Interested

Court proceedings and Legal Process
stroppy
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2017 7:57 am

Interested

Postby stroppy » Sat Jul 08, 2017 2:37 am

I have now spent an interesting evening reading old posts in nearly every sub-forum and find some things very interesting.

1. Hardy (please correct me if I am wrong) but it seems that Magistrates will always take the word of a police officer over a normal citizen in court in every instance. It also seems that it's a good idea to whip your mobile phone out and start recording any interaction with police. I assume you have to tell them you are recording them. Can they yank the phone away from you?

2. Some cases seem really sad and I genuinely felt very sorry for some of the people asking advice. One thing...even though they usually arrange for a conference we other forum members do not get to see the final outcome of the case. It'd be great to know if they won and why. I know that might be a bit much to ask but from a human perspective I'd really like to see some of these people win...especially cases like this:
viewtopic.php?f=39&t=3900

In my dealings with police they have usually been jovial and very nice to talk to. I always try to be as upbeat and nice as possible when stopped by police for the RBT bus or for a spot licence check and have never had cause to complain about the way I was treated. Perhaps I have been lucky and not encountered an officer on a bad day (heaven forbid!). The last time I was stopped for a breath test at night (near the corner of South and Warragul Roads ...their usual haunt) it was raining and quite cold. When the test was finished I told the officer he should get danger money because of the weather, a cup of coffee or tea and free Tim Tams. He laughed his head off and just told me to have a good night and get home out of the rain. Awfully nice chap.

Gravy
Posts: 1062
Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 9:25 am

Re: Interested

Postby Gravy » Sun Jul 09, 2017 6:45 pm

stroppy wrote: whip your mobile phone out and start recording any interaction with police. I assume you have to tell them you are recording them.
Common misconception - in Victoria (unless things have changed since I last read up on this) only one party to the conversation needs to be aware of/consent to the recording. The other parties don't even have to be aware of it for it to be legal. Recording a telephone conversation is quite different.
stroppy wrote:Perhaps I have been lucky and not encountered an officer on a bad day (heaven forbid!).
I think it probably has more to do with you not treating fellow human beings like crap. A guy or girl just doing their job and keeping the community safe is (understandably!) less likely to exercise discretion if they're being berated with comments along the lines of "why don't you go catch some real criminals", "I pay your wages" and "I do not wish to contract with you".

Day
Posts: 1604
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 4:51 pm

Re: Interested

Postby Day » Sun Jul 09, 2017 7:45 pm

Common misconception - in Victoria (unless things have changed since I last read up on this) only one party to the conversation needs to be aware of/consent to the recording.


Last time I checked the Surveillance Devices Act, that was the case. But that was a couple of years ago.

I think it probably has more to do with you not treating fellow human beings like crap.


Most likely.

stroppy
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2017 7:57 am

Re: Interested

Postby stroppy » Sun Jul 09, 2017 7:47 pm

Gravy wrote:
stroppy wrote: whip your mobile phone out and start recording any interaction with police. I assume you have to tell them you are recording them.
Common misconception - in Victoria (unless things have changed since I last read up on this) only one party to the conversation needs to be aware of/consent to the recording. The other parties don't even have to be aware of it for it to be legal. Recording a telephone conversation is quite different.
stroppy wrote:Perhaps I have been lucky and not encountered an officer on a bad day (heaven forbid!).
I think it probably has more to do with you not treating fellow human beings like crap. A guy or girl just doing their job and keeping the community safe is (understandably!) less likely to exercise discretion if they're being berated with comments along the lines of "why don't you go catch some real criminals", "I pay your wages" and "I do not wish to contract with you".


Well I always follow the advice of my father who taught me to be generous, kind and to treat people respectfully. It has stood me in good stead all these years.

Oh...about the magistrates... Do they always believe police over defendants?

Chef
Posts: 519
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 12:04 pm

Re: Interested

Postby Chef » Sun Jul 09, 2017 8:12 pm

In a word... No.

However, sometimes it's not about what is said, it's what is not said or what is missed ie points of proof, technical or legislative requirements that bring informants undone.

stroppy
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2017 7:57 am

Re: Interested

Postby stroppy » Mon Jul 10, 2017 1:18 am

Chef wrote:In a word... No.

However, sometimes it's not about what is said, it's what is not said or what is missed ie points of proof, technical or legislative requirements that bring informants undone.



Well that's good to know. I have heard stories about Magistrates being so friendly with police prosecutors that they've slipped up and called them by their first name in court. Not a good look, imho. I always remember a primary school teacher explaining to the class what the statue of Lady Justice (Justitia) was all about and I was quite taken with the whole concept of trial and decisions based upon the balance of evidence...that justice was blind to looks and airs and deaf to deliberately misleading discussion.

allde
Posts: 740
Joined: Sun May 13, 2012 12:46 pm

Re: Interested

Postby allde » Mon Jul 10, 2017 4:44 pm

stroppy wrote: I always remember a primary school teacher explaining to the class what the statue of Lady Justice (Justitia) was all about and I was quite taken with the whole concept of trial and decisions based upon the balance of evidence...that justice was blind to looks and airs and deaf to deliberately misleading discussion.


Your also forgetting the more money you can fork out for a lawyer, the better the justice you receive. :wink:

Chef
Posts: 519
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 12:04 pm

Re: Interested

Postby Chef » Mon Jul 10, 2017 7:00 pm

allde wrote:
stroppy wrote: I always remember a primary school teacher explaining to the class what the statue of Lady Justice (Justitia) was all about and I was quite taken with the whole concept of trial and decisions based upon the balance of evidence...that justice was blind to looks and airs and deaf to deliberately misleading discussion.


Your also forgetting the more money you can fork out for a lawyer, the better the justice you receive. :wink:


Not always. I still have my 100% success rate against MURPHY QC, HARDY, WALSH-BUCKLY, KIZULNI and SAWYER.

But I'll just keep enjoying my LSL on the dive boat

Hardy
Site Admin
Posts: 8462
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 10:00 am
Location: Melbourne Victoria
Contact:

Re: Interested

Postby Hardy » Mon Jul 10, 2017 7:41 pm

from a human perspective I'd really like to see some of these people win...especially cases like this:
viewtopic.php?f=39&t=3900


That case was not defended and a plea of guilty was entered because the chance of winning was very low, which is a huge misfortune for the client because the minimum licence loss period for that offence is 2 years. It is unfair to blame either the police or the court for that outcome, because it is parliament that has made the laws so strict that the courts are not permitted to show any of the empathy that you acknowledge is warranted. It is also fair to note that after getting the police brief and listening to the tape recording of an incident any hope for an acquittal can rapidly evaporate, because clients tell you what they remember or want to remember which is usually not the whole story.

Hardy
Site Admin
Posts: 8462
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 10:00 am
Location: Melbourne Victoria
Contact:

Re: Interested

Postby Hardy » Mon Jul 10, 2017 7:48 pm

Chef, when did you ever win a contested hearing against KIZULNI (we know who you mean...)? I didn't know he appeared in contested hearings?

Chef
Posts: 519
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 12:04 pm

Re: Interested

Postby Chef » Mon Jul 10, 2017 8:39 pm

Hardy wrote:Chef, when did you ever win a contested hearing against KIZULNI (we know who you mean...)? I didn't know he appeared in contested hearings?


About 2008 at MMC. Let's just say it wasn't a very spirited defence and as soon as the tape came out to be played alongside the informants evidence, a quick adjournment and a plea was forthcoming

stroppy
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2017 7:57 am

Re: Interested

Postby stroppy » Mon Jul 10, 2017 9:51 pm

Hardy wrote:
from a human perspective I'd really like to see some of these people win...especially cases like this:
viewtopic.php?f=39&t=3900


That case was not defended and a plea of guilty was entered because the chance of winning was very low, which is a huge misfortune for the client because the minimum licence loss period for that offence is 2 years. It is unfair to blame either the police or the court for that outcome, because it is parliament that has made the laws so strict that the courts are not permitted to show any of the empathy that you acknowledge is warranted. It is also fair to note that after getting the police brief and listening to the tape recording of an incident any hope for an acquittal can rapidly evaporate, because clients tell you what they remember or want to remember which is usually not the whole story.

Very sad...I really felt for the bloke.


Return to “Courts and Lawyers”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest