Why Doesn't The Government Have To Pay Costs When They Lose? Devoted son is left with a $100,000 legal bill after being found not guilty of helping his father commit suicide

Last December, a jury took less than three hours to find Peter Nixon not guilty of assisted suicide following a five day trial.  The Attorney General had plenty of money to throw at the trial which cost into the millions of dollars prosecuting a man who from the start was accused of being a humane person.

D’Ath won the seat of Petrie for Labor from Liberal Teresa Gambaro at the 2007 election 

The Attorney General Curiously held the Electorate of Petrie where the incident allegedly took place.

Yvette D’Ath graduated from the Queensland University of Technology with a Bachelor of Laws, followed by a Graduate Diploma in Legal Practice from the Australian National University. 

Naturally this put her in a good position to make important decisions concerning Climate Change, Industry,Education and Training, Disability Services, Science, IT and Innovation, Before D’Ath was sworn in as Attorney-General, Minister for Justice and Minister for Training and Skills.

She then with incredible insight decided to prosecute a man who was left with the threat of a long jail sentence, following the death of his father,for a crime it took a jury less than three hours to find him inocent of. 

Now she refuses to pay the costs involved despite having no problem spending hundreds of thousands in “Public” money on the prosecution. Presumably its very easy when you don’t have to pay the costs from your own salery. Unlike Peter Nixon. 

Only Banks get the same treatment where the big wigs in the banking structure walk away with huge pensions and the customers and share holders get the to pay the fine. 

The government get the money and say illogically that it sends a strong message to the perpetrators. I suppose it does, there are no consequences for laundering money if you can bribe the government and in a disgusting play on words “Agree” to a fine. Who gets to agree to a fine?

Remember, the person that makes the decisions on whether to prosecute the bankers putting farmers off the land using blatently fraudulent financial products and even forgery. 

These banks also were laundering money for the same people causing chaos in society with the ice epidemic destroying families values and children.  They even laundered money for terrorists.

 https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/aug/03/commonwealth-bank-accused-of-money-laundering-and-terrorism-financing-breaches

Apparently no people were involved, “the bank done it” and will pay a fine to send a strong message to other “banks”. Meanwhile the top end of these banks guilty of  53,700 breaches of laws, which it accuses of failing to eport properly on $77m worth of suspicious transactions, just walk away with a pension bigger than a lotto win and a grin wider than the brisbane river

No prosecutions, just big fines for the “banks”, as if they exist as anything but a purely financial entity. You can’t punish a bank.

Meanwhile people accused of being compassionate are thrown to the dogs.

   http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5900785/Queensland-man-left-100-000-legal-bill-acquitted-dads-death.html

If you’d like to help Peter with his legal expenses, even a dollar helps

 https://www.mycause.com.au/page/177159/nixon-family-legal-bill-v-qld-government