I agree with you Dorian. However, i don't form views on what has been reported by some reporter whose main aim is to sensationalise and not report accurately.
I know at certain times I have been surprised by the leniency and sometimes the excessiveness in some sentences but having experience in this area I know that there is a reason for it.
The prosecution is staffed by very experienced counsel and they will appeal sentences that are manifestly inadequate. It is not uncommon where someone has died as a result of someone else's negligence, that the person responsible does not receive an actual term of imprisonment. Some of these are motor vehicle accidents, others are deaths in the workplace. The fact that a person is a serving or former serving officer does not attract leniency, more so the opposite. Matters that would usually be raised in mitigation on behalf of civilians are certainly not used if the defendant is a former or current member of the constabulary.
The judiciary and the prosecution are not fools. At sentencing they are armed with past cases and sentences and good luck trying to convince them of not following precedent.
I accept they are human and mistakes are made. That is why there are Courts of Appeal and indeed the High Court. It is not perfect but it is the best system that we have.
Imagine life is people were tried by the media and sentenced by their listeners, viewers and readers.
Magnarc said
12:28 PM Dec 3, 2024
There is one law for the rich and famous, and one for the Hoi poiloi. Has been from time immemorial.
If you ain't got heaps of dough then you are in deep do-do unless you can find a lawyer who needs to take on a case Pro Bono to improve his standing in the community.
(Good luck with that!!)
Plenty there for you to chew on DMaxer.
DMaxer said
01:02 PM Dec 3, 2024
No, there is nothing there at all. Think whatever you like, doesn't worry me.
I think you just like being contrary to combat your boredom.
-- Edited by DMaxer on Tuesday 3rd of December 2024 01:09:12 PM
-- Edited by DMaxer on Tuesday 3rd of December 2024 01:11:30 PM
the new adult crime, adult time ,at this point looks a little open to interpitation
X2
blackstump said
10:15 AM Dec 5, 2024
smwhiskey wrote:
Plain Truth wrote:
If he was carrying out his duties according to the Police rule book.
Why was he sacked ?
Because he's now a convicted criminal.
And as such MAYBE he should have to repay all the wages he has been paid since the incident, proceeds of crime ??? maybe .
DMaxer said
01:08 PM Dec 5, 2024
Because up until the jury finds him guilty there is a presumption of innocence.
Proceeds of crime? He didnt make any money out of activating his taser.
Strewth.
boab said
03:16 PM Dec 5, 2024
DMaxer your wasting your time trying to educate some people here,you obviously know more about how the law works than most here, i see on the news this morning the woman from Perth who was caught taking drugs into Japan has got a 6 year holiday in Japan. In my opinion she has gotton off pretty lightly but others are saying she was scamed so should be let off. I guess if you want to know how our legal system works speak to a lawer same as if you want to know how to drill and blast a face out in an underground mine speak to me, not a lawer,it seems there are lots of experts with something to say that know very little.
blackstump said
03:19 PM Dec 5, 2024
Well, he did get a VERY long holiday on full pay. Sprout all the legal jargon you want, fact remains the whole thing doesn't pass the pub test, and that's all the average punter sees.
DMaxer said
03:26 PM Dec 5, 2024
What you are saying if the police charge anyone with a serious offence they should immediately be suspended from their employment with no pay.
If that passes a pub test then the pub must be full of retards.
rgren2 said
03:36 PM Dec 5, 2024
DMaxer wrote:
What you are saying if the police charge anyone with a serious offence they should immediately be suspended from their employment with no pay.
If that passes a pub test then the pub must be full of retards.
@DMaxer, when you are giving us your view on cases such as this, perhaps it would be better if you were to forget that you are a lawyer and remember that first and foremost you are a human being like the victims. My outrage stems from the fact that these injustices could just as easily have happened to me.
Aussie1 said
04:28 PM Dec 5, 2024
boab wrote:
DMaxer your wasting your time trying to educate some people here,you obviously know more about how the law works than most here, i see on the news this morning the woman from Perth who was caught taking drugs into Japan has got a 6 year holiday in Japan. In my opinion she has gotton off pretty lightly but others are saying she was scamed so should be let off. I guess if you want to know how our legal system works speak to a lawer same as if you want to know how to drill and blast a face out in an underground mine speak to me, not a lawer,it seems there are lots of experts with something to say that know very little.
Fear not, the PM is probably already on the job arranging a transfer back to OZ along with the Bali ones
dogbox said
05:41 PM Dec 5, 2024
DMaxer wrote:
What you are saying if the police charge anyone with a serious offence they should immediately be suspended from their employment with no pay.
If that passes a pub test then the pub must be full of retards.
i would hope that some consideration would be given as to how the serious charges relate to the type of employment
DMaxer said
08:12 PM Dec 5, 2024
The whole fabric of justice in the western world is built on the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof resting on the prosecution. That has been the case since Magna Carta 800 years ago.
He was stood down and received his wages until the jury decision. Are you suggesting that once police charge someone that person has the burden of proving themselves innocent, that is, reversing the presumption and burden of proof. What pub did the test take place in, The Magnarc Arms?
Magnarc said
08:34 AM Dec 6, 2024
DMaxer wrote:
The whole fabric of justice in the western world is built on the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof resting on the prosecution. That has been the case since Magna Carta 800 years ago. He was stood down and received his wages until the jury decision. Are you suggesting that once police charge someone that person has the burden of proving themselves innocent, that is, reversing the presumption and burden of proof. What pub did the test take place in, The Magnarc Arms?
Very droll DMaxer. My post must have hit a nerve. Maybe it was a bit near the bone? As for the presumption of innocence how do you apply that to this situation when several people were in the room at the time?. Oh I get it, Sergeant Schultz syndrome.
This man made a wrong decision and it has cost him dearly and I have some sympathy for him having, like many others on here, made wrong decisions in my life but, fortunately for me, not with the same result. I bow to your knowledge of the law but hard and fast adhering to it surely does not preclude common sense.
I put it to you DMaxer, that, in this case the right conclusion was reached. The prosecution rests M"Lud.
I agree with you Dorian. However, i don't form views on what has been reported by some reporter whose main aim is to sensationalise and not report accurately.
I know at certain times I have been surprised by the leniency and sometimes the excessiveness in some sentences but having experience in this area I know that there is a reason for it.
The prosecution is staffed by very experienced counsel and they will appeal sentences that are manifestly inadequate. It is not uncommon where someone has died as a result of someone else's negligence, that the person responsible does not receive an actual term of imprisonment. Some of these are motor vehicle accidents, others are deaths in the workplace. The fact that a person is a serving or former serving officer does not attract leniency, more so the opposite. Matters that would usually be raised in mitigation on behalf of civilians are certainly not used if the defendant is a former or current member of the constabulary.
The judiciary and the prosecution are not fools. At sentencing they are armed with past cases and sentences and good luck trying to convince them of not following precedent.
I accept they are human and mistakes are made. That is why there are Courts of Appeal and indeed the High Court. It is not perfect but it is the best system that we have.
Imagine life is people were tried by the media and sentenced by their listeners, viewers and readers.
There is one law for the rich and famous, and one for the Hoi poiloi. Has been from time immemorial.
If you ain't got heaps of dough then you are in deep do-do unless you can find a lawyer who needs to take on a case Pro Bono to improve his standing in the community.
(Good luck with that!!)
Plenty there for you to chew on DMaxer.
No, there is nothing there at all. Think whatever you like, doesn't worry me.
I think you just like being contrary to combat your boredom.
-- Edited by DMaxer on Tuesday 3rd of December 2024 01:09:12 PM
-- Edited by DMaxer on Tuesday 3rd of December 2024 01:11:30 PM
www.9news.com.au/national/police-commissioner-sacks-nsw-taser-cop-kristian-white/2df3dd00-2daf-490a-9e60-2bcd6c719915
If he was carrying out his duties according to the Police rule book.
Why was he sacked ?
9now.nine.com.au/a-current-affair/emma-lovell-husbands-grief-as-teen-walks-free-over-wifes-home-invasion-death/de646b62-f528-466d-b19c-ffcbad24248e
Because he's now a convicted criminal.
Cheers,
Peter
the new adult crime, adult time ,at this point looks a little open to interpitation
X2
And as such MAYBE he should have to repay all the wages he has been paid since the incident, proceeds of crime ??? maybe .
What you are saying if the police charge anyone with a serious offence they should immediately be suspended from their employment with no pay.
If that passes a pub test then the pub must be full of retards.
;)
Fear not, the PM is probably already on the job arranging a transfer back to OZ along with the Bali ones
i would hope that some consideration would be given as to how the serious charges relate to the type of employment
Very droll DMaxer. My post must have hit a nerve. Maybe it was a bit near the bone? As for the presumption of innocence how do you apply that to this situation when several people were in the room at the time?. Oh I get it, Sergeant Schultz syndrome.
This man made a wrong decision and it has cost him dearly and I have some sympathy for him having, like many others on here, made wrong decisions in my life but, fortunately for me, not with the same result. I bow to your knowledge of the law but hard and fast adhering to it surely does not preclude common sense.
I put it to you DMaxer, that, in this case the right conclusion was reached. The prosecution rests M"Lud.
Bugger, I must stop viewing old Rumpole tapes.