As I stated earlier, I understand the rules of evidence argument. There are also 'rules' that crims should pay for their actions. Again, the difference between law and justice.
Current Royal Commission into Lawyer X gangland convictions on tainted evidence & police corruption
- Thread starter Kurve
- Start date
-
- Tags
- corruption crime law
- Tagged users None
- Dec 27, 2016
- 27,120
- 57,222
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #103
Respected former homicide detective Ron Iddles says a group of senior policemen should be "held to account" for allowing a gangland lawyer to become an informer.
Mr Iddles, who is the government's Community Safety Trustee, said he first heard about Informer 3838 when he was attached to the Briars Taskforce in about 2009, telling 3AW radio on Monday it was inevitable the matter would eventually become public knowledge.
"It was always going to come out I think and be a mess," said Mr Iddles, the former head of the police union.
Mr Iddles said he raised concerns about the use of Informer 3838 after he was asked by former chief commissioner Simon Overland to take a statement from the lawyer in relation to the matters being investigated by the Briars Taskforce, which was looking into the murder of drug dealer Shane Chartres-Abbott.
He took the statement but never got it signed.
"On return to Victoria I had a further conversation with senior police, including a superintendent, and I said, 'you don't get this. I can tell you now, this will cause a royal commission'," he said
Mr Iddles said the application to register the lawyer would have been decided on by a committee of senior police.
"We were taught to give yourself the source test, every decision you make ask this, 'would the decision I make today withstand scrutiny, is it ethical, it is lawful and is it fair?' When you go to register a solicitor, the first two points fail straight off.
"So it's those senior members who need to be held to account.
"Somebody should have pulled it up."
https://www.theage.com.au/national/...xpected-informer-scandal-20181204-p50k04.html
Mr Iddles, who is the government's Community Safety Trustee, said he first heard about Informer 3838 when he was attached to the Briars Taskforce in about 2009, telling 3AW radio on Monday it was inevitable the matter would eventually become public knowledge.
"It was always going to come out I think and be a mess," said Mr Iddles, the former head of the police union.
Mr Iddles said he raised concerns about the use of Informer 3838 after he was asked by former chief commissioner Simon Overland to take a statement from the lawyer in relation to the matters being investigated by the Briars Taskforce, which was looking into the murder of drug dealer Shane Chartres-Abbott.
He took the statement but never got it signed.
"On return to Victoria I had a further conversation with senior police, including a superintendent, and I said, 'you don't get this. I can tell you now, this will cause a royal commission'," he said
Mr Iddles said the application to register the lawyer would have been decided on by a committee of senior police.
"We were taught to give yourself the source test, every decision you make ask this, 'would the decision I make today withstand scrutiny, is it ethical, it is lawful and is it fair?' When you go to register a solicitor, the first two points fail straight off.
"So it's those senior members who need to be held to account.
"Somebody should have pulled it up."
https://www.theage.com.au/national/...xpected-informer-scandal-20181204-p50k04.html
- Dec 27, 2016
- 27,120
- 57,222
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #104
This might be better suited to the conspiracy board, thank you.
Opine
Norm Smith Medallist
- Aug 30, 2018
- 7,352
- 12,278
- AFL Club
- Carlton
And ?
- Dec 27, 2016
- 27,120
- 57,222
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #107
- Dec 27, 2016
- 27,120
- 57,222
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #108
Fixed.
Wtf just happened here?
It's a depressing reminder of how damned stupid people are.
The media indicate it's a non-practicing barrister who was involved in particular cases? It must be a practicing solicitor who wasn't involved in those cases, and who is actually providing public comments on this very matter!
In any event, I daresay anyone who cares enough to do something about it knows exactly who it is. It's been an open secret for years.
- Banned
- #111
Wrong context
- Dec 27, 2016
- 27,120
- 57,222
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #112
The lawyer who represented some of Australia's most notorious criminals during Melbourne's Gangland War has lashed out at her former colleague - known as Informer 3838.
Zarah Garde-Wilson became aware the lawyer had turned rogue years ago.
'I knew she was playing both sides back in 2006 - it just took a while for it to come out,'
'We've issued subpoenas and the like. We did everything we could do at the time to bring it to the surface but we were just hit with brick walls.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...de-Wilson-claims-tried-expose-dual-agent.html
Zarah Garde-Wilson became aware the lawyer had turned rogue years ago.
'I knew she was playing both sides back in 2006 - it just took a while for it to come out,'
'We've issued subpoenas and the like. We did everything we could do at the time to bring it to the surface but we were just hit with brick walls.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...de-Wilson-claims-tried-expose-dual-agent.html
Opine
Norm Smith Medallist
- Aug 30, 2018
- 7,352
- 12,278
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Care to explain?
Considering that Dale and she were touchy feely and she wore somewhat daring clothing at the time, it must've been damn hard to wire her up for her meeting. She had an aneurysm. The Hodsons had been murdered. I hope the Royal Commissioner discovers what sort of deranged decision making and risk assessment was used to authorise using her in such a callous way without apparently any regard to her vulnerability or witness protection. In all likelihood her settlement might be viewed in hindsight as a bit of a piss in the ocean and I doubt if it will adequately compensate for what she is about to go through. I hope the Royal Commissioner gives Simon a right royal grilling and gets to the bottom of what appears to be contempt for the law, interference of due process, and independence of the Court by comprising the role of officers of the Court. It looks suspiciously like a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. How else can the Royal Commissioner describe it?
To put those convictions in peril by such wilful abuse of the rule of law, to which he swore to uphold in the name of the Queen - how the hell can such behaviour be excused? I suppose we'll find out his justification in due course. But he should've known better. IMO
Sent from my HTC 2PQ910 using Tapatalk
To put those convictions in peril by such wilful abuse of the rule of law, to which he swore to uphold in the name of the Queen - how the hell can such behaviour be excused? I suppose we'll find out his justification in due course. But he should've known better. IMO
Sent from my HTC 2PQ910 using Tapatalk
Does the facts of a crime change because the evidence to convict was obtained unethically? If the relavant evidence to convict a criminal is untainted and correct, why should that matter to the outcome of the conviction?
Whilst the RC will go through the ethics of using such an informer, I can’t see how the evidence or information gained from her could be used against a conviction if the ‘facts’ are true and correct. And whilst the information may of played some part in the overall case, there will be many other pieces of evidence, tapes, film, other informers that would of lead to a conviction.
I think people maybe over emphasising the importance of her influence on the cases in question.
Whilst the RC will go through the ethics of using such an informer, I can’t see how the evidence or information gained from her could be used against a conviction if the ‘facts’ are true and correct. And whilst the information may of played some part in the overall case, there will be many other pieces of evidence, tapes, film, other informers that would of lead to a conviction.
I think people maybe over emphasising the importance of her influence on the cases in question.
No better than a vigilante with a pitchfork. The Courts must decide guilt, not the Commissioner of Police. It is not his prerogative to usurp the rule of law, just because he knows they are guilty.
Sent from my HTC 2PQ910 using Tapatalk
Sent from my HTC 2PQ910 using Tapatalk
ArmandD
Draftee
ArmandD
Draftee
It's NOT Zarah, there are plenty of article floating around online that name the barrister responsible for suing vicpolice in 2011.
I find it to be a more disturbing issue that since 2014 the Victorian government has allowed the expenditure of millions of dollars in court fees for suppression orders of a name that already became public knowledge years before, it is impossible to have removed the digital articles completely and there was never a chance of hunting down and destroying the hard copies of every paper that printed it back then so there was no reasonable way to expect it could be suppressed, it's clear that the suppression orders were for no other purpose than to protect their own wrongdoing from public scrutiny
"10. 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-will2. 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. "View attachment 58.pdf
Sent from my HTC 2PQ910 using Tapatalk
Sent from my HTC 2PQ910 using Tapatalk
ArmandD
Draftee
Does anyone else notice similarities between lawyer x's story and the person in this article?
https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/lawyer-suing-police-chief-identified-20100430-tyzp.html
https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/lawyer-suing-police-chief-identified-20100430-tyzp.html
- Dec 27, 2016
- 27,120
- 57,222
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #122
I disagree. Why was it wrong to use someone that knew the truth? Was the police at fault to get information from an unethical informant? Or does that rest on the informant? Isn’t it the police role to get to the truth of the matter and prepare and brief of eveidence to the court to prosecute.
The use of informers have been used forever. Is it unethical to use informers to befriend suspects to elicit confessions? It is used a lot to gain convictions.
If a priest, doctor, sychologist came to cop and said, I have a guy who said he did this crime and the evidence is there at spot x. Should the cop say no, I can’t get involved because it would be unethical? I don’t think so. Why should a lawyer be any different?
The use of informers have been used forever. Is it unethical to use informers to befriend suspects to elicit confessions? It is used a lot to gain convictions.
If a priest, doctor, sychologist came to cop and said, I have a guy who said he did this crime and the evidence is there at spot x. Should the cop say no, I can’t get involved because it would be unethical? I don’t think so. Why should a lawyer be any different?
Yeah my take is that the convictions should stand, but the police 3838 should be charged with perverting justice or whatever it is.
I don't think cheating to get evidence, that is true, necessarily means quashing convictions. The question one had to ask though is: would this set a precedent whereby future investigations follow the same path? One would think heavy penalties for those who "cheat" the system would be a strong deterrent. But you never know, you might still find willing parties with nothing to lose.
I think you miss the gravitas of the issue.
To quote from the High Court findings....
"and, more fundamentally, in order to maintain public confidence in the integrity of the criminal justice system. "
Without public confidence in the Rule of Law, you don't have Rule of Law. Law and Order breaks down upon lack of public confidence, as does systems of governance when the public loses confidence in the system of governance.
Governance is based upon the ability of the Government to maintain confidence in it's ability to make the Law and for the public to accept that they're subject themselves to the Government's laws. Without which the very system of governance falls.
Some call this The Social Contract. Some give it other names, but in every toppling of systems of governance, whether it the English Civil Wars, the French Revolution or the American War of independence, the toppling of governance was always preceded by a debasement of public confidence in the rule of law.
View attachment 58.pdf
Sent from my HTC 2PQ910 using Tapatalk
Last edited:
