Number37
Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
- Oct 5, 2013
- 22,222
- 24,270
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Cheers. Do you know the specific law that requires them to enquire?
The entire Evidence Act.
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.
Cheers. Do you know the specific law that requires them to enquire?
The entire Evidence Act.
Do you know the specific section that relates to my original question?
Barrister Rules 66 (?, somewhere around there)
Barrister Rules 66 (?, somewhere around there)
Cheers.
I read that. Now if there is a breach of these rules what are the penalties?
I assume you mean for the the Prosecutor...
Legal Professional Uniform Law governs professional misconduct.
Also N37, say a DPP is informed that evidence is obtained through a breach of legal privilege, and that legal privilege is not exempt or anything else, and the DPP goes ahead with the prosecution using that evidence anyway, what are the consequences for the DPP?
That's like saying if the DPP makes up evidence...
Can you please tell me the broad consequences for the specific scenario I posted.
The consequences for breaking the law are obvious.
On top of that professional misconduct can get a DPP struck off.
You need to distinguish between something clearly illegal (fabricating evidence, misleading the court etc) and pushing the boundaries.
I am not convinced that anything that has happened in this case actually falls in the illegal camp.
Other than Lawyer X was an informer against their own client, there isn't enough detail yet to draw any conclusions.
Not EVERYTHING between lawyer and client is covered by privilege.
The DPP may have assisted the police in making sure that the boundary to privilege was not crossed.
That is a new frontier but certainly not categorically illegal.
Cheers.
My questions were only about the legal obligations of the DPP and specific offences that could be breached. Only about the consequences of using information gained from a knowing breach of legal privilege. Moreso, is the DPP compelled to enquire by law, not whether they should or could or would, but are they compelled to do so on a legal basis. And then, if they knowingly use that evidence, what are the consequences. Are there criminal charges or is it procedural My quest for knowledge about this has stemmed from this case but the questions I asked are not specifcally related to it. I read that the DPP may or may not have known. I thought surely they must know and must be compelled by law to make all enquiries to gain the facts in all cases. I therefore wanted to know if they are compelled legally or can they claim an arms length type of thing. Basically, hear no evil, see no evil.
Sorry If I wasn't clear. These questions were not about what constitutes legal privilege or informers etc. I have a small enough knowledge of those aspects to satisfy my curiosity.
Cheers.
Cheers.
My questions were only about the legal obligations of the DPP and specific offences that could be breached. Only about the consequences of using information gained from a knowing breach of legal privilege. Moreso, is the DPP compelled to enquire by law, not whether they should or could or would, but are they compelled to do so on a legal basis. And then, if they knowingly use that evidence, what are the consequences. Are there criminal charges or is it procedural My quest for knowledge about this has stemmed from this case but the questions I asked are not specifcally related to it. I read that the DPP may or may not have known. I thought surely they must know and must be compelled by law to make all enquiries to gain the facts in all cases. I therefore wanted to know if they are compelled legally or can they claim an arms length type of thing. Basically, hear no evil, see no evil.
Sorry If I wasn't clear. These questions were not about what constitutes legal privilege or informers etc. I have a small enough knowledge of those aspects to satisfy my curiosity.
Cheers.
You're asking the questions from the wrong perspective and allowing N37 an out, which he has gleefully taken.
These are not questions merely of legality or otherwise. No one is suggesting (yet) that the police involved or the prosecutors go to gaol.
It is a question of ethics. The effect of their breach (at all levels) is the likely murder of the informant.
Here the situation is very different, if not unique, and it is greatly to be hoped that it will never be repeated. EF's actions in purporting to act as counsel for the Convicted Persons while covertly informing against them were fundamental and appalling breaches of EF's obligations as counsel to her clients and of EF's duties to the court. Likewise, Victoria Police were guilty of reprehensible conduct in knowingly encouraging EF to do as she did and were involved in sanctioning atrocious breaches of the sworn duty of every police officer to discharge all duties imposed on them faithfully and according to law without favour or affection, malice or ill-will[1]. As a result, the prosecution of each Convicted Person was corrupted in a manner which debased fundamental premises of the criminal justice system. It follows, as Ginnane J and the Court of Appeal held, that the public interest favouring disclosure is compelling: the maintenance of the integrity of the criminal justice system demands that the information be disclosed and that the propriety of each Convicted Person's conviction be re-examined in light of the information. The public interest in preserving EF's anonymity must be subordinated to the integrity of the criminal justice system.
[1] See Victoria Police Act 2013 (Vic), Sch 2, and formerly Police Regulation Act 1958 (Vic), Second Schedule.
You're asking the questions from the wrong perspective and allowing N37 an out, which he has gleefully taken.
These are not questions merely of legality or otherwise. No one is suggesting (yet) that the police involved or the prosecutors go to gaol.
It is a question of ethics. The effect of their breach (at all levels) is the likely murder of the informant.
Here the situation is very different, if not unique, and it is greatly to be hoped that it will never be repeated. EF's actions in purporting to act as counsel for the Convicted Persons while covertly informing against them were fundamental and appalling breaches of EF's obligations as counsel to her clients and of EF's duties to the court. Likewise, Victoria Police were guilty of reprehensible conduct in knowingly encouraging EF to do as she did and were involved in sanctioning atrocious breaches of the sworn duty of every police officer to discharge all duties imposed on them faithfully and according to law without favour or affection, malice or ill-will[1]. As a result, the prosecution of each Convicted Person was corrupted in a manner which debased fundamental premises of the criminal justice system. It follows, as Ginnane J and the Court of Appeal held, that the public interest favouring disclosure is compelling: the maintenance of the integrity of the criminal justice system demands that the information be disclosed and that the propriety of each Convicted Person's conviction be re-examined in light of the information. The public interest in preserving EF's anonymity must be subordinated to the integrity of the criminal justice system.
[1] See Victoria Police Act 2013 (Vic), Sch 2, and formerly Police Regulation Act 1958 (Vic), Second Schedule.
Unless I am mistaken you suggested that under all circumstances where privilege is broken then criminal sanctions should follow.
You went a step further and wanted to place an obligation on the DPP to do certain things or face criminal sanctions.
Where legal privilege is breached and no exemptions apply then I have no issue whatsoever with those involved facing criminal charges. Obviously, the extent of the breach would be taken into account when penalties apply.
Absolutely. I see no reason why the DPP shouldn't be compelled to investigate where all the evidence came from and how it was obtained. And then if they knowingly use dodgy evidence then that should have criminal consequences. I even went further to state that the the interviews with police, about how the evidence was obtained, should be under oath and recorded. This would be perfect for the honest DPP and not so great for the dishonest copper.
I don't see either of these things as controversial.
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.
You can make an argument that they might think they're going to get away with it.
That's it in a nutshell. That's the only reason someone would do it, if they think they will get away with it. You would have to be insane to do something knowing that you will not get away with it. People don't always act logically though.
My proposal would benefit the honest prosecutor for any possible proceedings against them. "Your Honour here is the transcript of my investigation and as you can see this office has complied with all it's legal requirements." "This is what I was told and this was my follow up." The DPP is now in the clear and the next stage of the proceedings is those that gave the evidence. ie coppers. It can only benefit honest people.
Anyway, I have had my say.
Cheers
None of the state police departments or Attorney General's want the High Court to get involved and entrench & expand further "constitutional implied rights" for the people, which is exactly what they do when the states overstep the totalitarian line. In essence the HCA are the only body stopping the people engaging in open revolt.
People should be more aware of just how constitutionally tenuous this country has become since the gangsters moved in and took over from the British.
If any of you are looking for someone to blame over this it's the corrupt Victorian Labor Government. Labor were the ones who appointed him and they appointed him because he was a YES man who would promote their agendas and their leftist ideologies.
Overland wasn't highly thought of in the FedPol and they knew this. He screwed up many things there. He approved and knew off all of these gigs. Any cop with half a brain would've realised that using the defendants solicitors as informants would have posed legal conflicts of interest.
I guess none of that matters because the people have shown that they accept corruption by voting these twists into power.
I’m not sure about his parochial stuff elsewhere. I’m interested in politics but generally stay away from it here.....generally. But he’s hit the nail on the head in this instance. Nixon, Overland, and Ashton have been horrible appointments and have used their positions to push political agendas with disastrous consequences. Ashton is a disgrace. A complete disgrace. For reasons (plural) which are suppressed.Take your parochial bullshit to the other 3000 threads dedicated to it.
I’m not sure about his parochial stuff elsewhere. I’m interested in politics but generally stay away from it here.....generally. But he’s hit the nail on the head in this instance. Nixon, Overland, and Ashton have been horrible appointments and have used their positions to push political agendas with disastrous consequences. Ashton is a disgrace. A complete disgrace. For reasons (plural) which are suppressed.
Something happened with Victorian Labor, probably at Uni level, at some point in the 80s and it’s become a big mass vehicle for the exercise of power. Similarly, although I don’t know as much about it, something happened with the Libs in NSW at around the same time.
And they get away with it by flooding social media with propaganda so there’s too much noise to get to the heart of matters.
I think I said earlier there will be blood spilt over all of this. That’s probably wrong. It’ll wash through with the noise. No one will be held to account. A lawyer will be dead and a Cardinal will be free but have his reputation in tatters.