Current Royal Commission into Lawyer X gangland convictions on tainted evidence & police corruption

[petedavo]

A facebook post from one of my FB friends, John Silvester, about an article he has written for The Age»

The article to which it refers»
The day Informer 3838 leapt for joy https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/the-day-informer-3838-leapt-for-joy-20181203-p50jxi.html via theage

Sent from my HTC 2PQ910 using Tapatalk

"Once when invited as a guest of The Age to a corporate AFL box, she arrived late, swore like a wharfie, drank heroically, disparaged the morals of a female legal rival, and flirted openly with a senior policeman at the same function.

Then in late 2004 I saw her walking near the court precinct and she looked broken. She was recovering from a stroke and looked gaunt, tired and sad.

I asked how she was and she said she had learned a great lesson. She said words to the effect, “I’ve learned they [the gangsters] are just clients, not friends. I was there for them 24 hours a day but when I was in hospital only one came to see how I was.”"



Sent from my HTC 2PQ910 using Tapatalk

 

[petedavo]

Does Paul Dale get a letter too?

Sent from my HTC 2PQ910 using Tapatalk

 

[Donners]

3. Did the conviction ONLY come from the information provided?


If the conviction came from evidentiary value then play on and stay inside.

If a plea was entered on the advice of the informer how can you prove that?

Bit more to it than that.

The Supreme Court judgment looks at this issue at para 139 to 162 - https://austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VSC/2017/350.html

To quote just one of the cited cases:

The appeal is not allowed on any perception that an innocent man has been convicted, but on the ground that it may be perceived that he did not have a fair trial according to the process by which criminal trials are conducted. To uphold the conviction would send the wrong message to professional persons trusted with the vital role on the administration of criminal justice and would in the end lower public confidence and the integrity of the system.

Regardless of whether pleas were entered (see para 157) and regardless of the fact that the accused may well have been convicted without the informer, there is a clear legal basis for the conviction to be overturned.

What happens after that is another matter - maybe they’ll just plead up and get a discount, maybe the charges will be permanently stayed.

I suspect that the number will be a lot lower than the tabloid is reporting, though.

 

[sprockets]

Justice must not only be done, it must appear to be done

Justice and the law aren't necessarily the same thing so justice might be that these people remain locked up. Remember there's been no suggestion that evidence was fabricated.

 

[GreyCrow]

Simpsons predicted everything

 

[rdhopkins2]

Oh dear, this won’t go down well.

 

[Chameleon75]

Bit more to it than that.

The Supreme Court judgment looks at this issue at para 139 to 162 - https://austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VSC/2017/350.html

To quote just one of the cited cases:



Regardless of whether pleas were entered (see para 157) and regardless of the fact that the accused may well have been convicted without the informer, there is a clear legal basis for the conviction to be overturned.

What happens after that is another matter - maybe they’ll just plead up and get a discount, maybe the charges will be permanently stayed.

I suspect that the number will be a lot lower than the tabloid is reporting, though.

Would they set aside the verdict and order a new trial if they believe that a conviction could be sustained without the informant?

 

[tandino]

Hmmm female lawyer that represented underworld identities. I wonder who that could possibly be......and I didn't follow this much at all at the time.

It's the other one.

 

[AsIfYouCare]

It's the other one.

Indeed. The Age article linked above mentions her having had a stroke. Google both names with "stroke" and the answer is clear.

 

[AsIfYouCare]

Bit more to it than that.

The Supreme Court judgment looks at this issue at para 139 to 162 - https://austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VSC/2017/350.html

To quote just one of the cited cases:



Regardless of whether pleas were entered (see para 157) and regardless of the fact that the accused may well have been convicted without the informer, there is a clear legal basis for the conviction to be overturned.

What happens after that is another matter - maybe they’ll just plead up and get a discount, maybe the charges will be permanently stayed.

I suspect that the number will be a lot lower than the tabloid is reporting, though.

Thanks for the legal link. The closest match to these facts is JB v R (No 2), and in that case the appeal succeeded.

150 The first is the recent decision of the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal in JB v R (No 2)[125] in which a youth had been convicted of murder by stabbing. A central plank of the prosecution case was the youth’s confession to a support person, whom the police called to the police station where the youth was detained. The police did not disclose that the support person was a registered informer and that he was facing fraud charges. Later, he received a suspended gaol sentence after police provided an affidavit of assistance which referred to his assistance in the murder case. In addition, the accused’s solicitor was also the support person’s solicitor and therefore had a conflict of interest. The youth’s appeal against his conviction was dismissed. Thereafter, he became aware of the double role played by the support person and the solicitor. The matter was referred to the Court of Criminal Appeal to be dealt with as an appeal. The Court first determined the accused’s application for production of police records showing the assistance of the informer in other matters, but rejected that request.[126] But, the Court ruled that that the accused should have access to police records that showed the assistance provided by the informer in respect of the investigation of the murder. Thereafter, the Court ruled that the conviction for murder should be quashed and a verdict of acquittal entered.[127]

 

[Melsy]

Regardless of whether pleas were entered (see para 157) and regardless of the fact that the accused may well have been convicted without the informer, there is a clear legal basis for the conviction to be overturned.

Unless of course you are guilty as charged.

Oh, by the way you plead guilty

 

[Opine]

Justice and the law aren't necessarily the same thing so justice might be that these people remain locked up. Remember there's been no suggestion that evidence was fabricated.

Insofar as a lawyers paramount duty, justice and the law are considered one and the same.
That is why a legal practitioner's paramount obligation is not to his/her client, but rather to the court.

 

[sprockets]

Insofar as a lawyers paramount duty, justice and the law are considered one and the same.
That is why a legal practitioner's paramount obligation is not to his/her client, but rather to the court.

Yes, as far as the law goes. In 'justice' a legal practitioner's paramount obligation should be to the truth and the community.

 

[Melsy]

Insofar as a lawyers paramount duty, justice and the law are considered one and the same.
That is why a legal practitioner's paramount obligation is not to his/her client, but rather to the court.

******* bazzzziiinga! There it is. And that's why, many appeals, not so many wins.

 

[Opine]

Yes, as far as the law goes. In 'justice' a legal practitioner's paramount obligation should be to the truth and the community.

Your making a distinction between justice and the law.
The law is an expression of a community's values; all of them.
That is why justice is deemed to be personified in the court, and that is why a practitioners paramount obligation is to the Court.
The lawyers paramount obligation is therefore, rightly, to pursue the interests of justice as personified in the court.
Otherwise the notion of justice, as you put it, would be arbitrary.

 

[Mice]

LOL the Kremlin.

Yeah I spent 8 years partying with them in the Mahogany Room. MI6 just released a report a few days ago about their funding for ISIS, with links to Australia and Mexico.

Stop talking crap

 

[jpfalvo]

Yeah I spent 8 years partying with them in the Mahogany Room. MI6 just released a report a few days ago about their funding for ISIS, with links to Australia and Mexico.

Stop talking crap

Can you shed a little more light here or link to article covering the report?

Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk

 

[sprockets]

Your making a distinction between justice and the law.
The law is an expression of a community's values; all of them.
That is why justice is deemed to be personified in the court, and that is why a practitioners paramount obligation is to the Court.
The lawyers paramount obligation is therefore, rightly, to pursue the interests of justice as personified in the court.
Otherwise the notion of justice, as you put it, would be arbitrary.

Yes I am, which was what I stated a number of posts ago, to which you replied.

Let's try another tact. Let's say Mokbel is released into the community because of this mess. Do you think justice has been served? My answer to that would be no - we have a crim walking the streets who hasn't served the time he deserves.

 

[Opine]

Yes I am, which was what I stated a number of posts ago, to which you replied.

Let's try another tact. Let's say Mokbel is released into the community because of this mess. Do you think justice has been served? My answer to that would be no - we have a crim walking the streets who hasn't served the time he deserves.

My answer to that is that the interests of society are better served by accepting that a guilty person may go free as result of enforcing the rules of law that aim to ensure that innocent people don't loose their freedom.

 

[captain cotch 9]

its pretty clear who the lawyer is..i noticed this at the bottom of a google search.

In response to a legal request submitted to Google, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read more about the request at LumenDatabase.org.

 

[Melsy]

its pretty clear who the lawyer is..i noticed this at the bottom of a google search.

In response to a legal request submitted to Google, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read more about the request at LumenDatabase.org.

And there is the answer subject to a suppression order. Spot the missing name.

If you jump on an external jurisdictional VPN, you may see a result. Not that it matters.

 

[Opine]

It certainly does matter. You should respect the suppression.

 

[sprockets]

My answer to that is that the interests of society are better served by accepting that a guilty person may go free as result of enforcing the rules of law that aim to ensure that innocent people don't loose their freedom.

But he's a crim that was convicted on 'true' evidence and goes free, in my scenario, because of the way that evidence was gained and not because it was fabricated. He's not an 'innocent person losing his freedom'. Therein is the difference between law and justice.

 

[Kurve]

It certainly does matter. You should respect the suppression.

Of course we must respect the suppression orders. An issue. There's only two female lawyers who have acted in these criminal matters that's known by the public. Twitter users are incorrectly naming the wrong one as the informant, while the actual informant who no doubt has a lot of security and is already paranoid, ZGW uninvolved, is exposed and may now be in danger.

The suppression order should be lifted. Yesterday. They have made a careless mistake imo.

 

[Opine]

But he's a crim that was convicted on 'true' evidence and goes free, in my scenario, because of the way that evidence was gained and not because it was fabricated. Therein is the difference between law and justice.

Stop and think about the possibility that in the absence of rules of evidence the right to a fair and unbiased trial might be prejudiced. Then think about the potential impact on society, all the way down. Then consider whether the interests of society are better served with or without rules of evidence,