- Jul 30, 2018
- 11,782
- 15,176
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Banned
- #601
Oh ok, that guy. That's tangential to this case though, isn't it?Relates to suppression orders of a certain high profile person recently charged, widely reported in overseas media.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Oh ok, that guy. That's tangential to this case though, isn't it?Relates to suppression orders of a certain high profile person recently charged, widely reported in overseas media.
Relates to suppression orders of a certain high profile person recently charged, widely reported in overseas media.
A really bad diet.What's with the cloak and dagger crap.
In theory, yes.
There does seem to be a bit of a 'payback' angle though. A lot of people involved.
Too much subterfuge for me to untangle, I will await further developments.
I think the whole suppression order thing in Victoria is backwards and the justification for it is weak. Considering Victoria struggles to lock up recidivist rapists and violent criminals, and has deep problems with corruption as this episode shows, the idea that suppression orders are necessary to maintain the integrity of the Victorian justice system is laughable. What integrity?Media report damaging stories in one matter. Embarrassing to cops/OPP. OPP powerless.
Media allude to matters the subject of a suppression order in another matter. OPP pounce. Although it should be noted that I've never seen a judge as furious as the one that dragged the media into the courtroom for said breach so it might not be entirely a revenge thing.
I think the whole suppression order thing in Victoria is backwards and the justification for it is weak. Considering Victoria struggles to lock up recidivist rapists and violent criminals, and has deep problems with corruption as this episode shows, the idea that suppression orders are necessary to maintain the integrity of the Victorian justice system is laughable. What integrity?
It seems like suppression orders exist more as a tool to protect the legal fraternity from much needed scrutiny.
Good luck finding her and dragging her back into the country.
Apparently she was carrying on life as normal up until nearly the end of last year, when the parents at her Brighton daycare centre basically barred her being anywhere near the place.
Are they getting close to actually stating the DPP knew Lawyer X was a police informant and proceeded with prosecutions anyway?
Edit: Sorry, I didn't see your last post Mofra.
Gov. will already have a handy scapegoat or three lined up.What does it matter if the DPP did or didn't know?
The Victoria Police form a part of the prosecution team, so this isn't going to alleviate anything.
The other angle of this is which governments knew about this when and why haven't they stepped in immediately to deal with it?
Have they suddenly found some respect for the seperation of powers doctrine in this state? That's just laughable.
What does it matter if the DPP did or didn't know?
The Victoria Police form a part of the prosecution team, so this isn't going to alleviate anything.
The other angle of this is which governments knew about this when and why haven't they stepped in immediately to deal with it?
Have they suddenly found some respect for the seperation of powers doctrine in this state? That's just laughable.
VicPol will be in a worse space than VicGov - VicGov can create 'enquiries' and find a few scapegoats to place all the blame on VicPol's screw ups.
It gets murkier though - the Vic DPP has all but declared war on the Australian media in the past week or so. When the latest story gets out it will be enormous.
Relates to suppression orders of a certain high profile person recently charged, widely reported in overseas media.
Can a suppression order stay in place after the jury has reached a verdict?
Couldn't agree more. IF (and given the grubby deals I'm not sure) BUT IF the s**t hits the fan there is no doubt the Vic Gov will happily shove the Police under the bus if it becomes a matter of sorting the wheat from the chaff. Remember Andrews inherited this. If he feels he can clean slate in a year or 2 he will.
Are they getting close to actually stating the DPP knew Lawyer X was a police informant and proceeded with prosecutions anyway?
The DPP should know and if they didn't then the 1st step the government should take is to legislate that the DPP must know the identity of all people involved and how all the evidence was obtained. The DPP can then make a determination as to the legality of the evidence.
IMO they did know and it matters very much and I think you know why it does .... yes I'm being a bit cryptic because I don't really want to go into it on this board right now. At this time.
The DPP should know and if they didn't then the 1st step the government should take is to legislate that the DPP must know the identity of all people involved and how all the evidence was obtained. The DPP can then make a determination as to the legality of the evidence. There should be a direct criminal offence for breaching legal privilege, outside of the catch all perverting the course of justice. There should be a recording of all communications between the DPP and Police when the identity of all people involved and how all the evidence was obtained is discussed. This communication should be under oath.
With this in place, any prosecutions that get through with dubious evidence relating to legal privilege can be traced back down the line.
This is a police powers problem not a court or prosecution problem.
The lawyer in question has breached nearly all their duties as a lawyer.
My small summary catches all.