I recall a time when my mate, Nifty, could make a phone call and a room might become unlocked. ALP figures don't need to answer questions because of those skeletons that rattle in those closets. What would Power have seen in his career?
When the issue was first announced, I thought the fool had allowed many people access to his computer. I know some people whom I would never let near my computer because I don't trust them, but then I'm a recluse. One gets the impression that Power is a likeable party person.
What does 'life' mean for Cowdery's tenure? He can't transparently manage his office. Will Cowdery have office after Hicks is released?
As for Hicks, I think he should face a court, but the Democrats have messed up so badly on policy that Hicks can't now face a civilian court without his case being vacated on technicality .. he is a terrorist, he means to kill people, he is unrepentant but Americans like Mr Cowdery want to populate the world with such creatures. Amnesty International have spent much money supporting people who want to kill, like Hicks, despite their worthless charter.
In this case, and with Hicks, Nifty and all things ALP, justice is blind.
1 comment:
By Piers Akerman
Tuesday, July 25, 2006 at 12:00am
NSW Director of Public Prosecutions Nicholas Cowdery is a stickler for the rule of the law.
We know so because this celebrity public servant (AM, QC, immediate past president, International Association of Prosecutors) made a speech titled Theory and Practice of the Rule of Law in a Modern Democracy to the Newcastle Law Society and Bar Association earlier this month.
Though he attempted to use his opening remarks to denigrate critics of an earlier address in which he ignored successful crime-fighting measures such as zero tolerance in favour of a touchy-feely educational approach, he rapidly moved on to David Hicks.
He was proud to reveal his views received support from 90 per cent of those who contacted him.
Those, like Foreign Minister Alexander Downer, who suggested Cowdery concentrate on “law and order in NSW ... where his responsibilities lie”, were regarded as “dismissive (but obviously ineffectual in that respect) and patronising”.
How silly of Downer not to realise that Cowdery is a global personality who spent more than $150,000 of taxpayers’ money attending international conferences in the past seven years. The international issues beckon Cowdery as much as NSW law and order issues.
In the light of his devastating ripostes to Downer, Opposition justice spokesman Chris Hartcher and this columnist, it seems impertinent to ask questions of the globe-trotter about his dedication to the rule of law, but questions must be raised.
Why, for example, didn’t this exemplar of legal standards criticise his staff for notifying deputy senior Crown prosecutor Patrick Power it had allegedly found child pornography on his home computer up to 90 minutes before alerting police?
Cowdery was not in the state at the time. Indeed, his schedule would suggest he has a healthy frequent flyer account, but that being so, he must have confidence that his office can operate in his absence.
Why then did not Cowdery arrange with his office for Power to be immediately isolated from his work station and detained upon becoming aware of the issue? Cowdery said no one could detain Power and he was sent home, with police being alerted 90 minutes later.
Were there not working telephones in the DPP’s office? Are there not police officers in and out of the office throughout the day?
Surely a man of Cowdery’s importance could have summoned an officer to his office - even from interstate - in five minutes and had Power arrested to be then taken to his home under arrest for execution of a search warrant.
As Power’s home is but 10 minutes walk from the DPP’s office, this seems to have been a major blunder if not a case worthy of investigation by the PIC and possibly ICAC.
Was there any corrupt conduct by those from the DPP’s office who informed Power questionable material had allegedly been discovered on his computer and then permitted him to go to his home before police could search for evidence?
Another serious problem is the police, who two days to search Powers’ home after he was arrested and bailed. Why?
In recent years we have seen police of the most senior rank stood down and removed from their offices and have their homes searched simultaneously on the presentation of little more than hearsay evidence.
Why was Power treated differently? What were police doing during those two days?
One would imagine normal procedure would have entailed police being called by the DPP’s staff the minute the allegedly suspicious material was found on Power’s computer hard drive and before he was notified of any irregularity.
If the police were satisfied charges were necessary, they would have obtained search warrants for his office and home and when they were in place, made the arrest, questioned him and escorted him to his house for a search.
None of that happened. The police weren’t alerted immediately, Power wasn’t detained, no search of his home was conducted for 48 hours and Cowdery’s first public response was to issue a statement of support for his friend.
True, Cowdery was interstate when the issue arose but though he makes the speeches, he is obviously not the only senior person in the DPP’s office or it would cease functioning altogether.
Now, along with a few disparate Australians he is telling the Federal Government how it should deal with Hicks.
If, as it seems, Cowdery has difficulty applying the law at its basic level in his own office, it may be Hicks should seek a second opinion before investing too much hope in the DPP.
Accountable to nobody, with a job for life, plenty of travel and an office that seems to run itself, in a most curious fashion.
Premier Morris Iemma and Attorney-General Bob Debus must tell us why the Government hasn’t acted to allay concern about the anomalies surrounding this grave matter.
Post a Comment