Ozwitch

Should Judge Shaw hand over his sample?

The NSW Opposition is calling for Judge Shaw to hand over his half of his blood sample after the other half went missing during processing after the Judge was pulled over after an accident on October 13.

Shaw is a justice of the NSW Supreme Court.

Opposition (conservative) Leader John Brogden says Judge Shaw has a 'moral' obligation to hand over his half of the sample. Police have no idea what happened to the other half.

'Moral' obligation? Doesn't exist in law.

This is one of those situations where you are dammed if you simply follow legal procedures. Justice Shaw has no obligation whatsoever to produce his own sample for testing, moral or otherwise. The A sample is for testing. the B sample is always given to the testee to be produced IF they want to challenge the chain of custody or there is a discrepancy in the actual testing process. It is for the protection of the testee, not for the police, court, or government to cover up their mistakes.

If the NSW Police have stuffed up (surprise!) or are guilty of either extreme incompetence or corruption, it's up to them to sort it out.

If Judge Shaw doesn't then should he be considered 'morally' guilty?

If he does, and it's over the limit, he's toast.

What would you do?

I don't consider that his status means the law should apply differently to the Judge. Laws are supposed to protect everyone equally.

But it's an interesting dilemma.

This is just wrong

Named and Shamed

A teacher from the Catholic primary school of St Simons in Rowville, Melbourne, is the latest to be outed in the child pornography scandal.

The local parish priest has apparently decided his name should be released to the public and he will not be allowed back to the school even if he is deemed innocent:

"The unfortunate nature, I believe, of sexual allegations, is that they stick, and we would want to give the parents the utmost sense of security (about) placing their child in the school," Father Dixon said.