SA Footy

Fisher bows out with farewell Senate speech

South Australian Liberal Senator Mary Jo Fisher has made an emotional farewell speech to the Senate.

Senator Fisher announced she was leaving Parliament in June after it was revealed she had been charged with shoplifting for a second time.

Late last year she was acquitted of stealing groceries at a supermarket in Adelaide's eastern suburbs.

Although found guilty of assaulting a security guard outside the supermarket, she was released without conviction after telling the court she suffered a panic attack during the incident.

Ms Fisher was elected to the Senate in 2007 but says she is stepping down so she can deal with her depression.

Gozu wrote:POLICE have been ordered to pay more than $80,000 in legal fees to former senator Mary Jo Fisher over a failed shoplifting prosecution.

Ms Fisher, who resigned from the Senate last month, was found not guilty last November of the shoplifting charge by Adelaide Magistrate Kym Boxall.

Mr Boxall found the former Liberal senator was in a "dissociative state" brought on by a panic attack when she left a Frewville supermarket without paying for groceries in December 2010.

Ms Fisher was released without conviction after pleading guilty to an assault charge, in that she used unlawful force against a female security guard who tried to stop her as she left the supermarket.

Ms Fisher was represented at trial by leading Adelaide QC Michael Abbott and made a claim for reimbursement of legal costs of $156,000.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/taxpayers ... 6465537208

This whole episode makes me think she was planning to bill the taxpayer all along. Why else would you get a QC to defend you on a relatively minor shoplifting charge? It's like using a nuclear weapon to kill a mosquito.

I think you'll find the Court ordered the DPP to pay her costs because they had advice they should not pursue the case, and they did.
Regardless of who she is, the same rules would apply to anyone else in life, including you.
Do you think she should be treated any differently because she's a politician?

Jimmy_041 wrote:I think you'll find the Court ordered the DPP to pay her costs because they had advice they should not pursue the case, and they did.
Regardless of who she is, the same rules would apply to anyone else in life, including you.
Do you think she should be treated any differently because she's a politician?

No I don't but who'd get a QC to defend them on a shoplifting charge unless of course they were related to the QC?

Magistrate Boxall today ruled that Ms Fisher should receive part of her costs because an offer by her legal team to plead guilty to assault in exchange for the shoplifting charge being dropped was rejected by senior prosecutors.

If she was convicted, she would have lost her job - I think that's correct
You would do everything to defend yourself

ORDoubleBlues wrote:

Jimmy_041 wrote:I think you'll find the Court ordered the DPP to pay her costs because they had advice they should not pursue the case, and they did.
Regardless of who she is, the same rules would apply to anyone else in life, including you.
Do you think she should be treated any differently because she's a politician?

No I don't but who'd get a QC to defend them on a shoplifting charge unless of course they were related to the QC?

I once got a city based Barrister to defend me on a speeding charge at the court in Mt Barker - successfully.
He was a casual friend but I still had to pay him for his time - admittedly he met me half way between his normal rates and a solicitor's rate.
I'd talked to several lawyers and listened to their suggested approaches, and concluded he was the only one likely to win the case.

Psyber wrote:

ORDoubleBlues wrote:

Jimmy_041 wrote:I think you'll find the Court ordered the DPP to pay her costs because they had advice they should not pursue the case, and they did.
Regardless of who she is, the same rules would apply to anyone else in life, including you.
Do you think she should be treated any differently because she's a politician?

No I don't but who'd get a QC to defend them on a shoplifting charge unless of course they were related to the QC?

I once got a city based Barrister to defend me on a speeding charge at the court in Mt Barker - successfully.
He was a casual friend but I still had to pay him for his time - admittedly he met me half way between his normal rates and a solicitor's rate.
I'd talked to several lawyers and listened to their suggested approaches, and concluded he was the only one likely to win the case.

I'm not questioning you at all but it just seems to me that she was confident that most of the bill would be picked up by someone else - of course she could be extemely wealthy for all I know - as I thought QC's charged 5 grand a day minimum. I guess you can also look at it that she felt she had a fair bit to worry about if she wanted such expertise for a relatively minor charge.

ORDoubleBlues wrote: I'm not questioning you at all but it just seems to me that she was confident that most of the bill would be picked up by someone else - of course she could be extremely wealthy for all I know - as I thought QC's charged 5 grand a day minimum. I guess you can also look at it that she felt she had a fair bit to worry about if she wanted such expertise for a relatively minor charge.

There was always the risk of having to pay the bill yourself if you lost.
And the law is a random beast, somewhat like umpiring decisions on the football field.
You have to balance the risk of a bill like $80K against the potential income loss, and also against finishing up with a conviction recorded against you, and its impact on your future.

Wealth? Well she had a well paid job for a while - and I've met her husband as well as her.
I think $80K would not be insignificant to them but that they could have paid the bill if she had lost.

Psyber wrote:

ORDoubleBlues wrote: I'm not questioning you at all but it just seems to me that she was confident that most of the bill would be picked up by someone else - of course she could be extremely wealthy for all I know - as I thought QC's charged 5 grand a day minimum. I guess you can also look at it that she felt she had a fair bit to worry about if she wanted such expertise for a relatively minor charge.

There was always the risk of having to pay the bill yourself if you lost.
And the law is a random beast, somewhat like umpiring decisions on the football field.
You have to balance the risk of a bill like $80K against the potential income loss, and also against finishing up with a conviction recorded against you, and its impact on your future.

Wealth? Well she had a well paid job for a while - and I've met her husband as well as her.
I think $80K would not be insignificant to them but that they could have paid the bill if she had lost.

Yep, that does give me a bit more of an idea of what you are saying.

Might go visit Mary Jo's replacement while I'm in Canberra this week.

I think she should get 20 lashes across the buttocks with a frill neck lizard then sent to Naru and told to reapply for her Australian citizenship.

Sky Pilot wrote:I think she should get 20 lashes across the buttocks with a frill neck lizard then sent to Naru and told to reapply for her Australian citizenship.

I find it amusing she steals $70 of groceries and gets her own thread... whilst an MP is up on child porn charges and it get put into a misc thread

scoob wrote:

Sky Pilot wrote:I think she should get 20 lashes across the buttocks with a frill neck lizard then sent to Naru and told to reapply for her Australian citizenship.

I find it amusing she steals $70 of groceries and gets her own thread... whilst an MP is up on child porn charges and it get put into a misc thread

He was a Labor minister though wasn't he? Different rules mate

Sky Pilot wrote:

scoob wrote:

Sky Pilot wrote:I think she should get 20 lashes across the buttocks with a frill neck lizard then sent to Naru and told to reapply for her Australian citizenship.

I find it amusing she steals $70 of groceries and gets her own thread... whilst an MP is up on child porn charges and it get put into a misc thread

He was a Labor minister though wasn't he? Different rules mate

Um try the dedicated SA political thread (Mary Jo is/was a Federal Senator).

Adjust those tinfoil hats at your leisure.

Gozu wrote:

Sky Pilot wrote:

scoob wrote:

Sky Pilot wrote:I think she should get 20 lashes across the buttocks with a frill neck lizard then sent to Naru and told to reapply for her Australian citizenship.

I find it amusing she steals $70 of groceries and gets her own thread... whilst an MP is up on child porn charges and it get put into a misc thread

He was a Labor minister though wasn't he? Different rules mate

Um try the dedicated SA political thread (Mary Jo is/was a Federal Senator).

Adjust those tinfoil hats at your leisure.

And your point is?

Sky Pilot wrote:

Gozu wrote:

Sky Pilot wrote:

scoob wrote:I find it amusing she steals $70 of groceries and gets her own thread... whilst an MP is up on child porn charges and it get put into a misc thread

He was a Labor minister though wasn't he? Different rules mate

Um try the dedicated SA political thread (Mary Jo is/was a Federal Senator).

Adjust those tinfoil hats at your leisure.

And your point is?

Only federal MP's get their own threads... got it!

Just like this federal MP... viewtopic.php?f=20&t=34366 Hang on a minute!?!?!?!?!

Okay I can see that...
Meanwhile on a planet near you, Zoltan decreed ....

Sky Pilot wrote:And your point is?

I'm sure you're even smart enough to work it out eventually.