TARGETING THE PREMIER FAILS TO HIT THE MARK

FORMER Customs officer Robert Spanswick is facing a hefty legal bill after
he alleged that Premier Bob Carr had breached the law by causing
legislation for the operation of Kings Cross' drug injecting centre to come
into force.

Mr Spanswick tried to take civil action in the NSW Supreme Court against Mr
Carr in an attempt to have the medically supervised injecting centre closed
down.

But he ended up agreeing to the case being dismissed and paying costs.

Although the case did not get to trial, the preliminary proceedings were
not without incident, with Justice Jeff Shaw disqualifying himself from
hearing it because he had been a former Attorney-General in the Carr
Government.

The case was withdrawn on July 14 after Mr Spanswick received advice from
his barrister that his chances of success were slim.

He believes he may be liable for as much as $10,000, in costs but adds that
he is still considering criminal proceedings.

Mr Spanswick issued the summons in March, arguing that drugs such as heroin
were prohibited imports under the Federal Customs Act and that Federal laws
which specifically prohibited their possession and use over-rode any State law.

"It is our assertion that this conflicting situation must be resolved
promptly in the public interest," Mr Spanswick, a consultant to the
community group, Drug Free Australia, told The West Australian at the time.

"It is our view that the Federal Government's failure to uphold
Commonwealth constituional law is intolerable and failure to hear this case
fully will be a travesty of justice," he said.

But NSW Crown Solicitor lawyers argued that the matter should be thrown out
of court, claiming that the proceedings were frivolous and vexatious, and
an abuse of the court process.

It was also argued that Mr Carr did not "create" the Drug Summit
Legislative Response Bill 1999, nor did he pass it into law; rather, it was
pursuant to the due and lawful processes of the NSW Parliament and assent
by the Governor.

Justice Shaw said in a written judgment that he had been a political
colleague of Mr Carr's for a decade and also had had a "professional
associaton" with Mr Spanswick.

"However, and despite the lack of substantive objection, I am troubled by
the fact that I did participate in the debate about the legislation that is
at the core of the plaintiff's complaints," he said.

"It seems to me that in the interests of the appearance and actuality of
the fair disposition of litigation in this Court I should not determine
this application."