The only reason he wouldn't mention who a source was in such a serious matter is if that person would have a negative effect on himself or the bombers, almost certain it's James and Tanya Hird.

Was tanna,she handed over stringently kept notes.

Ah, the courts of law.

The only place where the term "liar, liar , pants on fire" actually results in someone having to back up their claims with proof.

Gotta love it.

It's time for us to turn our minds away from the hum drum of drug scandals, litigation and club politics. We need to focus on REAL ESTATE ~ James Hird to sell Toorak mansion

It's time for us to turn our minds away from the hum drum of drug scandals, litigation and club politics. We need to focus on REAL ESTATE ~ James Hird to sell Toorak mansion

Selling for the permenant move to France in 2015.

Interesting the house is in her name!

Gotta pay those legal bills somehow

Interesting the house is in her name!

Not really, her family is wealthy and they may have put a large part of the purchase price and it is not uncommon for those who think their assets could be attacked in the future, to put them in the names of a family member.

He may not have a choice or could be charged with contempt

yes... I dont know who he thinks he is .....a Pastor...A Doctor...A lawyer .??? No just a journo.

I cant see how he could hide under EVIDENCE ACT 2008 - SECT 126K

Maybe WJ could enlighten us here. We KNOW already who the parties are...so nothing to hide there.

Id have thought Robbo was bound to fess up...

What say the legal beagles ?

Perhaps I am just cynical bb

But it appears Robbo is setting things up to play the Journo Martyr

That way he can look good to all his Bomber mates and Boss at Murdock HQ

Perhaps I am just cynical bb

But it appears Robbo is setting things up to play the Journo Martyr

That way he can look good to all his Bomber mates and Boss at Murdock HQ

He'll be thrown on a sacrificial dung heap if need be OD ; fine by me.

Not really, her family is wealthy and they may have put a large part of the purchase price and it is not uncommon for those who think their assets could be attacked in the future, to put them in the names of a family member.

I was being sarcastic !

Perhaps I am just cynical bb

But it appears Robbo is setting things up to play the Journo Martyr

That way he can look good to all his Bomber mates and Boss at Murdock HQ

perhaps ??? hmmmm lol

Selling for the permenant move to France in 2015.

Interesting the house is in her name!

Its a spec job they did in Power Street Toorak. Ordinary house actually.

I have spoken to a few tradies who said TH was a nightmare to deal with Surprise surprise.

I was being sarcastic !

Even allowing for the sarcasm it's an interesting point to raise. I doubt that James is skint so it raises inferences of some form of asset protection, but who knows?

yes... I dont know who he thinks he is .....a Pastor...A Doctor...A lawyer .??? No just a journo.

I cant see how he could hide under

EVIDENCE ACT 2008 - SECT 126K

Maybe WJ could enlighten us here. We KNOW already who the parties are...so nothing to hide there.

Id have thought Robbo was bound to fess up...

What say the legal beagles ?

Will be surprised if it gets to court, I hope it does though.

yes... I dont know who he thinks he is .....a Pastor...A Doctor...A lawyer .??? No just a journo.

I cant see how he could hide under EVIDENCE ACT 2008 - SECT 126K

Maybe WJ could enlighten us here. We KNOW already who the parties are...so nothing to hide there.

Id have thought Robbo was bound to fess up...

What say the legal beagles ?

Not my area of expertise but I would imagine that you would have to apply a strong case for public interest to allow the confidence of the informant to be overruled.

Perhaps Redleg might wish to have a go. He deals with evidentiary matters every day of his working life.

Not my area of expertise but I would imagine that you would have to apply a strong case for public interest to allow the confidence of the informant to be overruled.

Perhaps Redleg might wish to have a go. He deals with evidentiary matters every day of his working life.

My thinking regards this WJ goes to the notion that that the Shield Protection is their to protect the identity of a source of information. i.e WHat was said or inferred is known ( and used by journo ) but the mouth's identity is kept hidden.

Here we have the Weapon calling some to task. Its being asked what was said between two parties ( etc ) whereby the persons involved are actually already known. In an instance say Hird and Slobbo. No protection of identity involved so surely on a stand under oath Slobbo ought to directed to answer whatever questions ?

My thinking regards this WJ goes to the notion that that the Shield Protection is their to protect the identity of a source of information. i.e WHat was said or inferred is known ( and used by journo ) but the mouth's identity is kept hidden.

Here we have the Weapon calling some to task. Its being asked what was said between two parties ( etc ) whereby the persons involved are actually already known. In an instance say Hird and Slobbo. No protection of identity involved so surely on a stand under oath Slobbo ought to directed to answer whatever questions ?

robbo will have to say what he was briefed about.

but that only makes him look silly after he denied being briefed by hirds lawyers after caro called him out on it.

the real issue here is just how many and which drugs the essendon players were injected with, with the express consent of the entire footy department (including the doctor who asked hirdy to write a letter to himself on behalf of himself after the fact)

Not my area of expertise but I would imagine that you would have to apply a strong case for public interest to allow the confidence of the informant to be overruled.

Perhaps Redleg might wish to have a go. He deals with evidentiary matters every day of his working life.

Hasn't the issue of journalists protecting sources already been tested in the courts this year? IIRC Fairfax had a major fight to protect their investigative duo, Richard Baker and Nick McKenzie. I can't recall which matter although I suspect it's most likely to be the Securency matter which we've recently discovered via Wikileaks to be the subject of a secret injunction. It would be somewhat ironic if Mark Robinson's ability to protect his sources is affected by the Baker/McKenzie legal issue, given it was Nick McKenzie who interviewed Stephen Dank and got him to "admit" to providing the Essendon players with Thymosin-B.

But unless i get it wrong theres no identity protection issue at stake here... Its content..i.e what was said between known "conspirants". isnt it ?

Not my area of expertise but I would imagine that you would have to apply a strong case for public interest to allow the confidence of the informant to be overruled.

Perhaps Redleg might wish to have a go. He deals with evidentiary matters every day of his working life.

I think he should lead with Jack Nicholson's great line "you can't handle the truth".

What would it take for ASADA to get their evidence thrown out?

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-08-07/asada-chief-to-miss-trial

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-08-07/asada-chief-to-miss-trial

it'll be a battle of the wigs...

Ben can watch from arms length I presume.

it'll be a battle of the wigs...

Ben can watch from arms length I presume.

maybe he doesn't want to get soiled by attending

it'll be a battle of the wigs...

Ben can watch from arms length I presume.

you'd have to be pretty confident in your case if your boss wasn't going to attend the trial