8 Year Old Girl Murdered (3 Viewers)

[Optophobia]

201 Supplying police officer’s details and giving warnings

(cf Crimes Act 1900, s 563, Police Powers (Vehicles) Act 1998, s 6)

(1) A police officer must provide the person subject to the exercise of the power with the following:
(a) evidence that the police officer is a police officer (unless the police officer is in uniform),
(b) the name of the police officer and his or her place of duty,
(c) the reason for the exercise of the power,
(d) a warning that failure or refusal to comply with a request of the police officer, in the exercise of the power, may be an offence.
(2) A police officer must comply with subsection (1) in relation to a power referred to in subsection (3) (other than subsection (3) (g), (i) or (j)):
(a) if it is practicable to do so, before or at the time of exercising the power, or
(b) if it is not practicable to do so, as soon as is reasonably practicable after exercising the power.
(2A) A police officer must comply with subsection (1) in relation to a power referred to in subsection (3) (g), (i) or (j) before exercising the power.
(3) This section applies to the exercise of the following powers (whether or not conferred by or under this Act):
(a) a power to search or arrest a person,
(b) a power to search a vehicle, vessel or aircraft,
(c) a power to enter premises (not being a public place),
(d) a power to search premises (not being a public place),
............

The fact that this has been legislated is disgusting.

 

[wheredanton]

The fact that this has been legislated is disgusting.

No it's not. if it wasnt legislated for a random person, who happens to be a police officer, could walk to you in plain clothes and grab you (hoprefully on reasonable suspicion of something), handcuff you and drive you away it wouldnt be considered a police impropriety.

Do you see anything wrong with the above situation?

The fact that this wasnt legislated for before mean that police officers could get away with not telling the person why they were under arrest or making it clear that the person was actually being detained by police rather than some kind of hitman.

In any case a breach of those provisions doesnt automatically result in exclusion of evidence.

Also if you read the provisions carefully, in particular 2(b), police officers can fullfill their obligations later. They arnt very onerous. Rather I think almost all people would think it is appropriate that a police officer tell the person why they are arrested or explain why they have exercised the power.

Proper arrest

1. Police officer in uniform arrests the person (a satisfied)

2. Tells the person what they are arrested for (b satsifed)

3. Tell the person that if they don't comply its an offence (d satisfied).

Later on a police officer can tell the person their name and their station...in any case the standard required by the courts to fulfill this obligation is probably very low.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

The fact that this has been legislated is disgusting.

Um, it's common sense that it is legislated. Same goes for exclusion of evidence.

Unless you don't like accountability, in which case you're probably in the wrong profession. Or unless you don't like the rule of law, in which case you're not only in the wrong profession, but in the wrong country.

 

[taki999]

Optophobia: I hate scum bags who think we should observe the rights of criminals who have not observed the rights of their victims.

i agree with your point optophobia

The law system is so fucked....

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Optophobia: I hate scum bags who think we should observe the rights of criminals who have not observed the rights of their victims.

i agree with your point optophobia

The law system is so fucked....

Alleged criminals.

The moment you start denying rights to people who are not proven guilty by a court is the moment you erode the most fundamental pillar of our criminal justice system: innocent until proven guilty.

 

[taki999]

yes yes yes... i know this can work both ways depending on the country.
I'm just expressing my anger....
oh btw the guy apparently apologized for it....

Moon: you being a law student, you know there are fuck lots of faults yeah!?!?

 

[MoonlightSonata]

yes yes yes... i know this can work both ways depending on the country.
I'm just expressing my anger....
oh btw the guy apparently apologized for it....

Moon: you being a law student i mean even you know there's fault right!?

What do you mean "there's fault"?

 

[Optophobia]

Its nice and rosey and sweet to see two soon to be lawyers in here defending "alledged" criminals. It's nice to see that they are training you up well.

The problem lies in the fact that people like you, some day, may be judges. This is an error in our legal system. No person who has defended a criminal should ever be expected to sentence them.

Unless you don't like accountability, in which case you're probably in the wrong profession. Or unless you don't like the rule of law, in which case you're not only in the wrong profession, but in the wrong country.

Rule of law, but only when its used in the criminals favour, right?

I would like to know when it became part of the LLB that they not only train you to be lawyers, but train you to be civil libertarians as well.

Whether he is a murderer or not is not your concern as a police officer.

Hah! yes, you keep telling yourself that.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Its nice and rosey and sweet to see two soon to be lawyers in here defending "alledged" criminals. It's nice to see that they are training you up well.

You seem to disapprove of people having legal representation and having a fair trial. That is quite alarming, since you are in training to become a police officer.

The problem lies in the fact that people like you, some day, may be judges. This is an error in our legal system. No person who has defended a criminal should ever be expected to sentence them.

Utterly ridiculous. You would have to apply the same rule to crown prosecutors. "No-one who has ever prosecuted a criminal should become a judge." That means anyone being appointed could never be a criminal lawyer. Silly idea if you want competent and experienced legal practitioners to fulfil the role of being experts in the criminal justice system.

Rule of law, but only when its used in the criminals favour, right?

That just shows that you obviously have no understanding of the rule of law at all. Rule of law applies to everyone, including criminals.

I would like to know when it became part of the LLB that they not only train you to be lawyers, but train you to be civil libertarians as well.

And since when did they train police officers to be Gestapo members?

Whether he is a murderer or not is not your concern as a police officer.

Hah! yes, you keep telling yourself that. Sadly what you say is the truth, not because it is a divine truth, but because air heads like you have filled high positions much to the common mans demise.

Ah dear. Sad, sad irony.

 

[Optophobia]

You seem to disapprove of people having legal representation and having a fair trial. That is quite alarming, since you are in training to become a police officer.

If the nicety of "legal representation" and "a fair trial" mean that a criminal who has murdered or raped a girl get off, then yes, i am against it

Legal representation is to protect those who are innocent, not those who are a client.

When technicalities are used to advantage the criminal, (even one iota of an advantage) i am against such. They deserve no fairness as they have not shown any to their victims.

Utterly ridiculous. You would have to apply the same rule to crown prosecutors. "No-one who has ever prosecuted a criminal should become a judge." That means anyone being appointed could never be a criminal lawyer. Silly idea if you want competent and experienced legal practitioners to fulfil the role of being experts in the criminal justice system.

Who needs experts?:rofl: If guilty = yes, then destroy. Else, freedom.

That just shows that you obviously have no understanding of the rule of law at all. Rule of law applies to everyone, including criminals.

Yes but its only exposed when criminals face an injustice. It only services the lower end of town, as do most rights.

And since when did they train police officers to be Gestapo members?

:rofl: I lol'd

 

[MoonlightSonata]

If the nicety of "legal representation" and "a fair trial" mean that a criminal who has murdered or raped a girl get off, then yes, i am against it

The whole point is that you don't know whether they're guilty or not until after the trial!

When technicalities are used to advantage the criminal, (even one iota of an advantage) i am against such. They deserve no fairness as they have not shown any to their victims.

Again, the whole criminal justice system is based on the notion of innocent until proven guilty. You can't know someone is guilty until after the trial.

Who needs experts?:rofl: If guilty = yes, then destroy. Else, freedom.

I'm afraid that it is a lot more complicated than that; experts are necessary. Pick up any textbook on Criminal Law and you will see why. Hell pick up any legal textbook and you will see why.

That just shows that you obviously have no understanding of the rule of law at all. Rule of law applies to everyone, including criminals.

Yes but its only exposed when criminals face an injustice. It only services the lower end of town, as do most rights.

Not at all. Rule of law operates to protect everyone. It is what stops John Howard or Morris Iemma from coming into your house and taking your money. No-one is permitted to be above the law. Every citizen in this country benefits from the rule of law every second of their existence.

 

[Optophobia]

The whole point is that you don't know whether they're guilty or not until after the trial!

You're still not explaining how any system which had even an ounce of commom sense to it, could let someone who raped a child off on a technicality aroused through the actions of a careless police officer. It's unfair for the community and it shouldn't be allowed.

 

[kami]

Its always been my interpretation that for all intents and purposes, the jury (functioning as representatives of our community) decide whether he raped/murdered anyone. Until the jury makes this verdict, then it is not 'fact'. So when it comes down to it, when the police arrest someone aren't they just detaining a suspect rather than a rapist?

And wouldn't it be for the best if the wrongly obtained evidence was thrown out? Because if it was brought to trial it would substantially weaken the case and risk an innocent verdict (which has that double jeopardy gunk I've heard about).

My condolences go to the family though, it must be difficult to lose their daughter at such an age.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

You're still not explaining how any system which had even an ounce of commom sense to it, could let someone who raped a child off on a technicality aroused through the actions of a careless police officer. It's unfair for the community and it shouldn't be allowed.

It's not about reprimanding a police officer. It's about the reliability of the evidence.

If the police have done something to put the evidence in serious doubt, then of course there is going to be a problem with admitting it. If the police got a confession out of you by threatening to beat up your family, the confession is not voluntary. There are reasons for these rules. If the police have done the wrong thing, then it is their fault, not the legal system.

Instead of blaming the legal system, you should be waving your fists at the police. Of course, you obviously aren't going to be doing that anytime soon.

it shits me so mcuh that a scumbag like this guy could walk free after sexually assaulting a child (letalone anyone) on a 'technicality' of the law. these 'technacalities' are completely fucked, and if common sense had prevailed, and loopholes been fixed, then this little girl wouldnt be dead

Laypeople seem to have great delusions stemming from ignorant stereotypes about evil defence lawyers getting people off on "technicalities". Perhaps this is understandable given the way they are portrayed in American TV shows. However, these rules are in fact essential safeguards to provide a fair trial and prevent investigators abusing the justice system.

Let's suppose you were charged with rape, through the efforts of some girl who wanted to get back at you, when really it was consensual sex. The police interview you and really want to get a confession out of you, but you tell them you're innocent. They decide to write up a confession and force you to sign it. No-one will ever know that it was coerced. If you try to deny it at trial you will look like an idiot.

But hang on, there are rules about videotaping police interviews. Thankfully, the court will exclude admissions that are not recorded (unless there is a reasonable excuse not to record it). That safeguard just protected you from having falsified evidence being adduced at trial against you.

They are not mere "technicalities". They are there to ensure accuracy in fact-finding.

 

[wheredanton]

Its nice and rosey and sweet to see two soon to be lawyers in here defending "alledged"[sic] criminals. It's nice to see that they are training you up well.

Yes that’s right. Alleged criminals, when you arrest someone as a police officer it’s reasonable suspicion. Reasonable suspicion is not beyond reasonable doubt. Police officers are not the arbiter’s of guilt or innocence.

Some of us may be prosecuting and spending too much time explaining to the courts why police officers have decided to put in danger slam dunk prosecution cases by not following very simple procedure. There are lawyers arguing for you, you know. You are getting all this from moonlight and I because it's clear you don't know a second thing about your duties as a police officer and what you should do in order to ensure that your evidence doesn't get pinned by a smart defence lawyer who points out that your ignorance and bullheadedness created an admission that wasn't a real one. That in fact the person didnt make a voluntary admission. Unless of course you think it is right for a police officer to put their words into the mouth of an accused person because the officer has decided right then and there that the person is guilty (because, you know, police officers are omniscient and see and know all. They probably know a person is guilty before they even do anything. Who cares about defence. If a police officer arrests someone they are guilty. Reasonable suspicion of an offence is enough for you to be found guilty of murder!).

Rule of law, but only when its used in the criminals favour, right?

I think the above statement illustrates that you don’t actually understand what the rule of law is.

I would like to know when it became part of the LLB that they not only train you to be lawyers, but train you to be civil libertarians as well.

Telling a person why they have been arrested has been a part of the Common law for a very long time. I'm pretty sure if you were detained and arrested by an officer you would believe it is within your rights to know why you were arrested. If a person (plainclothes) comes up to you and purports to grab you and detain you I think you would like to see some ID otherwise you might think you were being detained by a hitman ready to be thrown into the boot of a big black car.

Civil Libertarianism within the judiciary has also been around for hundreds of years. The courts have been highly cautious to ensure that any state intrusion into a person's property or their personal freedom is clearly for a proper purpose and not merely based on a police whim or feeling.

You probably also think having to obtain a search before searching is disgusting.

Hah! yes, you keep telling yourself that.

Do you even have a basic understanding of your role within the Criminal Justice System? Police officers do not judge guilt or innocence. They do not flaunt the laws and regulations put there by the legislature because they believe the person is a murderer. The only concern of a police officer when they arrest someone for murder is whether they have reasonable grounds for suspecting that a person has committed a murder. Officers then gather evidence for the prosecution to prove murder beyond reasonable doubt.

To remind you THERE IS A LONG WAY BETWEEN REASONABLE SUSPICON AND BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. Arrest of a person suspected of murder doesn't mean the person is a murderer. They have not been convicted. You know innocent until proven guilty? OR don't you believe in that concept, the one that has been around for hundreds of years?

I guess police should be allowed to take the law into their own hands and decide their own powers (and forget about the regulations put into place by a democratically elected legislature) and then determine whether the person they just arrested is guilty or not. The way some police seem to act indicates that when they arrest someone they are automatically guilty or should be guilty. Anyone who thinks like that clearly and very basically doesn't understand their role within the Criminal Justice System and belongs in another country which doesn’t have accountability or any respect for the rule of law - where police forces are littered with improper conduct and corruption.

Whether you like it or not if police officers are accountable for their actions and have to play by the rules before they can enforce them. I’m pretty sure you are not in favour of the NSW police retreating back into the days when the police were as criminal as the criminals which they were chasing. The days of police choosing not to obey regulations and laws in order to catch the ‘real’ criminals are long gone.

 

[wheredanton]

You're still not explaining how any system which had even an ounce of commom sense to it, could let someone who raped a child off on a technicality aroused through the actions of a careless police officer. It's unfair for the community and it shouldn't be allowed.

Innocent until proven guilty (oh, sorry, the way you carry on you probably think this is also disgusting). Ever heard of that? IF the admission is improperly obtained (ie it was involuntary) then it isnt a real admission is it?

An extreme example would be me as a police officer deciding that It's my role to decide guilt and, before you even get to court, deciding that you were guilty (when you are not. You may have in fact committed an offence, but it may in fact be a lesser one) and forcing an admission out of you for the more serious offence. I could tell you I'm going to kill your wife or simply beat the shit out of until you confess.

If the person doesn't confess or the confession isn't a real one then it isnt worth anything is it? It's just the forceful police officer ursurping the role of the judciary and essentially shitting on the rule of law but making himself the arbiter of guilt. IF police officers respected the rule of law there would be no problem. An 8 year old girl today wouldn't be dead would she? Police officers not playing by the rules put there in neon lights. No, they choose to take it upon themselves to flaunt them because they feel the need to be the arbiter of all guilt, a role never given ever in any western democracy to police.

If it was so damn clear that the guy was a rapist then why were the police hell bent on confessional evidence? If it was so clear they surely could have given the prosecution enough to prove rape BRD with other evidence?

Why would a police officer jepordise a case when, as you say it was clear as crystal that he did it, by trying to force out of the guy a confession? I mean the confession would have been taped. The police are usually pretty keen to show the court the taped confession in order to show that there was no misconduct on behalf of the police. Clearly the police officer conducting the interview did something pretty bad. I mean the prosecution didn't appeal the finding did they?

 

[katie_tully]

See...this is what happens when half of the judges are part of paedophile rings themselves.

Any of you catch an article about the man in S.A that has been given 3 years, after they found documents containing his desire to eat and molest the body parts of children, including a list of potential victims and a consent sheet to be given to principals of schools to allow the man to eat the students?
He has already been convicted of several molestation charges, yet this wank of a judge has given him 3 years?

This is why I am against rehabilitation for paedophiles. They do not deserve rehabilitation. This bullshit about not being a reoffender pisses me off, because how often do paedophiles repeat offend? ALL THE BLOODY TIME.

Send them to a bloody Island, or send them to super max for life. WITHOUT A TELEVISION OR A TOASTER.

 

[wheredanton]

See...this is what happens when half of the judges are part of paedophile rings themselves.

Um? Your basis for that claim? In the last 20 years there has been one NSW Supreme Court judge that has been a paedophile. That doesnt mean 'half' the judges are invovled in paedolphilia. Franca Arena (poorly) exposed the man in parliament and he killed himself. Because one teacher is a paedophile doesnt mean half of NSW teachers are paedophiles.

John Howard and Bill Heffernand did the same with Justice Kirby by accusing him of usuing a commonwealth car to pick up boys from darlinghurst wall. They wimpily protected themselves under parliamentary privilage to prevent slader. It was later found the car travel records were forged and Kirby was in another city at the time all this was meant to happen. Then again I don't think Heffernan is in favour of the gays. But you know as soon as a judge doesnt give you decisions you like as a government you just try to slander him to remove him. Total respect for the seperation of powers.

Start calling people paedolphiles without basis and you are likely to get sued for defamation. And probably rightfully so.

One of Kirby's most notorious critics is Liberal senator Bill Heffernan. In 2002, Heffernan used parliamentary privilege to accuse Kirby of trawling for rent boys. However, the evidence Heffernan produced to support this claim was swiftly discovered to be a forgery; the incident is discussed in more detail at Bill Heffernan. When Heffernan eventually apologised for these allegations, Kirby promptly responded: "I accept Senator Heffernan's apology and reach out my hand in a spirit of reconciliation. I hope my ordeal will show the wrongs that hate of homosexuals can lead to."

On March 12, 2002, speaking in the Senate under parliamentary privilege, Heffernan made accusations against a judge[1]. He alleged that this judge - initially unnamed - had regularly 'trawled for rough trade' in a Sydney locality well known for male prostitution, illegally using a government car and driver to pick up a 'young male', and suggested that this judge's alleged leniency towards a convicted pedophile might be viewed as 'subliminal self-defence'.

Only at the end of this speech did Heffernan make it clear that the judge he was referring to was Justice Michael Kirby of the High Court of Australia. This violated a standing order which prohibits senators from making imputations of improper motives or personal reflections on currently-serving judicial officers; had Heffernan identified Kirby as his target earlier, he would likely have been cut off.[2]

The primary evidence to back up Heffernan's claim was a purported record of trips made by the Comcar driver on the day of one of the alleged incidents. This record also detailed other unrelated trips made by several senior Australian politicians, such as Deputy Prime Minister Tim Fischer. When this evidence was made public, the media quickly contacted those people. Many of them (including Fischer) had records of their own that showed that they could not have taken a Comcar on that day, as they were not in the same city. A secondary piece of Heffernan's evidence was revealed to be the testimony of a person previously ruled to be an unreliable witness.

Heffernan's allegations were thus discredited and he resigned his post as Parliamentary Secretary. On 19 March he made a statement to the Senate in which he withdrew the claims. Heffernan was censured by the Senate, the censure motion passed 31-30 with the Liberals and Nationals voting against. He retained his Senate seat, and was re-elected in 2004.

Any of you catch an article about the man in S.A that has been given 3 years, after they found documents containing his desire to eat and molest the body parts of children, including a list of potential victims and a consent sheet to be given to principals of schools to allow the man to eat the students?
He has already been convicted of several molestation charges, yet this wank of a judge has given him 3 years?

You would have to read the judgement before you comment can comment on whether the sentences was appropriate or not. You or I are not really in a position to make comments on why. We are not in possession of all the circumstances. If the the setences is manifestly to light as you make out the Crown would appeal. A 500 word newspaper article probably left out any reasons why the judge decided the way he decided.

 

[katie_tully]

Start calling people paedolphiles without basis and you are likely to get sued for defamation. And probably rightfully so.

So sue me, sweetheart.

You would have to read the judgement before you comment can comment on whether the sentences was appropriate or not. You or I are not really in a position. We are not in possession of all the circumstances. If the the setences is manifestly to light the Crown would appeal.

I read the judgement. She based her sentence on the fact that there is no evidence to suggest he was going to carry out the offences, despite the fact she agreed he was a possible repeat offender. Why he isn't in a mental institution is beyond me.

Do you ever get sick of defending scum?

 

[wheredanton]

So sue me, sweetheart.

IF you start calling people paedophiles when they are not you deserve to be sued for defamtion. Anyways why the hell would I be suing you? Did you actually read what I said above?

I read the judgement. She based her sentence on the fact that there is no evidence to suggest he was going to carry out the offences, despite the fact she agreed he was a possible repeat offender. Why he isn't in a mental institution is beyond me.

Where is the judgement? Link it for me my dear.

And if it such a lenient sentence why hasn't the crown appealed?

Do you ever get sick of defending scum?

I'm not defending them. I'm pionting out your bloody minded ignorance and perception of the judicary based on something you probably read in the paper that was probably somewhere between 300 and 1000 words.

If you were an indignant mother who suffocated her baby you still have a right to be represented and have a lawyer argue a case for you. I cannot believe people believe those certain offenders are not allowed to have lawyers argue a defence. That suddenly if someone is put on trial based they should automatically be guilty and have no defence.

As for defending scum? Lawyers are meant to be unbias as possible and do their best for their cilents. How do you think the asian lawyer in QLD feels having to defend Pauline Hanson? If you run someone over while doing 200kmph while drunk and high on pills would you also call yourself a monster, plead guilty and ask the court to lock you up for 500 years? While a lesser offence than paedophilia are you honestly going to surrender and bot put your side of your case or at least attempt to explain your actions? Whether the court believes you or not is another thing, but to suggest that defence of those accused of crimes is wrong is stupid.