Australia's largest stock trading and investment forum Australia's #1 stock forum

I'm not a lawyer...but the burden will probably be either...

First 45 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
Reaper11

20,332 Posts.

62

27/07/17

00:45

Post #: 26102121
Share

Originally posted by fazz03 ↑

But the circumstances of that citizenship is what the Senator wants to test in the High Court. Why shouldn't he be able to do that?
What you appear to saying is that if a person with no proof suggests someone else has committed a non criminal offence, that person is automatically guilty. There is no presumption of innocence. ??
That's what's happening on here from some posters.
There always has to be a burden of proof even in Civil cases. Been to a family court lately??
Otherwise the whole justice system would collapse.

Expand

I'm not a lawyer...but the burden will probably be either balance of probabilities: IE the High Court makes a judgement about whether or not he's telling the truth, or strict liability IE His citizenship of Italy automatically disqualifies him despite the circumstances he's cited.

Reaper.
Upvote

Reply

Top Stories

End of FY is a time to juggle wins, losses and capital gains taxes

Eurozone-based companies find new ways to secure a regional lithium supply

SS1

Sun Silver submits US$60M Silver Paste Funding Application to US DoE

Time for retail therapy buying in the shopping Scentre for hot stocks

With financials holding the fort, materials must step up with some heavy lifting to stimulate stocks

There are more pages in this discussion • 16 more messages in this thread...

First 45 Last