Free Content Management

No Legal Basis For Shredding Still No Joy For Shredders By Bruce Grundy and Georgina Robinson (25 September 2003) Legal authorities contacted by The Justice Project have rejected the view that the 1990 shredding of the Heiner documents was legal because of the wording of a definition of a legal term contained in the Queensland Criminal Code. In August the Justice Project published comments from several prominent lawyers rejecting the claims of the former Criminal Justice Commission, the former Director of Public Prosecutions and others that the shredding was legal. (See: Officials Could Have Been Charged; Action Against Shredders Reconsidered; Public Officials Can Still Be Charged). The matter was given some prominence nationally in last week's edition of The Bulletin magazine. Claims put to The Justice Project since The Bulletin article that the definition of a "legal proceeding" set out in the Criminal Code under section 119 specifically limited the interpretation of such a proceeding to one that had commenced, have been strongly rejected by a number of legal authorities. On the contrary, rather than restricting the interpretation of a legal proceeding to one that was on foot, the section extended the meaning of the term, The Justice Project was told. Under section 119 of the Code the term "legal proceeding" is defined as including "any proceeding had or taken in or before any court, tribunal or person, in which evidence may be taken on oath". This meant, one legal authority said, the term was extended to cover quasi-judicial proceedings, including royal commissions and administrative investigations with the power to administer oaths and gather evidence. The source also said the use of the word "includes" widened the definition of "legal proceeding" and meant any residual meanings not specified in the wording were also covered. Another legal figure responding to questions from The Justice Project said the use of the word "includes" in the definition simply established that certain proceedings were embraced by the definition. However, this did not limit the definition of what was covered by the law to only those circumstances set out in the definition. To interpret s 119 in such a way was simply wrong, he said.  Top     1153 page visits Content Management Software 2008