PerthNorg

As far as I can see it’s more specifically a problem of how the evidence was obtained - i.e. possibly under torture or duress, therefore not meeting Australian standards of evidence and justice. I’m glad that the Australian legal system specifically defends Australians from these practices - otherwise how do we know someone won’t confess to something they have not done just to bring an end to their immediate situation?

The only obstacle this ruling creates is to the Chicken Littles that believe that the rule of law is an inconvenience that needs to be ignored so that they don’t have to sleep under their bed each night. The evidence was tainted and should never have been included.

The guy hasn’t been found guilty by a court of law, and yet The Australian is insinuating that he poses “a genuine threat to national security”, and media organisations across the nation are still calling him ‘Jihad Jack’.

I smell a defamation lawsuit coming on.