Sack Pendles (and De Goey!)

[think positive]

An ingenious method, getting people to come up with their own punishments! (Not necessarily a bad idea in theory...)

Not really, just a typical kid trying not to get a worse punishment - like losing his very lucrative job!

[Pies4shaw]

I think it may be a good idea for teachers (at all levels) to use (for certain misdemeanours).

Returning to JDG, I'm pretty sure his manager came up with that and other things, in an attempt to head off a worse outcome for his client. I imagine JDG just sat there like a potato.

On other professions...

In the prominent case of Ziems v. Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales a barrister was struck off the role of legal practitioners after being convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to two years imprisonment for killing another person in a car accident whilst intoxicated.
Mr Ziems appealed his disbarment to the High Court of Australia which held that his manslaughter conviction had "neither connexion with nor significance for any professional functions as a barrister and therefore did not involve conduct that made the barrister unfit to be a member of his profession".

It is probably worth observing that Ziems was decided over 60 years ago and there have been many recent cases in which the Ziems "it didn't have anything to with my profession" argument have failed dismally. In any event, Ziems himself was in an extraordinary position. As the facts were succinctly described by 5 members of the Court in 2004 in a joint judgment:

"It was a case where the particularity with which the facts were approached was important to a conclusion as to the barrister's fitness. He had been found guilty of unlawful homicide (in the form of manslaughter) and sentenced to imprisonment. Even when his offence was described with a little more detail, his position was not improved. He had been responsible for the death of a person while driving under the influence of alcohol. Yet, when the circumstances of the case were exposed, the picture changed materially. The appellant, while drinking at a hotel, had been attacked and beaten. He was seriously injured. A sergeant of police advised him to go quickly to hospital. The appellant asked the sergeant to drive him, but the sergeant went away leaving the appellant without assistance. The appellant then set out to drive himself to hospital, and, in the course of the journey, was involved in a fatal collision" (A Solicitor v Council of the NSW Law Society (2004) 216 CLR 253, [15]).

Reasonably extenuating circumstances, you'd think.

[K]

Thanks for that, P4S. Would you say Ziems v. Prothonotary set a precedent, but that has basically now been overridden by subsequent cases? Or would you say it's still an influential precedent, but only for peculiar circumstances?
[Ed.: I wrote the above before reading all of your post. Those were very peculiar circumstances indeed! I would be appealing the two-year jail term itself!]
How important is the role of precedent cases in general? The popular portrayal in the US is that they are the be-all and end-all.

[stui magpie]

I'd like to think context should be considered in precedents.

60 years ago, a man who was probably drunk AND concussed had little options other than to drive himself to hospital.

Now we have mobile phones, taxis, Uber and Ambulances so the defence would be different, assuming the incident happened in a city.

[Pies4shaw]

[K]

... Ziems is still frequently cited but precedents like that tend to get distinguished on their facts over time. So, eg, there have been recent cases in which lawyers have been done for offences that occurred in a "private" capacity but most of us would say go to the trust and confidence we could have in them continuing as officers of the court. ...

I'm pleased by that.

[K]

[HAL]

Try to rephrase your question with simpler words.

[K]

https://www.theage.com.au/national/vict ... 4z1u5.html

Do you Nicksters think this is relevant to his job, i.e. something that should lead to his punishment or sacking?
(I wonder how they linked his online activity to him.)

[stui magpie]

I would say it is.

Smart enough to use an alias, not smart enough to cover his tracks well enough.

Not what you want in a deputy Police commissioner.

[Mugwump]

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/jigaboos-cheating-dagoes-victoria-police-s-head-s-racist-comments-20180226-p4z1u5.html

Do you Nicksters think this is relevant to his job, i.e. something that should lead to his punishment or sacking?
(I wonder how they linked his online activity to him.)

Yes, I think there is enough real racism (ie proper racism, not the fake new Left sort) and sadism in this to justify his losing his job. If he were a fencer or a chef, I think his views would be unpleasant but irrelevant to his ability to perform his role. But the police force is not a normal job. Someone with coercive power over the public cannot reasonably hold different standards for some groups over others. It is tricky, as individual policemen and women should be able to hold strong political views as a private citizen, but you cannot depart so grossly from norms of civility in the most civil of roles.

[Pies4shaw]

Absolutely. Instant dismissal.

[K]

Apparently, he has now resigned (or "resigned in disgrace", as the media usually put it: e.g. "top cop resigns in disgrace").

[think positive]

What a fool what a tool, good riddance. No way he could stay.

[Mugwump]