The Law Nicola Gobbo named - Massive corruption by Victoria Police that will see major criminals released from jail

[skipper kelly]

If a scenario like this was to happen again next week, how would your changes stop it from happening?

What's stopping the police from saying X was the informer when it was Y?

DPP will have no way of knowing...

If DPP is lied to then its Perjury. Then it goes down the chain. Who knew about it etc. Then charged with the new criminal offence of breaching legal privilege. Coppers and Lawyer both charged.

Legislation cannot stop criminal behaviour. No amount of legislation can stop what happened from happening again. It can only make more people more accountable and bigger punishment if caught.

 

[Number37]

If DPP is lied to then its Perjury. Then it goes down the chain. Who knew about it etc. Then charged with the new criminal offence of breaching legal privilege. Coppers and Lawyer both charged.

Legislation cannot stop criminal behaviour. No amount of legislation can stop what happened from happening again. It can only make more people more accountable and bigger punishment if caught.

Breaching privilege has little to do with the DPP.
That is solely on the lawyer.
There are different types of privilege, to which will your law apply?

 

[skipper kelly]

Breaching privilege has little to do with the DPP.

Using information knowingly obtained through the breach of privilege certainly would.

 

[Number37]

Using information knowingly obtained through the breach of privilege certainly would.

That's a no brainer and no DPP would do that...unless they were corrupt or grossly incompetent.

As soon as they found out they would have to tell the judge AND they would have to tell the defence.

The way the rules are written there is no benefit at all for a DPP to go down that path...unless they were corrupt.
They can't even argue ignorance, pretty sure there is no difference between known or ought to have known when it comes to DPP responsibilities.

 

[skipper kelly]

That's a no brainer and no DPP would do that...unless they were corrupt or grossly incompetent.

As soon as they found out they would have to tell the judge AND they would have to tell the defence.

The way the rules are written there is no benefit at all for a DPP to go down that path...unless they were corrupt.

Exactly.

So if they are told about it then they can do something about it. If they are told about it and chose to ignore it then they are in the s**t.

If they are lied to by the Police then its perjury. Then it goes down the chain.

It's all about accountability at each level.

The DPP should be informed of all how all the evidence was obtained. If there are no provisions for this then there is one less step in the accountability chain.

 

[Number37]

Exactly.

So if they are told about it then they can do something about it. If they are told about it and chose to ignore it then they are in the s**t.

If they are lied to by the Police then its perjury. Then it goes down the chain.

It's all about accountability at each level.

The DPP should be informed of all how all the evidence was obtained. If there are no provisions for this then there is one less step in the accountability chain.

You're missing the key ingredient.

An informant does not give evidence.
The informant merely leads the police to evidence that may be used.

For example: If X says Mokbel will be at the docks buying a container of ice at 7.30 on Friday, that's not evidence.
The evidence is Mokbel buying the ice.

 

[skipper kelly]

You're missing the key ingredient.

An informant does not give evidence.
The informant merely leads the police to evidence that may be used.

For example: If X says Mokbel will be at the docks buying a container of ice at 7.30 on Friday, that's not evidence.
The evidence is Mokbel buying the ice.

Has privilege been breached in your scenario?

 

[Number37]

Has privilege been breached in your scenario?

If a client tells his lawyer that he will be at the docks at 5pm to buy a container of ice and the lawyer informs the police is that communication between client and lawyer covered by privilege?
Not necessarily.
Privilege only covers actual legal advice from lawyer to client or communication between client and lawyer in relation to an actual court matter or prospective court matter.

 

[skipper kelly]

If privilege has been breached then DPP gets the final determination if the evidence obtained can be used.
If privilege has possibly been breached then DPP gets the final determination if the evidence obtained can be used.
If privilege has not been breached then DPP gets the final determination if the evidence obtained can be used.
DPP gets to knows all the facts and makes the final determination.

I hope I am not involved in a discussion where it is assumed that I believe all communications with lawyers is privilege.

The key ingredient is that the DPP, not the Police, get to decide which evidence is used. The DPP can only make the determination if they are privvy to all the facts.

 

[skipper kelly]

If a client tells his lawyer that he will be at the docks at 5pm to buy a container of ice and the lawyer informs the police is that communication between client and lawyer covered by privilege?
Not necessarily.
Privilege only covers actual legal advice from lawyer to client or communication between client and lawyer in relation to an actual court matter or prospective court matter.

And my small summary is about when privilege has been breached. The DPP should be able to make that decision based on all the facts.

 

[Snake_Baker]

If privilege has been breached then DPP gets the final determination if the evidence obtained can be used.

And my small summary is about when privilege has been breached. The DPP should be able to make that decision based on all the facts.

Acxtually, I think the judge gets to determine that also under s138 of the Evidence Act, so anything even slightly suspect that is presented by the DPP MUST be tabled to the judge, which is where this debacle ran off the rails in the first place.

 

[skipper kelly]

Acxtually, I think the judge gets to determine that also under s138 of the Evidence Act, so anything even slightly suspect that is presented by the DPP MUST be tabled to the judge, which is where this debacle ran off the rails in the first place.

Cheers. A judge wouldn't even need to be involved if there was a clear breach. I believe the DPP needs to know everything pre trial. Everything. It would certainly clear any innuendo that the DPP did or didn't know. "Your honour here is the transcript of when I was told about the identity and how the evidence was obtained."

But I probably live in la la land with my thinking.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Cheers. A judge wouldn't even need to be involved if there was a clear breach. I believe the DPP needs to know everything pre trial. Everything. It would certainly clear any innuendo that the DPP did or didn't know. "Your honour here is the transcript of when I was told about the identity and how the evidence was obtained."

But I probably live in la la land with my thinking.

SK, as I guess you would know, the Vic Police are only required to table information that can lead to a conviction, and are supposed to provide information that lead to an acquittal of charges/evidence, but they almost NEVER do this in larger, self serving, or politically motivated cases. It's TOTALLY at their discretion. They just hide it from the DPP, or some times even work in cahoots with them.

When they get called on their bullshit, it's examined out of public view, usually by favorable parties. I mean, ask yourself this, why did it take the r intervention of the High Court to trigger these disclosures, when this was common knowledge to just about every lawyer, cop and half the journos and crims in the state? Doesn't this highlight the massive imbalance and corruption of power in the so called "justice" system?

The entire detective squad is without exception, corrupt. All of them.

The law needs to be altered in Victoria whereby all evidence acquired by VicPol is given to the defence, or at the very least is brought before the judge, and independent oversight of this evidence is monitored. Every single skerrick. The level of censorship pertaining to evidence in this state & country is legally outrageous.

 

[Number37]

And my small summary is about when privilege has been breached. The DPP should be able to make that decision based on all the facts.

Guideline 16 relates specifically to informers.

https://www.odpp.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/prosecution-guidelines.pdf

You should be able to recognise that much of what you want already exists...like I mentioned earlier, when there is blatant corruption and/or a clear breach of privilege there is really no law that can cover it.

 

[skipper kelly]

SK, as I guess you would know, the Vic Police are only required to table information that can lead to a conviction, and are supposed to provide information that lead to an acquittal of charges/evidence, but they almost NEVER do this in larger, self serving, or politically motivated cases. They just hide it from the DPP.

I have no knowledge of corruption but if any copper is breaking the law then I would not lose one moment of sleep if they are exposed and dealt with.

There's always bad eggs in any organisation but the problem is when they rise to the top.

 

[Snake_Baker]

I have no knowledge of corruption but if any copper is breaking the law then I would not lose one moment of sleep if they are exposed and dealt with.

There's always bad eggs in any organisation but the problem is when they rise to the top.

I'm not referring to the blue coats here, I am referring to the suits.

The particular type of people, as a leading defence lawyer told me personally, "who are promoted to the detective squads because they are of a particular type of character"

I have personally witnessed a senior member of the Ethical Standards Department flat out lie under oath. The Ethical Standards Department!!!!!!

 

[skipper kelly]

Guideline 16 relates specifically to informers.

https://www.odpp.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/prosecution-guidelines.pdf

You should be able to recognise that much of what you want already exists...like I mentioned earlier, when there is blatant corruption and/or a clear breach of privilege there is really no law that can cover it.

I propose that it should be a criminal offence as per my small summary. I also propose that the DPP should know all the facts, and the facts should be given to them under oath. There's not much change to be made.

 

[Snake_Baker]

I propose that it should be a criminal offence as per my small summary. I also propose that the DPP should know all the facts, and the facts should be given to them under oath. There's not much change to be made.

...and what about cops that preclude evidence?

 

[skipper kelly]

I'm not referring to the blue coats here, I am referring to the suits.

The particular type of people, as a leading defence lawyer told me personally, "who are promoted to the detective squads because they are of a particular type of character"

I have personally witnessed a senior member of the Ethical Standards Department flat out lie under oath. The Ethical Standards Department!!!!!!

It's a worry SB.

 

[skipper kelly]

...and what about cops that preclude evidence?

I have no problems with legislation to deter that.

 

[Snake_Baker]

I have no problems with legislation to deter that.

Complete and full prosecution (including VicPol) disclosure would facilitate that.

 

[Number37]

I propose that it should be a criminal offence as per my small summary. I also propose that the DPP should know all the facts, and the facts should be given to them under oath. There's not much change to be made.

If you look at the DPP guidelines the DPP already has to do much of what you want the DPP to do.
The question of criminality for breaking privilege is a separate issue that has nothing really to do with how the DPP operates.

Mixing it all together is unhelpful and misrepresents the real problem.
The problem is NOT the DPP, the problem lies squarely with the police.

 

[skipper kelly]

The problem is NOT the DPP, the problem lies squarely with the police.

I was responding to a post about the DPP knowing or not and gave my opinion about a proposal for the future. I believe the DPP should be told all the facts pre trial. My proposal would help this process. I don't see how the DPP knowing all the facts could possibly be a bad thing. I don't see how breaching privilege becoming a criminal offence could be a bad thing.

 

[Snake_Baker]

I was responding to a post about the DPP knowing or not and gave my opinion about a proposal for the future. I believe the DPP should be told all the facts pre trial. My proposal would help this process. I don't see how the DPP knowing all the facts could possibly be a bad thing. I don't see how breaching privilege becoming a criminal offence could be a bad thing.

If the DPP attain all the facts then so must the defence under the "equality of arms" doctrine.

I'm all for this, but there isn't a cop in the country who would support it, nor most of the DPP..............which unfortunately means the Victorian Government won't either.

 

[skipper kelly]

If the DPP attain all the facts then so must the defence under the "equality of arms" doctrine.

I'm all for this, but there isn't a cop in the country who would support it, nor most of the DPP.

The identity of legitimate informers could still be protected if it is deemed necessary by the court.