8 Year Old Girl Murdered (3 Viewers)

[frog12986]

I think it's important for police officers to have a pretty detailed knowledge of the rules surrounding surrounding admissibility of confessional evidence. IF you were tought these rules you would understand why the judiciary is so very sensitive of any indication that the admission was improperly obtained (Hint: It has something to do with around 100 years of police corruption. You know when jury's in the late 70s and early 80s started to find people not guilty even though there was a police witness saying the guy confessed and a written 'record' of interview. Police corruption has even prompted sections in the Evidence Act whereby the judge must warn the jury as to the unreliability of police oral evidence).

In any case for the admission to be deemed inadmissible it must have been pretty damming or clear. I'm pretty sure every state has madatory taping regimes for the recording of admissions. IF the admission was taped then the court probably got to see the interview and it was probably pretty clear that the admission wasnt made so voluntarily or was a result of a trick or was made as a result of an act or omission by the interviewing officer which he or she knew or ought to have known would substantially affect the ability of the person to rationally respond to the questioning.

The rules are there for a very important reason. It is the police officers who are to blame for flauting those standards when they are well aware that they were there. Police are not THE law, they don't make it, it isnt there job to provide their own interpretation of it. Police have a duty not to let society down by not playing by the rules which are clearly highlighted for them.

From you post it seems that the admission was ruled out on s 138 of the Evidence Act, in particular s 138(2)(a). It is hard to assess whether the ruling of the court was correct or not. We don't have the detailed facts.

You failed to include the remainder of what I actually said. That being, that whilst safeguards such as those pertaining to the admissibility of evidence are extremely important, this type of result throws an entirely new variable into the equation. Without the facts, one could assess it as being poor police work, due to the lack of physical and material evidence, or alternatively attribute it to the meticulous actions of the accused. However, without the facts and following this event, both are really irrelevant.

The particular sections of the evidence act that were used in the ruling are irrelevant, as there are a few under both the parts of the acts pertaining to admissions and discretion to exclude evidence based upon the weighing of probative value vs prejudice..

What this does highlight though, is the highly contentious nature of these applicable laws, and the fact that whilst the law should remain impartial, it is too favourable to the plights of criminals and lawyers, as oppose to the victims and police. The Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilties) Act 2002 (LEPRA) is the perfect example of the immense influence the left wing, legal minds have within the legislature; the likes of AG, Bob Debus.

The pendulum has swung to the extent that civil libertarians and the like have an easier time in protecting the 'supposed' rights of the individual in comparison to the ability of the police to protect society. I do agree that we need safeguards, as liberty is something to which we are all entitled, but when these safeguards exist as an impediment to effective policing and community safety then it must be debated and reviewed...

 

[wheredanton]

What this does highlight though, is the highly contentious nature of these applicable laws, and the fact that whilst the law should remain impartial, it is too favourable to the plights of criminals and lawyers, as oppose to the victims and police. The Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilties) Act 2002 (LEPRA) is the perfect example of the immense influence the left wing, legal minds have within the legislature; the likes of AG, Bob Debus.

You don't like the LEPR? It gives police officers a whole bunch of search and seizure powers that officers never had before? All of them I agree with.

 

[frog12986]

You don't like the LEPR? It gives police officers a whole bunch of search and seizure powers that officers never had before? All of them I agree with.

I am not totally opposed to it; it provides clear systematic guidelines in relation to powers, has implemented an increased number of powers and most importantly centralised the powers that officers have, which has increased the ability of prospective and current officers to learn and understand.

Now whilst the probative and prejudicial values will be weighed when deciding to exclude certain peices of evidence, more often than not, if a search or arrest is deemed to be unlawful, it does greatly reduce the likelihood of conviction. On the whole, I do believe it is a positive piece of legislation, I just think that it has in certain areas, such as WIPE procedures, placed legal requirements ahead of practicality. For instance, providing a warning that failure to follow directions following an arrest may be an offence, tends to be more of a loophole creation than a safeguard. Surely when an individual is being arrested, they would be aware that resisiting or otherwise may be an offence. On the most part, the law makes a presumption of knowledge on the individual, aside from 'reasonable and honest mistake' except in relation to police powers.. it just seems slightly contradictory.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

I am not totally opposed to it; it provides clear systematic guidelines in relation to powers, has implemented an increased number of powers and most importantly centralised the powers that officers have, which has increased the ability of prospective and current officers to learn and understand.

Now whilst the probative and prejudicial values will be weighed when deciding to exclude certain peices of evidence, more often than not, if a search or arrest is deemed to be unlawful, it does greatly reduce the likelihood of conviction. On the whole, I do believe it is a positive piece of legislation, I just think that it has in certain areas, such as WIPE procedures, placed legal requirements ahead of practicality. For instance, providing a warning that failure to follow directions following an arrest may be an offence, tends to be more of a loophole creation than a safeguard. Surely when an individual is being arrested, they would be aware that resisiting or otherwise may be an offence. On the most part, the law makes a presumption of knowledge on the individual except in relation to police powers.. it just seems slightly contradictory.

Actually, if you read the case law, improperly or illegally obtained evidence, more often than not, is admitted.

The court employs a variety of tests and considerations for coming to an appropriate balance, depending on the nature of the crime, the gravity of the breach of rules, the intention of Parliament, the cogency of the evidence, and whether the breach was intentional or reckless. The court has established very sound methods for determining its exercise of discretion under s 138.

 

[frog12986]

Actually, if you read the case law, improperly or illegally obtained evidence, more often than not, is admitted.

The court employs a variety of tests and considerations for coming to an appropriate balance, depending on the nature of the crime, the gravity of the breach of rules, the intention of Parliament, the cogency of the evidence, and whether the breach was intentional or reckless. The court has established very sound methods for determining its exercise of discretion under s 138.

Very true, thus its title as a 'discretion' on the part of the court. Mind you, if an arrest is deemed to be unlawfl, whether it be intentional or reckless, more often than not it does inhibit or reduce the likelihood of the use of subsequently obtained evidence. Obviously I don't have the legal background of yourself, however prospective officers are taught that such mistakes can be the difference between conviction and dismissal, which is often the case. Now whilst it may not be the entire 'legal reality' at least it is instilling a responsibilty in prospective officers of the utmost importance of acting within the boundaries of evidentiary requirements; the main case law that is analysed, are those concerning negative results or consequences.

 

[wheredanton]

For instance, providing a warning that failure to follow directions following an arrest may be an offence, tends to be more of a loophole creation than a safeguard. Surely when an individual is being arrested, they would be aware that resisiting or otherwise may be an offence. On the most part, the law makes a presumption of knowledge on the individual, aside from 'reasonable and honest mistake' except in relation to police powers.. it just seems slightly contradictory.

I don't think the courts would interpret that requirment so as to place an onerous burden on police officers. The legislation says that police can fulfill the obligations under s 201 after the event.

 

[what971]

Hey, does it occur to anyone else, that anytime news like this is posted, fucking left-wing law students invade the thread and post useless law jargon that noone else gives a shit about.

Thanks again for talking out of your ass law students, you've succesfully hijacked this thread again. It's good to know that the current crop of left-wing hippie fuckwits on the courts will be replaced by the same idiots posting here. No wonder Australia's legal system is fucked, and fails to protect the Australian people (and its children). Like Fucking Awesome, the cycle continues.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Hey, does it occur to anyone else, that anytime news like this is posted, fucking left-wing law students invade the thread and post useless law jargon that noone else gives a shit about.

1. For your information, the two "left-wing" law students you say are "invading" are two of the oldest members of this sub-forum.

2. No "useless law jargon" was posted.

3. The discussions on the current law of police investigative powers are on topic and worthy of discussion.

Thanks again for talking out of your ass law students, you've succesfully hijacked this thread again. It's good to know that the current crop of left-wing hippie fuckwits on the courts will be replaced by the same idiots posting here. No wonder Australia's legal system is fucked, and fails to protect the Australian people (and its children). Like Fucking Awesome, the cycle continues.

Another telegraph reader I see.

Perhaps it would do you good to take a basic course in civics before you start badmouthing a system you don't have the slightest comprehension of.

 

[wheredanton]

Hey, does it occur to anyone else, that anytime news like this is posted, fucking left-wing law students invade the thread and post useless law jargon that noone else gives a shit about.

Jargon? Most of it is plain English found in a dictionary. If there are any terms you would like explained use the dictionary or post your questions.

Thanks again for talking out of your ass law students, you've succesfully hijacked this thread again. It's good to know that the current crop of left-wing hippie fuckwits on the courts will be replaced by the same idiots posting here. No wonder Australia's legal system is fucked, and fails to protect the Australian people (and its children). Like Fucking Awesome, the cycle continues.

Simply because you think it's jargon and you can't understand it doesn't give you the rights to suggest that it's crap.

If I were to follow your logic police should be given unlimited discretion to arrest anyone on any grounds, they should then have the power to declare guilt at the time of arrest as well as declare and adminsiter any punishment they like within 5 mins of the arrest.

 

[Generator]

Hey, does it occur to anyone else, that anytime news like this is posted, fucking left-wing law students invade the thread and post useless law jargon that noone else gives a shit about.

Thanks again for talking out of your ass law students, you've succesfully hijacked this thread again. It's good to know that the current crop of left-wing hippie fuckwits on the courts will be replaced by the same idiots posting here. No wonder Australia's legal system is fucked, and fails to protect the Australian people (and its children). Like Fucking Awesome, the cycle continues.

Ah, does anyone else find it strange that a newcomer is berating a number of regulars (more so in the past than now, admittedly) for taking the time to debate an issue?

what971, what this forum needs is more of what preceded your post (i.e., a constructive debate). In the future, please don't post if you are going to ignore what this particular forum is meant to be about.

 

[Serius]

The most distressing part of this story for the police, and probably the judiciary, was that a sexual assault case in relation to another 8 year old female against the alleged offender, was dismissed due the inadmissibility of the admission made by this grub.

Detectives were alleged to have acted aggressively and subsequently 'impaired' the rational response by the accused; the basic laws against improperly obtained evidence. Obviously there must be safeguards relating to such issues, however when scenario's like this occur, it throws a whole new spanner into the works..

To be honnest i dont think it actually does throw a spanner into the works. Those safeguards are there for a reason and thats so that police dont abuse their powers or become overeager to get a confession[ and in the process stampede over a humans rights]

If anyone should be blamed for that stuffup it should be the investigators, they have been on the job for years, they know the rules and they shouldnt have let the emotionally charged case affect how they do their job, and because they did, they just made their case a whole lot weaker.

 

[wheredanton]

If anyone should be blamed for that stuffup it should be the investigators, they have been on the job for years, they know the rules and they shouldnt have let the emotionally charged case affect how they do their job, and because they did, they just made their case a whole lot weaker.

That's not exactly the response I was expecting from serius!

 

[frog12986]

I don't think the courts would interpret that requirment so as to place an onerous burden on police officers. The legislation says that police can fulfill the obligations under s 201 after the event.

True, or 'as soon as is reasonably practicable after exercising the power', however that really doesnt address as to why it is a necessity...Whilst the court may not place an onerous burden in relation to arrest, for other powers such as seach and seizure, move-on directions etc, it does hold a greater value..

 

[Optophobia]

Yes that’s right. Alleged criminals, when you arrest someone as a police officer it’s reasonable suspicion. Reasonable suspicion is not beyond reasonable doubt. Police officers are not the arbiter’s of guilt or innocence.

You're assuming that all arrests are made under Sub section (2). What about (1) (in the commision of the offence).

Some of us may be prosecuting and spending too much time explaining to the courts why police officers have decided to put in danger slam dunk prosecution cases by not following very simple procedure. There are lawyers arguing for you, you know. You are getting all this from moonlight and I because it's clear you don't know a second thing about your duties as a police officer and what you should do in order to ensure that your evidence doesn't get pinned by a smart defence lawyer who points out that your ignorance and bullheadedness created an admission that wasn't a real one.

I don't tknow a second thing about my duties as a police officer? Oh, please enlighten me.

That in fact the person didnt make a voluntary admission.

What on earth are you talking about? Did this man make an involuntary confession on the first charge of raping a girl?

Unless of course you think it is right for a police officer to put their words into the mouth of an accused person because the officer has decided right then and there that the person is guilty (because, you know, police officers are omniscient and see and know all. They probably know a person is guilty before they even do anything. Who cares about defence. If a police officer arrests someone they are guilty. Reasonable suspicion of an offence is enough for you to be found guilty of murder!).

Now you're hallucinating. We are talking about technicalities here, that are letting criminals off. Technicalities should not exist, not in favour of criminals any way.

I think the above statement illustrates that you don’t actually understand what the rule of law is.

I did a 1500 word essay (you would not consider this a big essay, but its enough to express what the rule of law is) on the rule of law as my first policing practice assignment, i think i know fairly well what the rule of law is.

Telling a person why they have been arrested has been a part of the Common law for a very long time. I'm pretty sure if you were detained and arrested by an officer you would believe it is within your rights to know why you were arrested. If a person (plainclothes) comes up to you and purports to grab you and detain you I think you would like to see some ID otherwise you might think you were being detained by a hitman ready to be thrown into the boot of a big black car.

I'm not denying this, but the fact that if i fail to do it, then that creates problems. It shouldn't, not in a way that advantages the criminal at least.

Civil Libertarianism within the judiciary has also been around for hundreds of years. The courts have been highly cautious to ensure that any state intrusion into a person's property or their personal freedom is clearly for a proper purpose and not merely based on a police whim or feeling.

"the mere say so of a police officer", yes, i know. Disgusting mistrust for the thin blue line.

You probably also think having to obtain a search before searching is disgusting.

a search warrant? yes, i do. This is based on two premises.. 1, i have nothing to hide in my house, so i would have no objection to the police searching. 2, the police would have no reason to search my property because they would have no suspicion of its existence let alone anything illegal being done on or in it.

Do you even have a basic understanding of your role within the Criminal Justice System? Police officers do not judge guilt or innocence.

Oh, but they do!

To remind you THERE IS A LONG WAY BETWEEN REASONABLE SUSPICON AND BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. Arrest of a person suspected of murder doesn't mean the person is a murderer. They have not been convicted. You know innocent until proven guilty? OR don't you believe in that concept, the one that has been around for hundreds of years?

Once again, i'm not saying that 'reasonable suspicion' is as high as 'Beyond a reasonable doubt', or even 'reasonable belief', i still don't see what relevance this has to anything that i've said on this thread.

I guess police should be allowed to take the law into their own hands and decide their own powers (and forget about the regulations put into place by a democratically elected legislature) and then determine whether the person they just arrested is guilty or not.

No, but when those safe guards are used to let someone who is clearly guilty of raping a girl off, then that is ridiculous.

The way some police seem to act indicates that when they arrest someone they are automatically guilty or should be guilty. Anyone who thinks like that clearly and very basically doesn't understand their role within the Criminal Justice System and belongs in another country which doesn’t have accountability or any respect for the rule of law - where police forces are littered with improper conduct and corruption.

Like Zanzibar!

Whether you like it or not if police officers are accountable for their actions and have to play by the rules before they can enforce them. I’m pretty sure you are not in favour of the NSW police retreating back into the days when the police were as criminal as the criminals which they were chasing. The days of police choosing not to obey regulations and laws in order to catch the ‘real’ criminals are long gone.

Instead we have a force which is disempowered and laughed at (re: redfern riots, standing there while bottles were being hurled at them). We have gone from one extreme to the other. We have gone from a corrupt force to a toothless tiger.

As much as you may disagree with it, its a fact that some criminals need a good thumping over the head with a chinese telephone number directory. You may revert back to saying "innocent until proven guilty", but even if they ARE proven guilty, they aren't subjected to a good thumping over the head with a telephone book.

The kind of ridiculousness i am talking about can be illustrated by this example: corporal punishment was abolished in prisons before it was abolished in schools. When things like this occur, it makes people question who's side the law is actually on.

 

[wheredanton]

True, or 'as soon as is reasonably practicable after exercising the power', however that really doesnt address as to why it is a necessity...Whilst the court may not place an onerous burden in relation to arrest, for other powers such as seach and seizure, move-on directions etc, it does hold a greater value..

Personally I don't think the court would interpret it to place an onerous burden on police officers when exercising search and seizure powers.

Oct: Especially after you comment on search warrants, you don't belong in any the current NSW police force. You belong in Roger Rogersons mid 1980s corrupt police force.

Instead we have a force which is disempowered and laughed at (re: redfern riots, standing their while bottles were being hurled at them). We have gone from one extreme to the other. We have gone from a corrupt force to a toothless tiger.

I don’t see how Redfern and the situation has anything to do with the laws surrounding admissibility of evidence or lawyers and other ‘left wing’ wankers such as I who actually know what the rule of law is.

Rather the current ‘left wing wankers’ in government today gave you a whole bunch of powers under the LEPR you never had before.

The inability to control the Redfern situation is not the fault of defence lawyers or those in the government who got serious about police corruption. The situation in Redfern has nothing to do with admissibility of evidence, its a police resources problem.

police officers do not judge guilt or innocence

Oh, but they do!

And they aren’t meant to. When was it the role of the police to judge guilt and innocent? Or maybe your 1500 essay didn’t extend to the separation of powers?

Once again, i'm not saying that 'reasonable suspicion' is as high as 'Beyond a reasonable doubt', or even 'reasonable belief', i still don't see what relevance this has to anything that i've said on this thread.

Guilt is when the person is proved to have committed the offence BRD. Up until that point the person is only suspected of committing the offence. Suspicion is not BRD. If a police officer has arrested the person under reasonable suspicion he or she is not guilty, yet, of being a murderer/rapist or whatever. If you start talking about murderers and rapists getting away when all that is happened is that they have been arrested only indicates you inability to grasp the ideas of proof as well as the many hundred year old notion of innocence until proven guilty.

No, but when those safe guards are used to let someone who is clearly guilty of raping a girl off, then that is ridiculous.

You see it’s not your job to consider that the person is clearly guilty. Not your job, not your concern.. It’s your job to arrest and investigate so as to give the prosecuting enough evidence to get reasonable suspicion to beyond reasonable doubt. When police officers start to believe that they have the resources and ability to start determining guilt in an ad hoc basis, before the person has got to court, is when officers over step the line and let issues which are not within their job description cloud their ability to properly perform their investigatory role.

In any case if the person is so utterly ‘clearly guilty’ there would be no need for a confession. The police should be able to give the prosecution enough evidence to convict the guy BRD.

What on earth are you talking about? Did this man make an involuntary confession on the first charge of raping a girl?

Frog said the admission was deemed inadmissible because of s 138(2)(a) of the Evidence Act. It's the section that the police officer cannot do an act or omission which he or she know or ought to reasonably have known would substantially impair the ability of the person to rationally respond to the questioning. The section goes to the voluntariness of the admission. All provisions have come about because of the historic unreliable nature of police officer evidence over the last 100 years or so.

In the past police officers have decided that someone is guilty and essentially beat the shit out of/ threatened/ made the person confess under duress. Essentially police had put themselves in the place of the judicial arm of the government and decided someone’s guilt.

The very fact that all confessions have to be taped and the existence of all these provisions dealing with the reliability of confessional evidence came about because, historically, police officers have a history of being loose with the truth and being poor witnesses. Simply the extent of police verballing and police corruption brought about all these changes. Police, in the past, have demonstrated that, yes, they couldn’t be trusted. To the extent that juries in the mid 80s were choosing to disregard police evidence of an admission because it was obvious that the police had been lazy and had verballed the guy rather than doing the hard yards with proper investigation.

These protections are simply a result of lazy police work in the 60s, 70s and 80s whereby all real investigation was forgone because the police would verbal the accused because they had taken it upon themselves to decide the guilt of the person before actually doing any investigation. All this became common knowledge in the late 80s. There was a massive public backlash against our jokingly corrupt police force and courts and juries started to knock back police evidence. Later on the legislature, following the massive embarrassment of the Royal Commission into Police Corruption, under the weigh of public pressure put in all those measures to prevent the NSW police force backsliding into the corrupt 1980s.

The kind of ridiculousness i am talking about can be illustrated by this example: corporal punishment was abolished in prisons before it was abolished in schools. When things like this occur, it makes people question who's side the law is actually on.

Corporal punishment has been banned in state schools for quite some time.

 

[Jess.F]

I hope that asshole, goes to jail and is painfully assraped everyday for the rest of his life!!!

 

[Optophobia]

And they aren’t meant to. When was it the role of the police to judge guilt and innocent? Or maybe your 1500 essay didn’t extend to the separation of powers?

It was on the rule of law, seperation of powers and the notion of responsible government.

 

[katie_tully]

I has just occured to me, well two things have....

Obviously nobody in the vicinity heard her scream, which leads me to two conclusions. He strangled her and then molested her, or he strangled her whilst molesting her. Maybe you emasculated ringworms can pull your penis's out of the mouse trap now and see that this piece of scum deserves to rot in the pits of hell for the rest of his life.

corporal punishment was abolished in prisons before it was abolished in schools. When things like this occur, it makes people question who's side the law is actually on.

Followed by....

Corporal punishment has been banned in state schools for quite some time.

I don't see the link. She said corporal punishment was abolished in jail before it was in schools. Depending on what you consider as 'a long time ago', they were still administering corporal punishment in schools, mainly Catholic private schools, well into the 1970s.

 

[katie_tully]

If you were an indignant mother who suffocated her baby you still have a right to be represented and have a lawyer argue a case for you. I cannot believe people believe those certain offenders are not allowed to have lawyers argue a defence. That suddenly if someone is put on trial based they should automatically be guilty and have no defence.

Why does this guy deserve defence? Because he had a lapse in concentration and therefore didn't realise he was murdering and taking away the innocence of an 8 year old girl at the same time? Or maybe he can plead insanity, do a few years in a psych ward until they decide he is no longer a threat to society. Then they can put him on the paedophile list, he can move back in to society and stare longingly at the children on the swings. All is peachy until this pond scum drags another 8 year old into the toilets and does the same thing.

You're confusing human rights. Human's deserve rights. Humans like the dead 8 year old girl. Pond scum isn't human. It doesn't deserve oxygen.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Obviously nobody in the vicinity heard her scream, which leads me to two conclusions. He strangled her and then molested her, or he strangled her whilst molesting her. Maybe you emasculated ringworms can pull your penis's out of the mouse trap now and see that this piece of scum deserves to rot in the pits of hell for the rest of his life.

Um, who ever said we didn't think he should be in gaol? Providing someone with legal representation and giving them a fair trial does not in any way mean approving of guilty people running free.

Why does this guy deserve defence?

The same reason you deserve a defence if you were charged with anything. You are innocent until proven guilty. Do you have some sort of a problem with that concept? Would you really like being thrown in gaol instantly by police for whatever sentece they deem reasonable on mere suspicion of guilt?

Because he had a lapse in concentration and therefore didn't realise he was murdering and taking away the innocence of an 8 year old girl at the same time? Or maybe he can plead insanity, do a few years in a psych ward until they decide he is no longer a threat to society. Then they can put him on the paedophile list, he can move back in to society and stare longingly at the children on the swings. All is peachy until this pond scum drags another 8 year old into the toilets and does the same thing.

Stereotypying again. The old "oh you can get them off on insanity!" is a myth. There are a few things you don't realise about the mental illness defence.

First of all it is very hard to prove. The test is whether at the time of the committing of the act, the accused was (1) labouring under such a defect of reason, from (2) disease of the mind, so as (3A) not to know the nature of the act he was doing, or if he did know it, that (3B) he did not know what he was doing was wrong. If any one of those factors is not met, they will not be successful.

Secondly, the consequences of a successful mental illness claim results in a person being put before the Medical Health Review Tribunal and they are subject to an indeterminate length of detention.

Thirdly, if someone truly is affected in such a way as the test prescribes above, then they are not morally to blame. Morality requires free will. If someone does something without knowing what they are doing, they do not willfully do that act. In legal terms, they lack the mens rea/intent to do the crime.




It is very sad that people equate a fair trial with approving of criminal behaviour. People seem to be confused by the fact that people are not proven guilty until they have a trial. There is nothing 'left-wing' about this. It is common sense for any criminal justice system to have to prove that someone is actually guilty before you convict them.

(Let's also not forget that actually holding someone in detention before trial, and the whole process of putting someone through trial, is already form of punishment in itself -- a punishment given without proving someone guilty. The law makes an allowance for this, because it is the fairest and most practicable way to actually determine guilt or innocence.)