trials has traditionally been the right of the acussed to fair Jury selection. Prior to 2017, anyone had the right to reject six potential members of the Jury without giving a reason.

This is of course useful to the defence, particularly in sex matters. There are some members of the public who cannot act rationally upon hearing details of the defence case. They often visibly react with disgust, occasionally cry, and otherwise make themselves known to an alert lawyer.

An alert lawyer will make sure his client challenges any juror who will obviusly not give him a fair hearing. In my experience, it is rare for a sex related trial to take place without maximising the number of challenges.

Six challenges was never enough, but in 2017 the Andrews government sought to deal with this problem. They halved the number of challenges to 3!

The reason given by Attorney Genral Martin Pakula:

“The jury selection process will be tightened to reduce potential discrimination by reducing the number of challenges without reason. For example, where there is a single accused in a criminal proceeding, the number of challenges without reason will be reduced from six down to three.”

Obviously, the only reason this fair process was interfered with was to increase conviction rates.

Pell never had a hope.

Are Nangs actually legal?

So what are nangs? Nangs, also known as cream chargers, are small canisters that contain up to 8 grams of nitrox-oxide. The principal use of nangs is to make it easy to create whipped cream products and to assit with baking products as well.

Given the huge baking industry, it’s no surprise that these nangs can be purchased at any local supermarket in boxes of ten. However, sometimes bakers run out of nitrox-oxide late at night. It appears that a multidue of 24 hour delivery services can fulfill the need to service this important market. For example, one can purchase the highly sought after Mosa brand cream chargers at https://247store.com.au/collections/pantry , and have them delivered anywhere in Melbourne Victoria within an hour.

So, given the high availability of nangs in Melbourne, one has to ask whether any thought has been given to the legality of providing pressurised nitrox-oxide cannisters to anyone who wants them.

Under Victorian Law, Nitro-Oxide is considered to be a deleterious substance. It is not classed as a drug. However, it is illegal to sell a deleterious substance in certain circumstances:

A person shall not sell a deleterious substance to another person if the first‑mentioned person knows or reasonably ought to have known or has reasonable cause to believe that the other person intends—

        (a)     to use the substance by drinking, inhaling, administering or otherwise introducing it into his body;

When news precipitates a prison attack. Who is responsible?

A few years ago, the most notorious criminal imprisoned in Victoria was Carl Williams. Mr Williams stint in prison began after he was found guilty of a series of murders that took place in Melbourne during the early 2000s. These occurred in the context of a gangland war for control of distribution of methyl-amphetamine.

Mr Williams was, for a while, basically the last man standing in a war that involved the deaths of about two dozen Melbourne residents. When he pleaded guilty, he was given a minimum term, which meant that he had the chance of leaving prison, if an elderly harmless man by that point.

Of course, this didn’t happen. On 19 April 2010, the herald-sun published the following article: https://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/1012_heraldsun.pdf

Taxpayers forked out $8000 to pay the private school fees of the daughter of murderer and underworld figure Carl Williams…

— The Herald Sun, 19th April, 2010

Later that day, Carl Williams was murdered by a fellow inmate who had read that story. He died after being bashed up by part of an exercise bike.

Now, it looks like the herald-sun has achieved the dubious distinction of repeating this performance. On 9 February 2019, they ran the following article:

Tony Mokbel a powerful enforcer at Barwon Prison

This report suggested Mokbel was a “top enforcer” at the prison and that he had intervened in a prison stand­over scheme, disrupting an extortion racket being run by Pacific Islander inmates.

Early on 11 February 2019, Tony Mokbel was stabbed in prison. At this stage he is in a critical condition, and may, or may not survive.

All thanks to the Herald-Sun.

Why we should leave the law to criminals

It seems that as time goes by laws get harsher and criminals face more jail time. Over the past ten years in Victoria, there have been changes that have been legislated by the government which have had the unfortunate effect of winding back a fair system and making it harsh.

Recently there have been changes to bail laws which see pretty much anyone who commits a serious offence while on bail facing the same bail threshold as terrorism suspects and murderers. Yes, you heard that right. A suspect who has burgled a house and stolen a laptop, while on bail for a drug trafficking charge, will face the exceptional circumstances test. A test which is hard to overcome, unfortunately.

I’m sure it has nothing to do with some new jails having been built. I mean, there is no way the state government would throw people in jail just to avoid criticism over their necessity…

As an antidote to the dystopian future of the law in Victoria, I will maintain this blog with moderate enthusiasm, and hope that eventually the powers that be have enough sense to recognise that they may very well be sowing the seeds of a nightmare criminal justice experience for at least one of their own members.