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

Snake_Baker

Hall of Famer
Joined
Apr 24, 2013
Posts
36,751
Likes
63,930
Location
Destination Club
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Pfffft, as if!
The identity of legitimate informers could still be protected if it is deemed necessary by the court.

Of course, because something is made accessible to the defence does not mean that it is made available to the defendant.

However, the defence MUST have the power to make application to the judge to admit any informer as a witness if they believe it is in the interests of their client, and if granted, this must be carried out in open court according to common law foundation principals.

Enough with the cloak and dagger stuff, it is invariably abused.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

skipper kelly

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 29, 2003
Posts
28,716
Likes
3,855
Location
far queue
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
NSW Blues
Of course, because something is made accessible to the defence does not mean that it is made available to the defendant.

However, the defence MUST have the power to make application to the judge to admit any informer as a witness if they believe it is in the interests of their client.
I have no issue with the defence trying to find out the identity of informants but then there is a balancing act between public interest, safety and justice.

Making Police swear under oath when giving the full facts to the DPP can only increase accountability which is never a bad thing. The details given do not always have to be disclosed as it is only for accountability which could be relied on when bad ones get through the system. When bad ones get through the system then disclosure would be paramount.

In these specific cases (thread title and possible dodgy convictions) how good would it be for the defence and subsequent appeals and inquiries to have a transcript available where the police have informed the DPP of how all the information was obtained.
 

Snake_Baker

Hall of Famer
Joined
Apr 24, 2013
Posts
36,751
Likes
63,930
Location
Destination Club
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Pfffft, as if!
I have no issue with the defence trying to find out the identity of informants but then there is a balancing act between public interest, safety and justice.
Yes, and that "public interest" has been abused for all and sundry to see.

Making Police swear under oath ............
They swear an oath every time they get in to a witness box, but that doesn't fix anything.

The Victorian Government had to change the rules regarding oaths a few years back because the cops completely disregarded them.

In these specific cases (thread title and possible dodgy convictions) how good would it be for the defence and subsequent appeals and inquiries to have a transcript available where the police have informed the DPP of how all the information was obtained.
This is all good in principal, but how many times do you think they have pulled dodgy crap and actually been exposed in the past 100 years?

Respectfully SK, your proposal is a toothless paper tiger.
 

skipper kelly

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 29, 2003
Posts
28,716
Likes
3,855
Location
far queue
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
NSW Blues
Yes, and that "public interest" has been abused for all and sundry to see.



They swear an oath every time they get in to a witness box, but that doesn't fix anything.

The Victorian Government had to change the rules regarding oaths a few years back because the cops completely disregarded them.



This is all good in principal, but how many times do you think they have pulled dodgy crap and actually been exposed in the past 100 years?

Respectfully SK, your proposal is toothless paper tiger.
Agree, but the whole process is. Nothing substantial will change.

Thanks SB.
 

Number37

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 5, 2013
Posts
13,679
Likes
13,419
AFL Club
Sydney
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.
You really should read the guidelines.

A criminal penalty for breaking privilege is a gross overreaction to what is more likely to be corruption.
 

BruceFromBalnarring

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jan 13, 2007
Posts
5,282
Likes
6,500
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Sydney
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.
Why are you exonerating the OPP on this? Lawyer X was a witness in a case FFS. If you think the OPP aren’t up to their necks in this you are kidding yourself.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Number37

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 5, 2013
Posts
13,679
Likes
13,419
AFL Club
Sydney
That’s just a vague deflection. What does that even mean in the context of the question I asked?
Vague is a good word to describe your assertions.
Just because she was a witness doesn't automatically mean something dodgy happened.
Not everything is covered by privilege.

There are many good reasons that not everything is covered by privilege.
 

Mofra

Moderator
Joined
Dec 6, 2005
Posts
39,422
Likes
97,356
Location
Footscray
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Footscray, The Exers
Moderator #668
State govs asking questions Australia wide.
If people think only VicPol have a stake in sweeping this under the carpet, that's a very innocent perspective. I'd imagine the notoriously *ahem* 'outcome driven' NSW police are keeping an especially close eye on proceedings.
 

Number37

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 5, 2013
Posts
13,679
Likes
13,419
AFL Club
Sydney
State govs asking questions Australia wide.
If people think only VicPol have a stake in sweeping this under the carpet, that's a very innocent perspective. I'd imagine the notoriously *ahem* 'outcome driven' NSW police are keeping an especially close eye on proceedings.
Like drugs, everyone wants to try the latest...odds on the same thing has happened in every other state.
 

BruceFromBalnarring

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jan 13, 2007
Posts
5,282
Likes
6,500
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Sydney
Vague is a good word to describe your assertions.
Just because she was a witness doesn't automatically mean something dodgy happened.
Not everything is covered by privilege.

There are many good reasons that not everything is covered by privilege.
My assertions are necessarily vague given the nature of the 2 or 3 matters we are discussing. And the suppression orders that apply to at least 2 of them.

But for the purposes of being more specific, are you seriously suggest that the DPP simply accept a brief from VicPol without making any inquiries or giving any thought as to the source or substance of the evidence they are to present to satisfy themselves of its presentability in a Court?

If that is your assertion, either the OPP are so incompetent that that is an issue of political failure as great as the alleged failures of the police themselves, or the police have done such a good job (to this point) of covering their tracks that even their legal representatives had no sniff that this was coming. And if it is the latter, then how in hell did the matter arise in the High Court? Simply by chance?

EDIT: I am, by the way, very aware of the parties to the High Court decision last year. And I note that it was the OPP seeking to come clean. I also note that that occurred in light of an IBAC report which detailed the shenanigans. What I don't believe, at least at this point, was that the OPP were blind as to the shenanigans prior to their discovery. My view is that the IBAC report placed the OPP in a position of having no choice but to come clean to the convicted persons.

The Australian cricket captain lost his position and was suspended from International cricket for 12 months for wilfully turning a blind eye to "something", albeit being unaware of precisely what that "something" was. That that "something" turned out to be a far more serious "something" than he could have imagined that "something" to be at the time of turning the blind eye didn't save him.

I wonder if similar standards will apply to certain senior lawyers and department heads. I doubt it.
 
Last edited:

skipper kelly

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 29, 2003
Posts
28,716
Likes
3,855
Location
far queue
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
NSW Blues
But for the purposes of being more specific, are you seriously suggest that the DPP simply accept a brief from VicPol without making any inquiries or giving any thought as to the source or substance of the evidence they are to present to satisfy themselves of its presentability in a Court?
This is my query Bruce.

Are they legally bound to enquire?
 

Number37

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 5, 2013
Posts
13,679
Likes
13,419
AFL Club
Sydney
But for the purposes of being more specific, are you seriously suggest that the DPP simply accept a brief from VicPol without making any inquiries or giving any thought as to the source or substance of the evidence they are to present to satisfy themselves of its presentability in a Court?
Read the guidelines, it is all in there.
Even without the guidelines, no prosecutor is going to blindly accept a brief from the police, let alone a brief from the police that includes the evidence of an informant.



This is my query Bruce.

Are they legally bound to enquire?
Read the guidelines. You will get your answer.


EDIT: I am, by the way, very aware of the parties to the High Court decision last year. And I note that it was the OPP seeking to come clean. I also note that that occurred in light of an IBAC report which detailed the shenanigans. What I don't believe, at least at this point, was that the OPP were blind as to the shenanigans prior to their discovery. My view is that the IBAC report placed the OPP in a position of having no choice but to come clean to the convicted persons.
What if the DPP didn't actually do anything wrong, or at least anything that could compromise cases?
What if the DPP just pushed the boundaries?

It is not a good look, but if the DPP has acted within the law, is there a problem?


On a tangent:
What's stopping a lawyer from becoming an informant...for the sole purpose of getting their client off?
 

skipper kelly

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 29, 2003
Posts
28,716
Likes
3,855
Location
far queue
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
NSW Blues
Read the guidelines, it is all in there.
Even without the guidelines, no prosecutor is going to blindly accept a brief from the police, let alone a brief from the police that includes the evidence of an informant.





Read the guidelines. You will get your answer.




What if the DPP didn't actually do anything wrong, or at least anything that could compromise cases?
What if the DPP just pushed the boundaries?

It is not a good look, but if the DPP has acted within the law, is there a problem?


On a tangent:
What's stopping a lawyer from becoming an informant...for the sole purpose of getting their client off?
It's yes or no. If you know the answer then why not say it.
 
Top Bottom