The heavily orchestrated, weeks-long calls for a royal commission are now fuelled by an argument, both stated and implied, that Albanese is resisting a royal commission because he is afraid of what it would reveal. In other words, he is now trying to cover up his failure. The more he resists, apparently, the guiltier he becomes. Anyway, you know who else has resisted calls for an independent inquiry into a historically unprecedented mass killing of Jews on home soil, that might have exposed embarrassing intelligence failures and politically disastrous past calculations? Benjamin Netanyahu.
Many of the arguments for a royal commission are legitimate – of course we want to understand how it happened – but all fall down for one key reason, which has as yet been ignored entirely by the legacy media: there is no way to hold an effective royal commission into the Bondi attacks without jeopardising the trial of the alleged perpetrator. Once a case is before the courts (that is, when the accused has been charged), even a royal commission is subject to sub judice laws. It would be impossible for the commission to openly discuss, investigate or conclude anything about the motivations or actions of the accused in relation to the Bondi shootings – anything that would influence the court – until the criminal proceedings are concluded (which is likely to take years). To do anything else would risk prejudicing the jury.
As lawyer Fiona Roughly wrote in the UNSW Law Journal, quoting an earlier legal judgement, “If a royal commission were to be established … and tasked to inquire into the same matter the subject of pending criminal proceedings, the commission ‘would almost certainly be held to be an interference with the course of justice and consequently to constitute a contempt of court.’”
Source: PlanktonDB