Tim Ellis has come face to face with the contumacious and contumelious nature of the Tasmanian judicial process where it pertains to iconic prosecution.  The DPP is a lion amongst a pack of leering and shouting hyenas, whose irrelevant hearsay evidence is part of the pre-determined thrust of defense counsel to simply wear the man down. This is deja vu.  What next for Tim Ellis? A horse’s head in his bed?

I haven’t understood why Ellis has for some time been taking what appears to be a political stance in his job as the DPP.  Given the pulpmill-RPDC context of a government against the wishes of the people, I haven’t lost too much sleep over the issue of him perhaps going beyond his role;  and so I’m glad he’s been getting stuck into them all, and I’m referring to the Lennon era, thinking of Kons and Green and Wreidt and Butler and everyone else who should be getting a kick in the pants, I am glad Ellis has been having a go.  If his actions are undermining the government, then there’s a smile on my face as I go to sleep.  Johnson?  McCreadie?  Ellis’s huge letter to the editor?  Can someone put it in context, explain ... it he acting reasonably, rationally ... is he just another one flexing his muscles, thinking he’s a player?

No disrespect meant, because I just don’t know, but have wondered if he might be stepping beyond his role as DPP.  I accept that I’m ill-informed on this and that if the full facts were known, we might be making him Tasmanian of the Year.

Can anyone give an overview of Ellis?

It took Tim Ellis a long time to make any public utterences after he was appointed to fill the shoes of Damian Bugg Tasmania’s first DPP. I don’t think there’s any blueprint, beyond the job description for the way in which Ellis goes about his business. As a lay observer, I see no need for any qualification for the way in which he is serving it up to anybody charged with offences against the very spirit of the law; as it pertains to chieftains alleged to have muddied the conventions pertaining to the separation of powers. Taking a political stance, as Garry suggests, is really only a perception of a man standing against what appears to be a subjective culture club at the very core of public administration. Law libraries are filled with text books on concepts of justice and if an intelligent man charged with public prosecution of the justice system perceives a need for public explanation, then brave is that man who walks that path in this ultraconservative State. Tim Ellis is breaking new ground where DPP’s prefer to lurk in the shadows of anonymity lest they be accused of crossover. Our legal system, like our language is ever-evolving and I see a gutsy DPP combining his brilliant legal and communication attributes in the very deep pubic interest. He is simply serving notice of a man who takes his job seriously…and in that high office, he has no options. And we are getting from Tim Ellis exactly what we expect of him.

If DPP Ellis can overcome the vested interests of our corrupt legal, political and bureaucratic masters he will have done the Tasmanian community a great and lasting service. He will be under tremendous pressure to surrender, threats to his well being ,family, and future can be experienced, character assassination and extreme mental pressure are the order of the day and can be seen to be happening as expected from the spin doctors, the powerful and those ranged against him. If we the people of Tasmania are behind our DPP, right will triumph over wrong, I expect this week to be the turning point.

The Keystone Kops seem to have a lot to answer for in respect to the administration of Tassie justice.

Where else could a DPP reportedly try to coerce a suspect and political foe into resignation and then withdraw the offer when the suspect seemingly insisted on normal separation entitlements? Johnston is clearly not alone in this business, and it is not normally up to a DPP to dispense justice in a back room. The matter leads back to an alleged attempt to appoint as Solicitor-General a lawyer in return for his defending a minister who had offered what appeared to many people be a $2,000,000 gratuity to two associates.

The alleged attempt to get rid of Johnston does not look like an attempt to fully investigate a very serious and malodorous affair which has involved the highest levels of the Tasmanian government.

John Hayward

John Hayward, if Johnston was after ” normal separation entitlements ” then he would have been entitled to them , wouldn’t he , so how could the DPP stop them? As I read it he tried to stop another Richard Butler situation of an obscene payout to get rid of someone.
If there’s any doubt that John Hawkins is right, think of the abuse he’s got from Lennon to the Harriss committee and the Examiner and from Bartlett about the McCreadie matter (now we see McCreadie has “taken the fifth” and the truth of that little effort still hasn’t come out ) .
VeryOld Bill

The mention of Bryan Green immediately causes the hair on the back of my neck to bristle, there is much still to be found out about how this particular person, ever grinning like a rat with a gold tooth, was allowed to go back into the community.
There is the matter of whom the 2 Supreme Court Judges were that presided over the 2 trials of Bryan Green, where are they now?
I note that Bryan Green is strutting about, tagging himself the member for Braddon, just who approved this particularly unwholesome appointment?
....
This is the type of rot that our DPP Mr. Tim Ellis appears to be exposing, certainly he is not to be envied in this pursuit of his so doing on behalf of the good-minded people of Tasmania.
Our DPP must be admired, even championed in his cause, to begin a more resolute stance against to the evil stench of cronyism, long rife in this present State Labor government.

No one should mistake my criticism of Ellis for support of Johnston.  One needs to be careful about assuming the enemy of one’s enemy, or of Bryan Green, is one’s friend. I have observed Ellis on other occasions where he behaved every bit as a member of Tas Inc, and his conduct in this case would hardly win him a seat at the Round Table.

John Hayward

#8. John I have observed Ellis similarly. When astonishingly, the DPP wears two hats — (i) public prosecutor and (ii) defending civil claims against government, public servants and ors., that is claims of wrongdoing that at times involve crime, how can he not have a foot in both camps?

Further to the comments of Geraldine Allan 4th April, I accept that each person has their respective opinion on most matters, however in the present case of our DPP, he has chosen to act in a manner that may finally shed light upon the scurrilous goings-on among our ministers and their silvertail mates.
For too long this private society of questionble characters have been able to conceal their artful dodges and schemings.
May our admirably purposed DPP achieve his endeavors of correctly laying blame upon those persons, whom are found guilty of their lowly conduct and behaviors.