Thanks……FINALLY the news that the Hearing is over and now we wait for the decision.
Though your link to the news didn’t work.
But, it is true. Bowler could have taken irrelevant stuff into account and this does not necessarily harm his decision (or the State’s case), as when Mr. Mitchell conceded Bowler referred to something irrelevant.
The test is the validity of what Bowler did decide. Not that in arriving at it he may have become confused. Though that doesn’t stop people laughing at Bowler’s reasons.
And he/she who laughs last, in this case, will be the winner who takes all.
PS: I’m predicting a unanimous court decision.
Your news said:
Cazaly did have a win of sorts when Mr Mitchell conceded some information in a Department of Industry and Resources document, quoted by Mr Bowler when he made his decision, was irrelevant to the Shovelanna case.
The Supreme Court has reserved it decision to a later date.
CAZ Price at posting:
0.0¢ Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Not Held
