Hows this drivers complaint? So how do you see whos driving?

[digger]

Hijab woman accuses policeman of racism

Thursday, November 18, 2010 » 10:12pm


A policeman accused of trying to pull off a Muslim woman's headdress has told a Sydney court he isn't a racist.

Senior Constable Paul Fogarty pulled over Carnita Matthews, 45, on June 8 this year at Woodbine in Sydney's southwest.

She later filed a police complaint claiming he tried to pull off her hijab, which concealed her entire face except for her eyes.

Matthews was subsequently charged with one count of knowingly making a false complaint.

She pleaded not guilty to the charge in August, and at Campbelltown Local Court on Thursday her lawyer, Stephen Hopper, said police had failed to verify the identity of the person making the complaint.

This means they cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was his client who made it, Mr Hopper said.

Const Fogarty, of Macquarie Fields Highway Patrol, told the court he twice asked Matthews to remove her veil because he couldn't fully see her face.

'I gestured for her to lift her hijab,' he said.

'I said I just wanted to verify. I then gestured to her to lift her hijab.'

A police video of the incident, which was played to the court, showed Const Fogarty approaching Matthews' black Honda Odyssey and checking her identity.

He then issued her with an infringement notice for not displaying her green P plates properly.

At this point Matthews becomes irate, accusing Const Fogarty of being 'racist', according to the police video.

'All cops are racist,' she is heard saying.

'You know you are giving me a ticket for crap.'

Police prosecutor Lisa McEvoy asked Const Fogarty if he objected to being called racist. He agreed, saying: 'Because I'm not.'

'Did it have any bearing on you that she had a face veil?' Ms McEvoy asked.

'It (issuing the fine) was because she did not have her P plates showing,' he replied.

The hearing will continue on Friday.
+++++++++++++++++++++++

So, she is wearing a hijab, fair enough her choice
BUT driving is a priviledge (<-sp?)NOT a right...

If asked to prove her identity and she refuses, (no matter if an offence or not as long as legally required to prove ID) by not removing her hijab for the ID then she shouldve been arrested "to ensure appearance" for the matter.

This would then be a hugely reported item and the copper a massive racist etc etc....

BUT try this scenario, its a cold night and someone drives up wearing a beanie/balaclava, theyre asked to lift it so the Police officer can confirm theyre ID and they refuse....now when they are pinched is the copper racist??

Who would support this case?

Now the lawyer is saying the Police officer is racist because he wanted her to lift her hijab to confirm the lic photo, AND he's saying that Police "had failed to verify the identity of the person" so the matter should be thrown out of court.

KE? so how do we do this from now on?
If someone wishes to wear a hijab, veil etc etc thats OK with me, BUT
the requirements of the road are that your ID can be proven upon request by authorised officers (eg Police or road transport) - If not then Im afraid buses, trams and taxis are available in most metro areas.

Dont think this is a racist bit from me either, as lots of muslims are wearing covers etc and comply with requests to show faces with no problems at all when requested to do so, usually they are very cheerful and confident people, and if they have commited some offence cannot seems to cooperate or apologise enough.

And unlike other comments I've seen on the net, don't cry "send them home" her last name is Matthews, HOME is somewhere in Sydney!

How do we sort out what started as a basic traffic stop (no P plate)and somehow becomes a attack accusing the officer of being racist?

(How is it that "racist" people were able to get somesort of mental powers to force people they dont like to remove or not place P plates or do stupid stuff and I cant get my dog to fetch???)

[spudboy]

She's been nicked. Not happy about it. Puts in an allegedly bogus claim to give the copper grief.

Seems the likely storey to me. Using the 'racism' card to get back at someone....

[disco2hse]

Racism has nothing to do with it, it is a red herring. The veil is a cultural thing and even where it is the norm an official can ask to have it removed to prove identity, or at the least have a female officer do it.

The key point in this case is the part "She pleaded not guilty to the charge in August, and at Campbelltown Local Court on Thursday her lawyer, Stephen Hopper, said police had failed to verify the identity of the person making the complaint." In this case she is trying to get off the charge through a technical point of law, that the enforcing officer could not determine it was she who was behind the wheel and therefore could not be charged.

The questions is, in Australia is it a part of the legal process for the enforcing officer to visually identify the offender when issuing an enforcement notice? She has obviously provided a driver's license or something else to show that she was supposed to be showing P plates. At the time of the offense this person has claimed that she is the person who should be showing them and was not, so that person received the infringement notice.

Now this person who is in court is claiming that she is not the one who was there at the time of the offense and no one can prove it was her because of the veil. However it is no longer the responsibility of the court to prove it was her because some evidence saying it was had been provided at the point. Now it is her responsibility to prove it was not her and that it was someone else.

Alan

[digger]

It is a legal option that if an officer is satisfied that he cannot prove someones identity or be satisfied they wil appear before court for the matter at hand that the officer can arrest the person, without proof satisfying the ID of the person, no bail...

simple... BUT as I said imagine the hue and cry if that was the action he took!

[PhilipA]

And how did the second alleged person know about the offence?

Who told him or her, and will the poor misidentified person reveal who she told about the offence.
A red herring and one unlikely to be believed, but shows a cunning lawyer.

My wife was a visa officer in the British Embassy in Riyadh, and they used to try to get visas with a photo of a woman in a Burka. The women or male relatives were outraged when told to submit a photo with face showing and then to show their face to the visa officer.
Regards Philip A

[disco2hse]

It is a legal option that if an officer is satisfied that he cannot prove someones identity or be satisfied they wil appear before court for the matter at hand that the officer can arrest the person, without proof satisfying the ID of the person, no bail..

That may be so, but in this case he was obviously satisfied from the evidence provided that the person was who she claimed to be and the offense notice was issued. Having been satisfied with what he had it is now in the hands of the court to determine whether it was her or not.

[disco2hse]

And how did the second alleged person know about the offence?

Second person?? Oh you mean the actual person who was named on the offense notice? Probably from the summons that follows these things when they aren't attended to, if it were the case that indeed there was a second person, which is in this case there is some doubt.


Who told him or her, and will the poor misidentified person reveal who she told about the offence.
A red herring and one unlikely to be believed, but shows a cunning lawyer.

He may be a cunning linguist but not a very cunning lawyer. That is an old trick that has been tried and failed many times in the past. I am certain even a half sober judge would see through it.


My wife was a visa officer in the British Embassy in Riyadh, and they used to try to get visas with a photo of a woman in a Burka. The women or male relatives were outraged when told to submit a photo with face showing and then to show their face to the visa officer.

Interesting. Of course they were outraged. My experience with some of these people is that they exist in a constant state of outrage.

When in Rome and all that, however.

[spudboy]

At least she has the freedom to wear what she wants in Australia.

Mrs Spud & I were travelling in Morocco, and she HAD to wear "modest" clothing, which is quite fair enough (when in Rome etc). She was wearing a shirt buttoned to her wrists, with a high collar, a hat on her head, and long trousers. She got spat on by some men because they could see her ankles between the end of her trousers and her shoes. BTW - it was about 40 degrees in the shade, and she was obviously a tourist.

Tolerance is a fine thing hey?

[disco2hse]

Mrs Spud & I were travelling in Morocco, and she HAD to wear "modest" clothing, which is quite fair enough (when in Rome etc). She was wearing a shirt buttoned to her wrists, with a high collar, a hat on her head, and long trousers. She got spat on by some men because they could see her ankles between the end of her trousers and her shoes. BTW - it was about 40 degrees in the shade, and she was obviously a tourist.

Tolerance is a fine thing hey?

That is disgusting. But it is something that is becoming more widespread, unfortunately.

It angers me when I encounter those male attitudes here. I am afraid I am not very tolerant of that kind of thing. Where I work I have told mainly north african males to pull their heads in before when they have acted offensively towards females. I will tolerate burkas in my job, I have to. But I ignore women who think they have to hide from me in public. They want to be invisible? Fine, to me they can be.

[richard4u2]

wonder why she didnt want the police officer to see her face as it would have been on her license ?? so who was really driveing the car , a male ? a wanted person ? a drug runner ? someone who was here illegally ?

[JohnF]

I should buy my wife a Burka and a gun and send her out to rob people. No one will be able to identify her to the police, so we will get away with it :D:D:D






Now I would not really do this, but Burka can hide criminal's faces and should not be allowed in the free world. When a man walks into the bank they must remove his motor Cycle helmet, so that he can be identified by security cameras. So why should not the Burka be removed the same way?

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Hijab woman accuses policeman of racism

Thursday, November 18, 2010 » 10:12pm

A policeman accused of trying to pull off a Muslim woman's headdress has told a Sydney court he isn't a racist.

Senior Constable Paul Fogarty pulled over Carnita Matthews, 45, on June 8 this year at Woodbine in Sydney's southwest.

She later filed a police complaint claiming he tried to pull off her hijab, which concealed her entire face except for her eyes.

Matthews was subsequently charged with one count of knowingly making a false complaint.

<snip>
+++++++++++++++++++++++

<snip

Now the lawyer is saying the Police officer is racist because he wanted her to lift her hijab to confirm the lic photo, AND he's saying that Police "had failed to verify the identity of the person" so the matter should be thrown out of court.

<snip>I think you will find that her lawyer is arguing that the police officer at the station later did not positively identify the person making the complaint. Therefore he is suggesting that it was someone other than his client knowing filing a false complaint.

[disco2hse]

I think you will find that her lawyer is arguing that the police officer at the station later did not positively identify the person making the complaint. Therefore he is suggesting that it was someone other than his client knowing filing a false complaint.

Of course at this point its all speculation because we don't a full summary of the facts but the news story said:


Const Fogarty, of Macquarie Fields Highway Patrol, told the court he twice asked Matthews to remove her veil because he couldn't fully see her face.

'I gestured for her to lift her hijab,' he said.

'I said I just wanted to verify. I then gestured to her to lift her hijab.'

A police video of the incident, which was played to the court, showed Const Fogarty approaching Matthews' black Honda Odyssey and checking her identity.


It made no mention of an arrest or an officer at a police station at this stage.

[KarlB]

At least she has the freedom to wear what she wants in Australia.

Mrs Spud & I were travelling in Morocco, and she HAD to wear "modest" clothing, which is quite fair enough (when in Rome etc). She was wearing a shirt buttoned to her wrists, with a high collar, a hat on her head, and long trousers. She got spat on by some men because they could see her ankles between the end of her trousers and her shoes. BTW - it was about 40 degrees in the shade, and she was obviously a tourist.

Tolerance is a fine thing hey?

Sadly I have seen similar behaviour directed towards sari clad women and Aborigines in urban Australia. I have no doubt that the vile individuals I have seen spitting on inebriated Aborigines and verbally abusing sari wearing women, would also taunt and abuse burka wearing women. Such racial and religious intolerance is found every where. We don't have to look far.

Cheers
KarlB
:mad:

[Newbs-IIA]

so you can be arrested for not providing ID when you've done something wrong, right?

I understand that this generally applies for not providing ID (eg a driver's license) that matches you face/description. Ironic that it is the opposite in this case - the alleged provided provided ID but did not provide a face/description to match the ID. I suppose it works both ways. If I was the police officer in question in this situtation, I would of sternly reminded her that 1) she is on camera and 2) she can be arrested/charged for not providing ID which is much worse that a $150 & 1 point failure to display P plate fine. I think you will find that P Plater's must carry their driver's licene at all times when driving (well at least that's the case in QLD)

When dealing with police having a good attitude goes a long way, I have talked my way out of several cases of failing to display P Plates... :p

[Tombie]

Love the do gooder... Tolerance quoting BS that comes from this type of media BS :twisted:

We are a "Western" culture... We have rules and laws... so...

Abide by the bloody things or leave.

As for driving in a Burka etc... What a joke! How safe is it to be masked so much and drive? Motorcycle helmets are bad enough with their larger visual area, so a Burka is downright friggin dangerous :eek:

Simple rules -
You come here.. You play by our rules etc..
We go there.. We play by your rules...

Dont like the rules? Dont play...

[THE BOOGER]

Hijab woman accuses policeman of racism

Thursday, November 18, 2010 » 10:12pm


A policeman accused of trying to pull off a Muslim woman's headdress has told a Sydney court he isn't a racist.

Senior Constable Paul Fogarty pulled over Carnita Matthews, 45, on June 8 this year at Woodbine in Sydney's southwest.

She later filed a police complaint claiming he tried to pull off her hijab, which concealed her entire face except for her eyes.

Matthews was subsequently charged with one count of knowingly making a false complaint.

She pleaded not guilty to the charge in August, and at Campbelltown Local Court on Thursday her lawyer, Stephen Hopper, said police had failed to verify the identity of the person making the complaint.

This means they cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was his client who made it, Mr Hopper said.

Const Fogarty, of Macquarie Fields Highway Patrol, told the court he twice asked Matthews to remove her veil because he couldn't fully see her face.

'I gestured for her to lift her hijab,' he said.

'I said I just wanted to verify. I then gestured to her to lift her hijab.'

A police video of the incident, which was played to the court, showed Const Fogarty approaching Matthews' black Honda Odyssey and checking her identity.

He then issued her with an infringement notice for not displaying her green P plates properly.

At this point Matthews becomes irate, accusing Const Fogarty of being 'racist', according to the police video.

'All cops are racist,' she is heard saying.

'You know you are giving me a ticket for crap.'

Police prosecutor Lisa McEvoy asked Const Fogarty if he objected to being called racist. He agreed, saying: 'Because I'm not.'

'Did it have any bearing on you that she had a face veil?' Ms McEvoy asked.

'It (issuing the fine) was because she did not have her P plates showing,' he replied.

The hearing will continue on Friday.
+++++++++++++++++++++++

I take it from the above that she is not complaining about the original not display p plate ticket she latter made an official complaint saying the officer tried to remove her hajib this was not supported by the in car video so she was charged with making a false complaint which she is defending her lawyer is saying that the officer who took the complaint did not verify her identity he should have asked her to remove the hajib as it may not have been her who made the complaint he only has to show it may not have been her he doesnt have to prove it the prosicuter does. I would have thought the fact she turned up at the hearing in to the complaint was proof she put it in.;)

[JohnF]

Are all these guys entitled to wear a Hijab/Burka?

http://img190.imageshack.us/content_round.php?page=done&l=img190/8560/image00555n.jpg

http://img517.imageshack.us/content_round.php?page=done&l=img517/7664/image00222h.jpg

Yfrog Photo : yfrog.com/mrimage00777j - Shared by Johnf48 (http://yfrog.com/mrimage00777j)

These pictures were taken during a public demonstration in London [so should be public domain pictures], but such things are not reported in the media. I do believe strongly in Freedom of Speech, but believe you should stand up openly for your beliefs and not hide your face if you expect free speech. And you should not force your ideas on others.

[DeanoH]

Sounds like Mrs. Matthews could be a bit of a troublemaker as well as a liar. Perhaps she's a professional 'victim' like,............... no one loves me everyone hates me think I'll go eat worms, the world's against me type of person. As shown by her all cops are racist, you're giving me a ticket for crap comments. Is Mrs. Matthews a nutcase, a genuine Muslim or is this persona just this weeks alter ego ?
The pity of it all is that genuine Muslims, women in particular get a bad name out of all of this and perhaps, as a result get treated less tolerantly than they should be.
You've got to like the lawyers angle though..................on one hand shouldn't have to show her face, on the other can't charge her because of insufficient ID. Well done. And he probably wonders why lawyers are treated with the same contempt as pedophiles, politicians and blowflys.

Deano:)

[KarlB]

Are all these guys entitled to wear a Hijab/Burka?

ImageShack&#174; - Online Media Hosting (http://img190.imageshack.us/content_round.php?page=done&l=img190/8560/image00555n.jpg)

ImageShack&#174; - Online Media Hosting (http://img517.imageshack.us/content_round.php?page=done&l=img517/7664/image00222h.jpg)

Yfrog Photo : yfrog.com/mrimage00777j - Shared by Johnf48 (http://yfrog.com/mrimage00777j)

These pictures were taken during a public demonstration in London [so should be public domain pictures], but such things are not reported in the media. I do believe strongly in Freedom of Speech, but believe you should stand up openly for your beliefs and not hide your face if you expect free speech. And you should not force your ideas on others.

The photos were taken in 2006 at a demonstration objecting to what was seen as blasphemous caricatures by a Danish cartoonist. They were very widely reported in the media. You will find from the following CNN report, that the protest was widely condemned by British Muslim organisations: http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/02/06/london.cartoon.protests/ (http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/02/06/london.cartoon.protests/) .

It really is unhelpful to assert the behaviour of all by the actions of a few.

Cheers
KarlB
:)

[JohnF]

The photos were taken in 2006 at a demonstration objecting to what was seen as blasphemous caricatures by a Danish cartoonist. They were very widely reported in the media. You will find from the following CNN report, that the protest was widely condemned by British Muslim organisations: http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/02/06/london.cartoon.protests/ (http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/02/06/london.cartoon.protests/) .

It really is unhelpful to assert the behaviour of all by the actions of a few.

Cheers
KarlB
:)

Someone e-mailed these photos to me, sometime ago to me saying that the Media did not report this and I just repeated his words. I believe every one has the right to believe what they want, as pointed out in the thread started by Obod which I discussed the New World Order in a fair bit of detail in. Thanks for your thoughts an criticism of my post. We should always be ready to accept Criticism from others, so thanks. "As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent." Revelation 3:19.

And I do agree that we should never judge a group by a small minority of rat bags in that group.

[incisor]

Burka dispute woman jailed for false statement - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/11/19/3071241.htm'section=justin)

[drifter]

Burka dispute woman jailed for false statement - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/11/19/3071241.htm'section=justin)

LMAO - justice has been served!

[Basil135]

Love the do gooder... Tolerance quoting BS that comes from this type of media BS :twisted:

We are a "Western" culture... We have rules and laws... so...

Abide by the bloody things or leave.

As for driving in a Burka etc... What a joke! How safe is it to be masked so much and drive? Motorcycle helmets are bad enough with their larger visual area, so a Burka is downright friggin dangerous :eek:

Simple rules -
You come here.. You play by our rules etc..
We go there.. We play by your rules...

Dont like the rules? Dont play...

Exactly what I was thinking...

[THE BOOGER]

Released pending appeal, whats the bet the conviction will stand but to appese the muslim community the sentence will be reduced or she will get a bond:(

[KarlB]

Released pending appeal, whats the bet the conviction will stand but to appese the muslim community the sentence will be reduced or she will get a bond:(

Would you prefer she was flogged within an inch of her life? That one of her hands was cut off?

[DeanoH]

She's been shown to be a liar and a fool. Her credibility has been destroyed, as it should be. But 6 months jail ? What happened to 'let the punishment fit the crime'. The severity of this sentence runs the risk of turning her into a martyr. She got heaps of priors or what ?

Deano:)

[p38arover]

She's been shown to be a liar and a fool. Her credibility has been destroyed, as it should be. But 6 months jail ? What happened to 'let the punishment fit the crime'. The severity of this sentence runs the risk of turning her into a martyr. She got heaps of priors or what ?

Deano:)

Possibly it was due to it being a false statutory declaration. That has a fairly high penalty. Under Commonwealth law it is 4 years.



Under section 11 of the Statutory Declarations Act 1959, the penalty for making a false statement in a statutory declaration is 4 years imprisonment.

In NSW, it's variable.




Penalties for False Statutory Declarations

The

Oaths Amendment Act 1996 provides that if a Statutory Declaration is made to

gain material benefit and the offence is dealt with by indictment the penalty is up to 7
years imprisonment. If dealt with summarily then the penalty is up to 2 years
imprisonment and/or a fine of 100 penalty units ($11,000). If the offence is swearing a
false declaration that does not involve material benefit, the penalty is up to 12 months
imprisonment and/or a fine of 50 penalty units ($5,500).

[Hymie]

Would you prefer she was flogged within an inch of her life? That one of her hands was cut off?

Would that be the punishment under Sharia Law which is what Muslims want?

[THE BOOGER]

Would you prefer she was flogged within an inch of her life? That one of her hands was cut off?

nope but I would like the original sentence set by the magistrate who heard the full argument from both sides and thought it was appropriate:mad:

[Hucksta]

So the lying thing has appealed .... i hope she gets more time.

Bad luck love .......

[KarlB]

And the woman has every right to want to appeal. Magistrates can make mistakes; evidence can be misinterpreted; and so on. I am not saying these things have happened, just that one of the many good things about our society is that the option exists and we all have the privilege to pursue that right if we so desire. There is a risk with any appeal, as Hucksta says, she may end up with a harsher sentence and additional costs to boot. This is Australia, the offender is an Australian (as far as I am aware), and Australian law applies.

[ATH]

I'm not entirely against Muslims or anyone else wearing burkas or other stuff for religious reasons or because their modesty demands it which hides their identity, as long as they can prove they are who they say they are if a copper asks them to.
Maybe the cop in this case could have called for a female officer to attend to assist in this.
A fairly recent case in the UK involved a gang of so called refugee Somalis given safe haven there, being involved in the shooting death of a woman police officer in Birmingham.
The cops knew who they were, a gang of 4 career criminals and arrested 3 of them quickly.
The ringleader was a bloke the UK Gov had tried to have deported at the end of a long sentence he'd not long served for serious crimes of violence.
That deportation was refused by the EU court of Human Rights (or another HR court) as they said he would be at risk in Somalia and deporting him would infringe his human rights.
He was eventually found back in Somalia running with the same criminal gangs he'd been with before escaping justice there and seeking (and gaining ) refuge in the UK.
How had he escaped the long arm of the law? By wearing a full burka with even the eyes covered by a veil because the officers at Heathrow are not allowed to demand travellers identify themselves to be the holder of the passport they're using.
How pathetic that criminals like the above can use the soft rules of Western countries to get away with murder and other crimes, which definitely infringes the victims human rights, by using taxpayer funded smart arse lawyers and weak as water judges upholding ridiculous mis-used legistlation!!!
Alan.

[2stroke]

Seems strange to me that nobody's asked how she could have safely driven a motor vehicle while wearing a burqua anyway? Many countries where women are required to wear a burqua prohibit women from driving as well as a host of other things.

[DeanoH]

Seems strange to me that nobody's asked how she could have safely driven a motor vehicle while wearing a burqua anyway? Many countries where women are required to wear a burqua prohibit women from driving as well as a host of other things.

Got more to do with the oppression (from a Western viewpoint) of women in an Islamic society than road safety I would have thought.

Deano:)

[MickS]

First of all, there needs to be grounds for appeal..you can't just "want" to appeal.

She has proven to be an habitual liar, both in her dealings with the police at the time, her complaint to the police thereafter and subsequent hearing at court. She's lied to the cops, she's lied to the court.

She will get her sentence changed...6 months suspended no doubt. But if the Court of Appeal has any balls, it will throw the appeal out, as it should.

"In sentencing her, he (Bob Rabbidge, the magistrate) described her actions as "both deliberate and malicious" saying he had no option but to sentence her to jail given the seriousness of her allegations, and to send a clear message to the community."

Rabbidge looks like a geek, but he doesn't suffer fools, and lets everyone know who is running the show. Someone we'd all like to see in all the courts no doubt.

I take heart in the fact that when she was remanded, she would have been taken to the cells, where female corrective service officers would have conducted a full strip search...including burqa. But that will be another complaint no doubt. Maybe she will think twice next time before she decides to **** with the law and use religion as an excuse for her poor choices. Just like your own kids blaming everyone for their wrong doings, rather than taking responsibility for their own actions. Welcome to the new world of "well, it's not my fault."

As for the ridiculous "flogging" and "limb" amputation comments...well, they're just plain ridiculous. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. Should have thought first the consequences of her actions as a mother of 7 children. Mmmmm baby bonus.......

[Ace]

We were talking about this at work last night. Its a major problem. I bet they have to take the hijab off at the RTA when they have their licence photo taken, therefore I think there should be a legal requirement for her to reveal her face so the police officer can confirm it is the correct person receiving the ticket.

They should throw the book at her, religion shouldnt over rule law.

[KarlB]

I am sure that you know more about the legal process in NSW than I do Mick, but I chose the words "want to appeal" just for the reasons you say. As I understand it, she will have to first seek leave to appeal, and will have to present the reasons for seeking the appeal. I am not sure what this involves but believe the assessment of the reasons during this process is somewhat limited ie their veracity is not tested but they cannot be frivolous. Again, it is my understanding an appeal could be made for a whole host of reason that include: the severity of the sentence; that the magistrate erred in law; and/or the evidence was incorrect or misinterpreted (or all of the above). From the information reported in the press, it looks like the evidence that an offence was committed would be hard to challenge and as you imply Mick, an appeal would be most likely to succeed against the severity of the sentence. The magistrate’s words were indeed very strong. I am sure he would not have imposed the sentence that he did unless he believed it was appropriate in the circumstances. An appeal court may disagree.

Maybe I am wrong, but if I compare what this women has done with what Godwin Grech is alleged to have done in what is generally referred to as the OzCar Affair where he knowingly falsified documents and lied to a Senate Committee with the intent to have the government overthrown, then the Muslim woman's offences pale into insignificance. The Commonwealth DPP has advised that while there is a prima facie against Grech, he will not proceed because of Grech's ill health!

I am a great supporter of our legal system but sometimes it seems to be an ass.

Cheers
KarlB
:)

[Ace]

I had someone appeal a section 9 Bond as being to severe. I mean come on, a Section 9 Bond is one of the most **** weak forms of punishment. The appeals system is weak. The court needs to grow some balls and tell people to shove it, you did the crime now do the time.

[richard4u2]

if this girl doesn't get her own way, do we have a suicide bomber in the makeing :(

[CraigE]

Ok so its ok to wear a hijab or burka anywhere and if you are asked to remove it you are a racist, so we should allow it.
But if I wear a scarf, a mask, a helmet or even medical covering I can be asked to remove them for identity or before entering a shop or a bank and that is ok.
Sorry but when requested by a public officer to confirm proof of identity there should be no choice. It is OK when it suits them.
If they choose to come and live in a Western country that allows them all their freedoms, which I may add they certainly would not have in most radical Muslim countries, then they need to abide by our laws and conformity requiremnts.
Enough stuffing around if they refuse a legal request by a public officer and they are immigrants then their residence status should be rescinded.

[KarlB]

This thread is about a woman whose name is Carnita Matthews. Matthews is a common English surname. Carnita is unusual but if anything is probably Spanish with Latin and Hebrew roots

Does any one know that her nationality is not Australian? Does any body know if she was born some where other than Australia? Does any one know the nationality of her parents or where they were born?

We know she is a Muslim. Were her parents Muslim? Is her husband Muslim? Does she currently have a husband?

She made false accusations against a police officer. Her allegations were found to be false. Is she the first person to make false allegations? Will she be the last? She tried to get out on a technicality. Was she the first person to try and weasel out? Will she be the last?

She broke Australian law and has been sentenced in an Australian court by an Australian magistrate to spend six months in an Australian prison.

She wants to appeal the sentence. Is that unusual? Will she get off or have her sentence reduced? She may or may not. Either way that decision will be made under Australian law in an Australian court.

Her name is Carnita Matthews. The woman is not a "thing" as she has been referred to in this thread nor is she a "Muslim hag in a bag" as the rightwing hate websites are referring to her. She is a 45 year old woman with seven children. How unusual is that?

Cheers
KarlB
PS Watch out for the rabid dog, there is one out there somewhere.
:o

[DeanoH]

The biggest losers in this 'debate' are the decent Muslims living in Australian society, whether they are immigrants or not is irrelevant. Whatever happened to our much lauded Australian ethos of decency, tolerance and a fair go for all ?
Yes, Mrs Williams has committed a crime, actually several, criticise her for what she has/has not done not her religion. Playing the (wo)man and not the ball serves no useful purpose.

Deano:)

[Bushwanderer]

Hi Karl,
While not wanting to undermine your post, I think that you'll find that she was charged and convicted under NSW law.

Best Wishes,
Peter

[KarlB]

Hi Karl,
While not wanting to undermine your post, I think that you'll find that she was charged and convicted under NSW law.

Best Wishes,
Peter

I would have thought NSW law was Australian law, but agree the termininology could be confused with Commonwealth (of Australia) law. I believe the intent of what I said, in its context, is abundantly clear however.

Cheers
KarlB
:)

[Bushwanderer]

Hi Karl,
I agree that your intent was clear, which is why I didn't want to undermine it.

However, NSW law is NOT Australian law, it is NSW state law. Many people in other states of Australia would "kick up a stink" if they were tried under NSW law for "offences" committed in other states.

HTH,
Peter

[Hymie]

I would have thought NSW law was Australian law, but agree the termininology could be confused with Commonwealth (of Australia) law. I believe the intent of what I said, in its context, is abundantly clear however.

Cheers
KarlB
:)

Yeah why not, after all, the NSW Cricket team is the Australian Cricket team.....