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

[PetterdHoisted]

Curious case this one...to the person on the street it might seem like ridiculous puffery to prefer a record load of ecstacy to flood our streets so as to maintain the 'integrity of the justice system'.

Lawyer X saw other lawyers advise their charges to put on 30 kg to confuse witnesses. Talk about perverting the course...

From the direction of all the noise, have the cops and one one crazy/brave lawyer pricked a bubble of lofty notions and self-importance that surround our legal system?

There are bad people, there are bad lawyers who use the system to protect them, not to mention the bad cops.
It's a war.

Thoughts?

 

[Kurve]

I'd give good money to hear the recording of that phone call Roberta made to Informant 3838. Apparently Roberta was epic!

Same and I'd like to know exactly what date it was. There are recordings so we might get to hear them eventually.

 

[Melsy]

People keep talking about tainted evidence in the Royal Commission into gangland convictions on tainted evidence & police corruption thread.
The fact of the matter is the officer of the court has an obligation to the court.

Further to that, it will be trying to prove that the lawyer was the clients lawyer "at the time".

Client "at the time" will be the determining factor, even then, obligation to the court.

I'm sure people have some wishful thinking, but the court should of questioned the source at the time of the trial.

Yes, there is a gangland hoping they can find a hole in the law in these appeals to see freedom, but they know that is slim.

The greater risk is senior police lose their jobs. I doubt it.

 

[Melsy]

The registered informant at best is going to convince a judge that they have headed the right direction.

A barrister supplying lies means someone might be doing some jail time. Obviously never visit the Bar again.

 

[petedavo]

Curious case this one...to the person on the street it might seem like ridiculous puffery to prefer a record load of ecstacy to flood our streets so as to maintain the 'integrity of the justice system'.

Lawyer X saw other lawyers advise their charges to put on 30 kg to confuse witnesses. Talk about perverting the course...

From the direction of all the noise, have the cops and one one crazy/brave lawyer pricked a bubble of lofty notions and self-importance that surround our legal system?

There are bad people, there are bad lawyers who use the system to protect them, not to mention the bad cops.
It's a war.

Thoughts?

War against crime?
As soon as the good guys commit criminal acts, they have changed sides.
Victoria is going to need a bigger prison.

Sent from my HTC 2PQ910 using Tapatalk

 

[Melsy]

War against crime?
As soon as the good guys commit criminal acts, they have changed sides.
Victoria is going to need a bigger prison.

I doubt it is a criminal act. The judge faces some pretty hefty actions for criminal conduct.

The court must have checked the legitimacy of the tactics.

I really think the boundaries of the law were pushed, as is done where many criminals get off on a hole in the law.

An example might be where colourful characters got off when officers replaced sacks of marijuana with grass clippings.

The war between solicitor and barrister begins. Do note the difference.

 

[Kurve]

I doubt it is a criminal act. The judge faces some pretty hefty actions for criminal conduct.

The court must have checked the legitimacy of the tactics.

I really think the boundaries of the law were pushed, as is done where many criminals get off on a hole in the law.

An example might be where colourful characters got off when officers replaced bags of marijuana with grass clippings.

The war between solicitor and barrister begins.

Have you read the judgement from the full bench of the High Court? They are accused of debasing and corrupting the criminal justice system. The prosecution of each criminal conviction was corrupt.

As an aside, between 3838-EF -Lawyer X and the Victoria Police people were killed when their informant status, registered or not, right or wrong, became known.

https://www.theage.com.au/national/...nduct-over-informer-3838-20181203-p50jv6.html

 

[Melsy]

Have you read the judgement from the full bench of the High Court? They are accused of debasing and corrupting the criminal justice system. The prosecution of each criminal conviction was corrupt.

As an aside, between 3838-EF -Lawyer X and the Victoria Police people were killed when their informant status, registered or not, right or wrong, became known.

https://www.theage.com.au/national/...nduct-over-informer-3838-20181203-p50jv6.html

I think there will be a lot more accusations than outcomes.

 

[petedavo]

I doubt it is a criminal act. The judge faces some pretty hefty actions for criminal conduct.

The court must have checked the legitimacy of the tactics.

I really think the boundaries of the law were pushed, as is done where many criminals get off on a hole in the law.

An example might be where colourful characters got off when officers replaced sacks of marijuana with grass clippings.

The war between solicitor and barrister begins. Do note the difference.

They weren't walking a tight rope.
They were swimming in the shark tank.

Sent from my HTC 2PQ910 using Tapatalk

 

[Melsy]

They weren't walking a tight rope.
They were swimming in the shark tank.

How does one go wayward so long without thinking it not sustainable?

 

[sprockets]

Curious case this one...to the person on the street it might seem like ridiculous puffery to prefer a record load of ecstacy to flood our streets so as to maintain the 'integrity of the justice system'.

Lawyer X saw other lawyers advise their charges to put on 30 kg to confuse witnesses. Talk about perverting the course...

From the direction of all the noise, have the cops and one one crazy/brave lawyer pricked a bubble of lofty notions and self-importance that surround our legal system?

There are bad people, there are bad lawyers who use the system to protect them, not to mention the bad cops.
It's a war.

Thoughts?

The older I get the more I agree that it's a war, or at least a game.

 

[petedavo]

How does one go wayward so long without thinking it not sustainable?

The barrister had an aneurysm.
The C.O.P. had an ambition.
I think I know which would be a better excuse in a sentencing submission.
The antecedents reports submitted to the sentencing judge though might ameliorate some of the coming pain.
The attempt to hide it by going to the High Court ended up exposing it.
It might be that they're hoping that calling a Royal Commission won't result in charges, however I think after what the High Court said, that the chances of that will be extremely slim.
We'll see how this is spun when the Royal Commission begins, I suppose.

Sent from my HTC 2PQ910 using Tapatalk

 

[Melsy]

The barrister had an aneurysm.
The C.O.P. had an ambition.
I think I know which would be a better excuse in a sentencing submission.
The antecedents reports submitted to the sentencing judge though might ameliorate some of the coming pain.
The attempt to hide it by going to the High Court ended up exposing it.
It might be that they're hoping that calling a Royal Commission won't result in charges, however I think after what the High Court said, that the chances of that will be extremely slim.
We'll see how this is spun when the Royal Commission begins, I suppose.

I don't think there will be charges. That requires criminal conduct.

You only have to read some of the statements in ShellyG's link. Only 'some' were a 'barristers' clients.

detectives attempted to use her to gather information from allegedly corrupt police.

https://www.theage.com.au/national/...nduct-over-informer-3838-20181203-p50jv6.html

 

[Kurve]

I don't think there will be charges. That requires criminal conduct.

The Royal Commission no doubt will determine if there was any criminal conduct. Criminal conspiracy gets a mention.

https://www.theage.com.au/national/...-far-its-fruit-will-fall-20181205-p50kbo.html

 

[Iworkthecircus]

If you can corrupt one thing can’t you use another as a tool ?
Probably pays to do the right thing ....

 

[petedavo]

I don't think there will be charges. That requires criminal conduct.

You only have to read some of the statements in ShellyG's link. Only 'some' were a 'barristers' clients.

detectives attempted to use her to gather information from allegedly corrupt police.

https://www.theage.com.au/national/...nduct-over-informer-3838-20181203-p50jv6.html

You might be right, if the Royal Commission doesn't recommend conspiracy charges, however it will probably not be able to prove that this episode does not "discredit the cornerstones of the criminal justice system" https://www.theage.com.au/national/...iceman-in-oversight-role-20181205-p50kg3.html

Sent from my HTC 2PQ910 using Tapatalk

 

[Melsy]

You might be right, if the Royal Commission doesn't recommend conspiracy charges, however it will probably not be able to prove that this episode does not "discredit the cornerstones of the criminal justice system" https://www.theage.com.au/national/...iceman-in-oversight-role-20181205-p50kg3.html

If an officer of the court has an obligation to the court... First to the court, then the client.

We know nothing of when the small number of clients were actually clients at the time, and that information was foregone at the time while they were technically clients. Right now, any notion is speculation.

 

[Kurve]

If an officer of the court has an obligation to the court...

We know nothing of when the small number of clients were actually clients at the time, and that information was foregone at the time while they were technically clients. Right now, any notion is speculation.

Actually, yes we do know they were clients at the time. There are letters going out from the DPP to the convicted and appeals are already being lodged.

 

[Melsy]

Actually, yes we do know they were clients at the time. There are letters going out from the DPP to the convicted and appeals are already being lodged.

But were they informed on at the time on that particular matter? Very few of them were clients.

It sounds like its been a snitch fest by the gangland clients.

Appeals will be granted, but lets see how many have favourable outcomes for the clients.

 

[Kurve]

But were they informed on at the time on that particular matter? Very few of them were clients.

It sounds like its been a snitch fest by the clients.

Of course they were, why else would the DPP be sending them letters giving them the green light to appeal and why else are we going to a Royal Commission?

 

[Melsy]

Of course they were, why else would the DPP be sending them letters giving them the green light to appeal and why else are we going to a Royal Commission?

Having grounds, and winning an appeal are different things.

They are ensuring the law will be tested to ensure the line has not been overstepped.

She certainly has met her first obligation, being that to the court. Will the second obligation found to be that of the client?

Extreme professionalism?

"A barrister's duty to the court takes precedence over all others, including the duty owed to his or her client.'

http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/pub...rrent-justices/kiefelj/kiefelj-2009-02-20.pdf

 

[Kurve]

She certainly has met her first obligation, being that to the court.

OMG

 

[sprockets]

It doesn't matter whether they were her clients at the time or previously, she had an obligation of confidentiality.

 

[Kurve]

You might be right, if the Royal Commission doesn't recommend conspiracy charges, however it will probably not be able to prove that this episode does not "discredit the cornerstones of the criminal justice system" https://www.theage.com.au/national/...iceman-in-oversight-role-20181205-p50kg3.html

Sent from my HTC 2PQ910 using Tapatalk

In this article the police are on record for saying there is no suggestion whatsoever that any of the convicted were ever urged to plead guilty to any of the charges.

Why would they be so quick to assert that? And what else are 'deals' for but 'plead guilty to this one and we drop the other one' 'plead guilty to this one and we let your wife keep her property' 'plead guilty to this one and we won't touch your land in Noosa, transfer it into one of the kids names.' 'Plead guilty and we won't charge your son, we know he was involved.' for example.

That would be deals brokered by your LawyerX, who is actually also working for the police. "Best deal I can get for you, you'll be out in ten. Plead guilty to xyz."

She was working for the police while urging her clients to plead guilty.


https://www.theage.com.au/national/...-far-its-fruit-will-fall-20181205-p50kbo.html

 

[Melsy]

This is VicJschol which I presume is Victoria

‘[A]s an officer of the court concerned in the administration of justice [a legal practitioner] has an overriding duty to the court, to the standards of his profession, and to the public, which may and often does lead to a conflict with his client’s wishes or with what the client thinks are his personal interests.’
Rondel v Worsley
[1969] 1 AC 191, 227 (Lord Reid).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/VicJSchol/2009/15.pdf