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

Joined
Jan 16, 2016
Posts
1,871
Likes
3,865
AFL Club
Melbourne
John Silvester on legal advice matters and Lawyer X

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/a-grim-year-for-victoria-police-20181219-p50n4b.html



What does Silvester mean by play on?

Is he suggesting that the state might need to consider taking legal action against it’s legal advisers if they provided rogue legal advice to Police about using the heroguic lawyer X as a registered informer?

What about internal legal advice?

Don’t Victorian Police have their own legal department too?
It is an issue for the lawyer playing for both teams, not Vic Pol.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

petedavo

Team Captain
Joined
Dec 12, 2008
Posts
542
Likes
938
Location
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
What Nuremberg got to do with this?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders
"Superior orders, often known as the Nuremberg defense, lawful orders or by the German phrase Befehl ist Befehl ("an order is an order"), is a plea in a court of law that a person—whether a member of the military, law enforcement, a firefighting force, or the civilian population—not be held guilty for actions ordered by a superior officer or an official."


https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/law-and-justice-in-the-third-reich
"After the war, prominent Nazi jurists like Curt Rothenberger, Franz Schlegelberger, and Josef Altstoetter were tried in the Jurists' Trial of the Subsequent Nuremberg Proceedings on charges of "judicial murder" and other atrocities.

This case is unusual in that the defendants are charged with crimes committed in the name of the law. These men, together with their deceased or fugitive colleagues, were the embodiment of what passed for justice in the Third Reich.
—Telford Taylor"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Says
Simon Says


Sent from my HTC 2PQ910 using Tapatalk
 

nut

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Mar 16, 2002
Posts
16,754
Likes
6,642
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Richmond
It's amazing the lengths the police and others went to end the gangland war considering it was only crooks killing other crooks. I doubt most of the good, honest citizens of Victoria wanted an end to it. It certainly didn't bother me. $millions upon $millions wasted and now we have this episode.
There are plenty of drugs still out there.
It begs the question ... who won? Who won the gang land war.
 

petedavo

Team Captain
Joined
Dec 12, 2008
Posts
542
Likes
938
Location
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Joined
Jan 16, 2016
Posts
1,871
Likes
3,865
AFL Club
Melbourne
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders
"Superior orders, often known as the Nuremberg defense, lawful orders or by the German phrase Befehl ist Befehl ("an order is an order"), is a plea in a court of law that a person—whether a member of the military, law enforcement, a firefighting force, or the civilian population—not be held guilty for actions ordered by a superior officer or an official."


https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/law-and-justice-in-the-third-reich
"After the war, prominent Nazi jurists like Curt Rothenberger, Franz Schlegelberger, and Josef Altstoetter were tried in the Jurists' Trial of the Subsequent Nuremberg Proceedings on charges of "judicial murder" and other atrocities.

This case is unusual in that the defendants are charged with crimes committed in the name of the law. These men, together with their deceased or fugitive colleagues, were the embodiment of what passed for justice in the Third Reich.
—Telford Taylor"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Says
Simon Says


Sent from my HTC 2PQ910 using Tapatalk
I dont think that is a relevant comparison.
Vic pol were not working under orders but legal advice that what they were doing was legally legitimate.
Thats not to say the crooks were not wronged but that responsibility lay with 3838
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

shellyg

Community Leader
Joined
Dec 27, 2016
Posts
5,077
Likes
6,818
Location
No Surrender
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Thread starter Moderator #487
There was over $60 million in property and assets seized/restrained based upon my assistance and intelligence (a fact reported in The Age in an article about the results obtained by Purana in decimating the gangland criminals in 2009).
From the timeline:

  • January 1998 to June 2003
    Alphonse Gangitano, Mark Moran, Richard Mladenich, Victor Peirce and Shane Chartres-Abbott are among the growing body count of the gangland war.
  • Mid-2003 to July 2004
    The lawyer meets six times with a detective from the Purana gangland taskforce.
  • June 21, 2003
    Jason Moran and Pasquale Barbaro executed in front of five children at an Auskick game.
  • March 2004 to May 2004
    Andrew Veniamin, Lewis Moran, Terrence Blewitt and Lewis Caine murdered.
  • May 16 2004
    Terence and Christine Hodson murdered in their home in Kew.
  • September 16, 2005
    The lawyer is registered as Informer 3838.
See Lawyer X's letter asking for more money, in particular the paragraph quoted. She was recruited in 2005 when the gangland war was essentially over. It was over when Mick Gatto shot Andrew Veniamin in 2004.

Most could be excused from cynically thinking imo that whatever happened from 2004 on, was a grab for money. And sure, if some made all their money illegally take it off them but let's not pretend it was about stopping a gangland war.
 

Herne Hill Hammer

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Posts
17,070
Likes
11,674
Location
Cowes
AFL Club
Geelong
You appear to be taking the liberty of expanding the RC's anticipated terms of reference to include judges. If you haven't already done so, you might do well to read the Victorian Premier's official media release. Your implication that the conduct of judges may be in question is just nonsense

As for your second point, are you making a statement? or posing a question?
In any case, what "outcome" of which "criminal proceeding before which "court of law" has been found to have been manipulated?; identifying the number and extent to which cases were effected is one of the anticipated goals of the RC, and yet you have already reached a conclusion?
They weren't always judges, this dates back quite s ways. Having said that, I've already heard the relevant minister, Hennesy I think, tell Jon Faine they'd be exempt.
 

petedavo

Team Captain
Joined
Dec 12, 2008
Posts
542
Likes
938
Location
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
I dont think that is a relevant comparison.
Vic pol were not working under orders but legal advice that what they were doing was legally legitimate.
Thats not to say the crooks were not wronged but that responsibility lay with 3838
They were working with 3838 under Simon's orders according to the media articles.
It would appear that it is the Act of registering a Defence Barrister, an officer of the Court for the purposes of obtaining legally privileged information to use to Prosecute that is the heart of the matter.
What she did, how they did it, what they did with it, and whatever else is simply derivative of this Act of registration, it seems. Obtaining legal advice upon that Act is simply compounding the Act into conspiring to do that Act, as it certainly doesn't seem that perverting the course of Justice has ever been made lawful in the State of Victoria, and that is the just of High Court's accusation for all intents. It is the action of registration that all this hinges upon. If it was lawful, then there wouldn't be a Royal Commission, as there'd be no point to have one, no potential miscarriages of Justice, no ODPP letters saying so, no High Court appeal about sending them out, would there, I suppose? This is all about the decision of Simon to register her. It will all come down to that one Act, and that signature upon the order to authorise it. Everything else is derivative. IMO
I'm half expecting whoever allegedly authored this alleged legal opinion will be claiming legal privilege, and thus leaving VicPol to hang out to dry (If they're not already on a plane to Brazil). lol

Sent from my HTC 2PQ910 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

Chameleon75

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Mar 13, 2013
Posts
5,120
Likes
7,953
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Collingwood
They were working with 3838 under Simon's orders according to the media articles.
It would appear that it is the Act of registering a Defence Barrister, an officer of the Court for the purposes of obtaining legally privileged information to use to Prosecute that is the heart of the matter.
What she did, how they did it, what they did with it, and whatever else is simply derivative of this Act of registration, it seems. Obtaining legal advice upon that Act is simply compounding the Act into conspiring to do that Act, as it certainly doesn't seem that perverting the course of Justice has ever been made lawful in the State of Victoria, and that is the just of High Court's accusation for all intents. It is the action of registration that all this hinges upon. If it was lawful, then there wouldn't be a Royal Commission, as there'd be no point to have one, no potential miscarriages of Justice, no ODPP letters saying so, no High Court appeal about sending them out, would there, I suppose? This is all about the decision of Simon to register her. It will all come down to that one Act, and that signature upon the order to authorise it. Everything else is derivative. IMO
I'm half expecting whoever allegedly authored this alleged legal opinion will be claiming legal privilege, and thus leaving VicPol to hang out to dry (If they're not already on a plane to Brazil). lol

Sent from my HTC 2PQ910 using Tapatalk
Legal privilege can only be waived by the client, so if such advice exists it would be up to vicpol to waive or claim legal privilege, your last point about being hung out to dry is invalid.
 

shellyg

Community Leader
Joined
Dec 27, 2016
Posts
5,077
Likes
6,818
Location
No Surrender
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Thread starter Moderator #492
Legal privilege can only be waived by the client, so if such advice exists it would be up to vicpol to waive or claim legal privilege, your last point about being hung out to dry is invalid.
When Lawyer X as a lawyer, said to Victoria Police when she was recruited, 'enjoy your royal commission' would that be considered legal advice? And was Victoria Police the client?

This is very confusing.
 

Melsy

Club Legend
Joined
Jul 21, 2018
Posts
1,329
Likes
405
AFL Club
Essendon
Legal privilege can only be waived by the client, so if such advice exists it would be up to vicpol to waive or claim legal privilege, your last point about being hung out to dry is invalid.
There is only a couple of direct clients involved with Lawyer X. Lawyer X has an obligation to the court. Also registered informant with police. Not posting link again.

This Royal Commission will test to see if wrong doing has occurred. Will there be misconduct? Probably not. If there is, it will probably be minimal. Will there be recommendations? Probably? Will there be disciplinary measures? Probably not because most if not all have left the departments and or their jobs?

Was there a gangland war? Yes. Is the community safer? Yes. Will criminals get out of prison? I'm guessing max one criminal out of prison.
 
Joined
Jan 16, 2016
Posts
1,871
Likes
3,865
AFL Club
Melbourne
Do you have a link from the internet to substantiate that Vic Police had legal advice saying that what they were doing was legitimate?
No i dont. It is being supposed on the basis that is usually how they operate and in this particular case it would have been imperative.
If they dont they are right up shit creek.
Ashton or Overland did mention it in a TV press grab but cannot remember who or when.
 
Joined
Jan 16, 2016
Posts
1,871
Likes
3,865
AFL Club
Melbourne
They were working with 3838 under Simon's orders according to the media articles.
It would appear that it is the Act of registering a Defence Barrister, an officer of the Court for the purposes of obtaining legally privileged information to use to Prosecute that is the heart of the matter.
What she did, how they did it, what they did with it, and whatever else is simply derivative of this Act of registration, it seems. Obtaining legal advice upon that Act is simply compounding the Act into conspiring to do that Act, as it certainly doesn't seem that perverting the course of Justice has ever been made lawful in the State of Victoria, and that is the just of High Court's accusation for all intents. It is the action of registration that all this hinges upon. If it was lawful, then there wouldn't be a Royal Commission, as there'd be no point to have one, no potential miscarriages of Justice, no ODPP letters saying so, no High Court appeal about sending them out, would there, I suppose? This is all about the decision of Simon to register her. It will all come down to that one Act, and that signature upon the order to authorise it. Everything else is derivative. IMO
I'm half expecting whoever allegedly authored this alleged legal opinion will be claiming legal privilege, and thus leaving VicPol to hang out to dry (If they're not already on a plane to Brazil). lol

Sent from my HTC 2PQ910 using Tapatalk
I cant wait to see the nuts and bolts of how this plays out. I am so curious as to what the advice was and who gave it and most importantly on what basis.
Even if police can show they did have legal advice saying all was good the RC is still required as people are in jail on evidence which may be inadmissible.
It needs to be shown that the evidence was legitimate and adequate for the convictions to stand.
In the case this is not so It is possible some of the convictions may be set aside but they will still not make parole while awaiting a new trial.
There will not be any let out without further action ( unless there is little to be gained by re trying case due to time already served.)

Vic Pol could name what and who supplied the legal advice?
What action could be taken against this lawyer(s)?
 

sprockets

Club Legend
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
Posts
2,941
Likes
3,528
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Richmond

Sent from my HTC 2PQ910 using Tapatalk
"Notorious gangland hitman menaced Lawyer X

DECEMBER 05, 2018

The late hitman Andrew Veniamin menaced the secret police informer known as Lawyer X over suspicions that she was too close to police.

The Herald Sun has been told that at the height of Melbourne’s gangland war, Veniamin turned up at the barrister’s home unannounced and warned her about her allegiances.

One theory is that there had been concern within the underworld about Lawyer X’s links with police.

At the time, Veniamin was regarded as one of Melbourne’s most dangerous criminals. Police suspect he claimed at least four scalps during the city’s bloody era of underworld conflict.

It is unclear who sent Veniamin to Lawyer X, but a source said the visit might have been arranged by Italian organised crime figures suspicious of her activities.

Veniamin had been working for Carl Williams at the time, but though Lawyer X helped police for years, Williams did not become certain of that until 2006.

Lawyer X had strong links to players in warring crime factions implicated in a long series of killings.

“She was playing both sides of the (gangland) fence, but Andrew was, too,” a source said.

The confrontation at Lawyer X’s home came years before her luxury silver BMW convertible was firebombed in a South Melbourne street in 2008, around the time suspicions about her activities were growing. She was not hurt, and no one was ever charged over the arson.

Veniamin was shot dead by underworld heavyweight Mick Gatto at Carlton’s La Porcella restaurant in 2004.

A Supreme Court jury acquitted Gatto after he successfully argued he had acted in self-defence when Veniamin pulled a gun on him at the back of the restaurant.

The activities of Lawyer X and the extent of her dealings with police, including informing on her clients, have been recently revealed in the Herald Sun.

The revelations led Premier Daniel Andrews to announce a royal commission, which is due to begin hearings in February.

Veniamin is suspected of having executed at least four people while operating as one of Williams’s stable of contract killers.

His murder victims included Victor Peirce, Paul Kallipolitis, Dino Dibra, and Frank Benvenuto.

Veniamin was also responsible for non-fatal shootings, including drive-by shootings at the properties of enemies, and might also have been connected to other killings."

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/t...x/news-story/3ed3ca8ae53d69bb56989cec011a46b4

Note the date. Wonder if it's been held since then for legal reasons and only published today?
 
Top Bottom