SpartacistBBB for Bad Bad Brian initially raise my eyebrow. But...

Spartacist

BBB for Bad Bad Brian initially raise my eyebrow. But then I decided it was simply alliterative repetition and that was ok considering the subject.....the LIFE of BRIAN Bourke.

But I was quick to accept it because I thought you (Spartacist) may have been just trying another variation of BBB which has a long standing meaning for me. BBB = Bulls-hit Baffles Brains. Which words I bet will hit the proverbial HotCopper profanity fan. (It did), So I'll have to work around what is after all a dumb bloody piece of stupid software untuned to the nuances of the Australian sensibility. Which is a dogs breakfast. Lovely term that one. Marvellous. Simply marvlos!

But just to add a piece of realism into the discussion, I have a general question, which I doubt anyone here can or will offer an opinion.

If the minista, as he did, considers RIO deserves Shovelanna back because it is in the public interest to restore it on MORAL grounds, is that a reasonable ground?

When s.111A says "reasonable grounds", which is set in the plural, does that also mean also a single ground, or reason? Can the Minista's broad-ranging power to decide a s.111A appeal allow him to do so upon a single "morality" based reason? As opposed to a single "legally" based reason to base his decision to restore Shov. to the RIO mob?

And there's still more. Like, although Bowler refers to RIO mob's previous long-standing tenure and how that small mistake (the late application), is the Minista's discretionary power under s.111A so broad and extensive they are greater and more broad ranging than say a judge could ever exercise? Is there any law of the land that allows any judge to make a similar decision over tenure of land based on a licence or lease?

It seems from what I've read so far, I'm no expert btw, that the courts have established in relation to s.111A of the WA mining act only that the Minista's discretion is wide ranging, and that they (courts) are reluctant to get involved in directing or remaking a s.111A determination, unless it is clearly beyond the pale, so to speak (my words). Which begs the question, what would it take to make a WA appeal judge faint? Go beyond the pail so to speak. Again, my words.

Though I read an opinion somewhere where this question, (what is not reasonable grounds) is somewhat contentious within the judiciary. Which is probably matched by the seeming impossibility to define the term “public interest”. And s.111A has both difficulties.

But it also seems that the current set of (Cazaly v RIO) circumstances haven't been dealt with in the past. Hence my need to explore the breadth and depth of the Court's willingness to be influenced by crocodile tears and a sad sad story of loss and misfortune.

Which begs the question; where “is” the Federal Court's heart when it comes to today's decision against Mr. Jovicic, who came to Australia aged 2 and was deported LEGALLY for breaking the law as an adult.

That case (I assume) must have today been based on a black-letter interpretation of the LAW, which states the State is not responsible for Mr. Jovicic's gestation (in the womb outside of Australia), but fails to oblige this country to have any responsibility for Mr. Jovicic’s NURTURE!

Clearly the law has a black black black (BBB) heart. So why did Bowler’s heart bleed for the RIO mob's loss? Maybe, just maybe the WA government will show mercy to the many people who have lost money in that WA investment and will get 15 cents in the dollar back? Come on Mr. Carpenter, show us your mercy, open the treasury. Chip in 15 cents and help these people to get a minimum 30 cents in the dollar.