The Attorney-General’s Defence

See “Police called after Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus fails to turn off his phone on Qantas flight”, by Stephen Drill:

Qantas staff felt obliged to contact Australian Federal Police after Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus—who was determined to check his emails—refused to turn off his smart phone during take-off on a Sydney to Brisbane flight last week.  After he ignored pre-recorded warnings about turning off all electrical equipment, a fellow passenger complained to Mr Dreyfus.  His failure to follow standard safety instructions angered the passenger and a Qantas crew member, who both told him to turn off his mobile phone immediately.
Moments later a flight attendant admonished the former barrister, later reporting the situation to the captain.  The airline took the incident so seriously it alerted the AFP, with officers asked to meet the plane and the Attorney-General at its destination.
Mr Dreyfus confirmed yesterday he had been told to turn off his phone and said he had apologised to those on board at the time.  A spokeswoman said: “The Attorney-General regrets the incident and apologised to the passenger and to airport security.”

Well, that makes it all right, then.

“The AFP has been advised of an alleged incident on board a flight from Sydney to Brisbane on 23 April, 2013,” a police statement said.
“The incident involved a passenger failing to comply with the directions of crew.”
Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association secretary Steve Purvinas said yesterday Mr Dreyfus’ mobile phone could have interfered with navigation systems.
Mr Purvinas said mobile phones were banned during take-off because they could affect radio altimeters.
“The radio altimeters tell the aircraft systems what height it is at,” he said.
“If the aircraft is driving towards 30,000 feet but it thinks its already at 40,000 feet then it would tend to want to decrease altitude.
“That’s not what you like to happen just after take-off.”

The Attorney-General won’t be charged because he apologised, and fair enough—what do you want, blood?  People who do find themselves in court, however, might consider trying the Attorney-General’s defence:

Court Officer:  Defendant, how do you plead?  “Guilty” or “Not guilty”?
Defendant:  Not guilty!
Judge:  Hang on a tick, did I hear you say “not guilty”?  I see that the evidence against you for these heinous crimes—murder, rape, kidnapping, arson, not to mention mocking the Government and even, horresco referens, opposing same-sex marriage—is comprehensive and uncontested; furthermore, I see that you actually admitted that you were guilty to the police, to the media, and on your Facebook page.  Are you sure you wish to plead “not guilty”?
Defendant:  Yes, Your Honour; you see, I immediately apologised.  I regret what I did, and said so at the time.
Judge:  Well, in that case, I dismiss all charges; you’re free to go.

UPDATE (4 May):  an appropriate song for our special Attorney-General, perhaps, is “I’m Special”, by the Mucous Membranes:

Using the PM’s Defence

 “What I tell you three times is true.”

—Lewis Carroll, The Hunting of the Snark

In the near future, a criminal trial is underway in a Commonwealth State’s Supreme Court.

Judge:  Defendant, you plead “Not Guilty” to heinous crimes, but you choose to defend yourself, repudiating legal advice, and provide no list of witnesses; what then is your defence?

Defendant:  One, all this took place many years ago, so it’s all ancient history; two, I was young and naïve and suffered greatly from placing my trust in a person whom I loved but who was a thoroughly bad egg; three, I’ve already provided full and proper explanations for all these malicious assertions which, I might add, no proper media have covered.  I assert that I did nothing wrong, so I should be found not guilty.
Prosecutor:  Your Honour, I—

Judge:  You answered all these questions?  When?

Defendant:  I’ve already answered that question.

Judge:  No, you didn’t!

Defendant:  Look, I’ve given you my answer.

Judge:  Oh, all right.  Not guilty, then; you’re free to go.

Prosecutor:  What the—

(A similar transcript can be found in the twelfth update to “Another Story You May Not Read”:

Court Officer:  How do you plead?

Defendant:  Not guilty!

Judge:  Really?  On all charges?

Defendant:  Yes, Your Honour, I am not guilty!

Judge:  Are you absolutely sure?  These charges seem to be pretty serious; and I note that there is quite a pile of evidence against you, with a long list of witnesses for the prosecution.

Defendant:  I aint never done nothing.  I am, as I’ve said all along, absolutely innocent of all charges.  Not guilty!  Not guilty!  Not guilty!

Judge:  Well, then, with such persistent denial of wrongdoing, I must—and I shall—dismiss all charges, wherefore you are free to go.  I shall, however, have some stern words to say to the prosecutor…

UPDATE (21 August):  Throughout the media, these days, one can see “persistent denial of wrongdoing” used as some sort of exculpatory mantra.  For instance, in “Law firm Slater & Gordon considered axing Julia Gillard”, by Hedley Thomas (also quoted in “More on Gillard”), we read:

In the leaked statement, Mr Gordon notes the Prime Minister’s repeated denials of wrongdoing and says he formed the view “that she should be accorded the benefit of the doubt and her explanation accepted”.

A senior lawyer, knowing that a partner, in her early thirties, and old enough to know right from wrong, has been having an unacknowledged sexual relationship with a client (who, evidently, had conspired to defraud his union and various businesses of hundreds of thousands of dollars), and knowing that she incompetently or mischievously neglected to establish a file for work done for this lawbreaking leman, and knowing (surely) that malfeasant people usually attempt to hide their misdeeds with lies and evasions, is credulously content to accord her the benefit of the doubt because of her “repeated denials of wrongdoing”.  Would that those of us who are not Labor MPs or senior union executives or partners in a law firm be favoured with such judicial generosity if we’re ever accused of serious crimes.