(thread) My legal views on Christian Porter: 1) it is normal that the same conduct of a person may be subject to different legal processes for different purposes - criminal, civil, employment, disciplinary, human rights, ombudsperson, coronial etc

2) The standards of proof may differ between processes for different purposes. Non-criminal processes may not depend on the existence of any criminal process, let alone a conviction on evidence beyond reasonable doubt, or the views of police

3) The govt is not legally required to establish an ad hoc inquiry into the matter. It is a political question of what our democracy expects of the character and fitness of any politician, particularly a cabinet minister and first law officer

4) and whether we trust the Prime Minister alone to judge it when he has a clear partisan political conflict of interest, the matter is so serious, and larger issues of violence against women are of such public concern

5) It is well accepted that the content of due process varies according to context. An inquiry for determining the fitness of the Attorney-General could readily meet necessary due process standards if appropriately structured

6) It is irrelevant that Porter thinks all he could do in an inquiry is deny the allegations. It is his choice not to respond more fully. The purpose of an inquiry is to allow the complainant’s evidence to be independently tested so far as possible...

7) including by considering any views Porter may wish to put after he is fully informed of the evidence; to forensically test his version of events; and to consider other evidence or witnesses. An inquiry would ensure, not undermine, due process in these circumstances (end)