Jury Service.....

[ptc]

Wendy.
Start thinking about your next project.
May be a B/S box ?

[RufflyRustic]

Geez PTC

that's a bit eery

My girlfriend was thinking about me this morning and I then rang her. Then I was thinking about making b.s.b in the shape of a heart for her and then I read that you were posting this at the same time ... :eek:

Am still very shaky, but it's nearly sawdust time, that will help a lot.

Dan, I'm very interested in hearing how you get them to court, but not just yet.

Thanks
Wendy

[DanP]

In the van.

Dan

[ozwinner]

Dan uses the yellow pages.

Al

[Toggy]

DanP & Iain,

don't be too sure about the callup business. I retired somewhere around 93/4 and the twits have regularly tried to call me up. I think that they may have changed the rules so that you can be called up after leaving the services for 10 years. I also used to be outside the distance; but they have also widened the dragnet.

Shedhand, maybe you should check out just how hard it is to present a guilty person for trial; let alone an innocent person. One minor point of evidence missing and no trial. You would maybe like to really find out the truth about a crime then spend some time at the trial listening to the defen.... or is that the amateur and professional story tellers. I will leave it there so I don't get into trouble.

There are a couple of old sayings.... Never let the truth get in the way of a good story and.. Pentridge is full of innocent people; you just ask them and they will tell you they are innocent.

Gee it's nice to get a new puter that works.



Toggy

[Iain]

Pentridge is full of innocent people

It is now, very trendy too I believe

[Sturdee]

DanP & Iain,

don't be too sure about the callup business. I retired somewhere around 93/4 and the twits have regularly tried to call me up. I think that they may have changed the rules so that you can be called up after leaving the services for 10 years. I also used to be outside the distance; but they have also widened the dragnet.


Toggy

Toggy ,

The current rules, as per my last jury call up papers, says that you are ineligible to serve as a juror if you are or, in the last ten years, have been a member of the police force, etc, etc.

Hence every one in previously exempted employment, once they have been retired for 10 years, are eligible for call up. But no doubt you would be challenged because of your previous occupation.


Peter.

[DanP]

Shedhand, maybe you should check out just how hard it is to present a guilty person for trial; let alone an innocent person. One minor point of evidence missing and no trial.

This is where I was going, however, I'll elaborate further.

1. Copper catches crook. Whether that is from his own observation or from eyewitness accounts.

2. Copper processes crook. This is the interview and if there is enough evidence, charge and bail. Or if there is the slightest doubt, the crook has offered a legal defence, alibi etc. then you release them pending a summons.

3. Do the brief. This includes statements from all relevant witnesses, including some that are not so relevant. Usually ends up being equivalent to the size of war and peace, even for minor matters.

4. Submit the brief to a sub officer for checking and authorisation. The sub officer checks the brief for evidence and that there is sufficient proof to prove the charge in court. Keeping in mind that if the matter goes to court with insufficient evidence, the informant may have costs awarded against the department and sometimes, himself. Therefore, even those who have plenty of evidence sometimes don't get authorised.

5. If the sgt thinks there is more to do, he sends the brief back and you have to do some more work. Then it is re-submitted and checked again. The brief can sometimes come back to the member two or three times in complicated matters.

6. Once the brief is authorised, in the case of a bail brief, it gets sent to the prosecutors. In the case of a summons matter, back to the informant to issue process. The informant chooses a court date, gets the summons signed by a court registrar, then has to serve the papers on the crook.


The point is, there is a rigorous checking process and at my level, there is no brief that gets past the sgt where there is not AMPLE evidence to prove the matter. Therefore, even though it was said tongue in cheek, it is true, they are all guilty.

This however may not be the case at the crime squads. They seem to operate more on the basis of the likelihood of a conviction. If it is likely, they will proceed to court. The difference being that they deal with a whole different level of crime and it sometimes is not in the interest of the community for the police to make the decision whether the crook goes to court or not. That's what the jury is for. (enter RR)

I hope that this gives the doubters some idea of what happens in getting a crook to court. No one gets to court where there is doubt.

Dan

[AlexS]

Sat on a jury once trying a bloke who had knocked off a car and robbed a building society. After hearing the police officers give evidence we had no doubt he was guilty, but the prosecuting lawyer overdid it with other witnesses and by the time he'd finished we were almost convinced he was innocent (or at least, not satisfied he was guilty). Then the accused's lawyer did such a botch of a job we were convinced again that he was guilty. At the death knock, he pleaded guilty and saved us the trouble.

At least I know two lawyers I'll avoid if ever I run foul of the law.

[RufflyRustic]

Dan, thank you for this, from the bottom of my heart.

RR

[Wood Butcher]

Thanks Dan, That was a real eye-opener into what really happens. I never realised how much work goes into all that.

[Iain]

And expert evidence is just as good, I provided a report to the court/prosecution, get called in, sworn in, outline my qualifications (which by now should be on record) and allowed to leave after this is accepted, process can take days before they get to you but you still have to be present awaiting your ten seconds of glory in the box.

[boban]

And expert evidence is just as good, I provided a report to the court/prosecution, get called in, sworn in, outline my qualifications (which by now should be on record) and allowed to leave after this is accepted, process can take days before they get to you but you still have to be present awaiting your ten seconds of glory in the box.

Unless of course you give a certificate pursuant to section 177 of the Evidence Act and you are not required for cross examination.

[boban]

This is where I was going, however, I'll elaborate further.

1. Copper catches crook. Whether that is from his own observation or from eyewitness accounts.

4. Keeping in mind that if the matter goes to court with insufficient evidence, the informant may have costs awarded against the department and sometimes, himself. Therefore, even those who have plenty of evidence sometimes don't get authorised.

The point is, there is a rigorous checking process and at my level, there is no brief that gets past the sgt where there is not AMPLE evidence to prove the matter. Therefore, even though it was said tongue in cheek, it is true, they are all guilty.

I hope that this gives the doubters some idea of what happens in getting a crook to court. No one gets to court where there is doubt.

Dan

This of course is from the point of view of the police.

1. How many witnesses, including police, dont tell the truth.

4. In NSW, orders for costs being awarded to criminal defendants are rare to say the least.

AMPLE evidence, that is until it is tested in cross examination.

That no one gets to court where there is a doubt is a brave statement given that people are regularly acquitted because of reasonable doubts.

Dan I reckon that the proportion of guilty defendants/accused persons is more like 90%. Most of them plead guilty.

[DanP]

This of course is from the point of view of the police.

1. How many witnesses, including police, dont tell the truth.

Yeah, I regularly pick up some innocent off the streets and charge them just for the fun of it.

4. In NSW, orders for costs being awarded to criminal defendants are rare to say the least.

Precisely what I was saying. Most matters that costs may end up being awarded don't get to court. Remember that you only act for those who are going to court.

AMPLE evidence, that is until it is tested in cross examination.

That is, until thrown out on some bullshyte technicality.

That no one gets to court where there is a doubt is a brave statement given that people are regularly acquitted because of reasonable doubts.

That doesn't necessarily mean there isn't ample evidence. It just means that the defence have done their job and introduced enough confusion to put the matter in doubt.

Dan I reckon that the proportion of guilty defendants/accused persons is more like 90%. Most of them plead guilty.

As I said, in the higher courts they are more likely to give a matter a run because of media and community pressure to do so.

Dan