More Bullshit From The Courts

It’s bad enough that parliaments pass stupid laws. At least these are statute and can be repealed.

Worse is the creation of nonsensical common law via judicial activism, as absurd rulings establish perverse precedents.

There is no way that a person should be able to claim workers’ compensation for being injured while having sex, unless they work in a brothel.

The full bench of the Federal Court disagrees. They have just awarded a public servant workers’ compensation after she injured herself while having sex on a work trip, in a motel room, at night. Apparently a glass light fitting above the bed was pulled off its mount and hit her in the face, so she must have gone off like a firecracker. A finger up the arse at the right moment can do that.

Perhaps the stupidest thing about this case is that it has been allowed to continue for five years, through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, then twice to the Federal Court, wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayers’ money.

Comcare (the federal government’s workplace insurer) quite reasonably argued that the woman’s injury was not sustained during a work activity. The AAT agreed, but the stupid bitch kept fighting the matter and took it to the Federal Court, who found in her favour. Comcare of course appealed, but in a farcical decision, lost.

The court also allowed the claimant’s name to be suppressed, because ”she was unprepared to continue with the case if a consequence of doing so is that her true identity will be made public”.

Sounds like a good reason to publish it. I’d like to know who is grifting some of my taxes through this try on. Of course, she has also claimed additional compensation for a “psychological injury” and “loss of income”, because she really was so traumatized she just couldn’t go back to work, could she?

Typical fucking public service mentality.

Fundamental jurisprudence in common law is intent. When a situation arises that is not explicitly covered by statute, courts are supposed to consider the law’s general intent, as well as possibly the specific intent surrounding the actions of any parties in the matter.

The general intent of workers’ compensation law is to cover injuries sustained during work activities. The woman’s employer clearly did not intend sex to be part of her work activities and said as much during every hearing.

The AAT could grasp this logic. It must have taken some effort not to, but the full bench of the Federal Court found a way. Apparently, any injury during lawful activity done in any place which constitutes a work environment and which does not amount to misconduct qualifies for workers’ compensation.

The court cited an example of an injury incurred while playing cards (a paper cut, perhaps):

“If the applicant had been injured while playing a game of cards in her motel room she would be entitled to compensation even though it could not be said that her employer induced or encouraged her to engage in such an activity.”

No she fucking well shouldn’t be. What if she had been injured swimming in the hotel pool? Or put her back out playing Wii in the hotel room? Or choked on a brazil nut after raiding the mini bar?

These things would all be as a result of her own, chosen actions which are not essential to the adequate performance of her job. Having a shower, ironing a shirt: these things are necessary. Swimming in the pool or having sex are not. Therefore the former should be covered and the latter are her own problem. I think this is almost certainly the intent of the legislation.

Now, because of some idiot judges’ farcical interpretation, it needs to be explicitly amended to say this. The unions will of course fight tooth and nail to prevent any such amendment. “They’re taking away our rights!”

No, we’re protecting taxpayers against being ripped off.

Cases such as this help engender public disrespect for the courts and the legal system in general. If the Federal Court cannot be trusted to make decisions which reflect both common sense and what the majority of the community would clearly want OUR law to be, why should citizens maintain confidence in them?

I initially described this decision as judicial activism, which it is, since the Court has made some effort to find implications in the legislation which many would consider to be absent. But it also seems to me to be an example of the judiciary trying to asset itself.

It’s almost as if the Court is tacitly saying: ”If Parliament passes bad laws, it’s up to it to fix them. Otherwise, we’ll make whatever interpretations we feel like”.

Unfortunately, this political act has been at taxpayers’ expense and will ultimately be detrimental to public trust in the courts. It will also create a precedent which will allow other, similarly meretricious claims.

More useful would have been to make the correct interpretation of the law’s intent and throw the matter out, then make a submission to the Attorney General on the problems with the legislation’s current wording.

But that would have been too sensible.