Thanks Dan, That was a real eye-opener into what really happens. I never realised how much work goes into all that.
Printable View
Thanks Dan, That was a real eye-opener into what really happens. I never realised how much work goes into all that.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain
This of course is from the point of view of the police.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanP
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.
Yeah, I regularly pick up some innocent off the streets and charge them just for the fun of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by boban
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by boban
That is, until thrown out on some bullshyte technicality.Quote:
Originally Posted by boban
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by boban
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by boban
Dan
Went to court this morning, they weren't there - had already been and gone - whew! Got an excusal for the rest of the 2 weeks - Whew! Talked with a psychologist today, will follow up next week. Had a chance to catch up with some of the other jurors and am now feeling much better, i.e. a survivor not a victim.
Life will go on and I will be ok, eventually, sooner than later thanks to having talked with a professional and qualified counsellor/psych.
Thank you all for your support, greenies, stories, information and debates.
Oh, by the way, the vodka bottle is empty now :)
Cheers (hic)
Wendy
______________________________________
Strong people know when to get help. It's not a sign of wimpiness or weakness, but, I believe, IMHOP, one of strength. I have openly acknowledged that I needed help in hopes that others will obtain help if they ever need it.
Its not personal Dan. No doubt you've had complainants who have alterior motives.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanP
My point is that it would have to be a very very crappy case to have costs awarded.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanP
I dont quite think that the Evidence Act is such a technicality. There are good reasons for each section being enacted and generally stem from prior mistakes where innocent people have been convicted.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanP
Juries aren't that stupid in my experience.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanP
That said, the tongue in cheek comment about them all being guilty cant be right then can it.:DQuote:
Originally Posted by DanP
Dan I dont envy you and I certainly understand the frustrations you may feel. You remember how we first crossed paths.
We work on opposite sides of the fence, that is when I do the occasional criminal trial, and I am just airing the view from the other side.
DanP,
Gee, I thought there would be enough crooks up there to keep you busy without picking on the decent people.:D :D
You forgot to mention all the evidence that is with-held from the jury because of sleight of tongue from the liwyers; and the old "the jury don't need to hear those things, it might upset them" from the bench.
The poor old jury are treated like the proverbial mushrooms. They are only allowed to hear what those running the show want them to hear.
There is an old saying "Justice must be SEEN to be done." No mention of it having to be done. Just a lot of pomp & preening & strutting about by some overpaid egotists who think nothing of ruining the lives of decent people just to feather their own nest.
No wonder the general community have little or no faith in our legal system. And this hasn't touched on the victims being further victimised by the system as well as ridiculously lenient sentencing.
Over to you Danno.
I think I will now take my medication.
K.
The old saying is that "not only must justice be done, but must also be seen to be done". That is why the jury doesnt hear about the time the defendant was 19 and involved in a pub brawl when his wife accuses him of rape. Its just not relevant to the matter at hand. There is nothing mysterious or secretive about what is going on in court.Quote:
Originally Posted by Toggy
Nothing like a bit of lawyer bashing is there. Good therapy I say.
I still dont understand why they are paid more than your average process worker. Time for me to go and preen my ego.......
Boban,
Not anti lawyer; there are some who over the years I have classed as friends. Not "close" friends because of different career paths. These people were above reproach and I very highly respected their honesty and their dedication to their clients. I in turn was always totally honest in my dealings with them.
There are a few police who I have come in contact with on different occassions who I have mistrusted extremely; but luckily over the years they have been dealt with by the judicial system, and quite rightly so. They may (or may not) have been dealt with more severely than a run of the mill criminal; but they deserved it. They gave their word to uphold the law; not break it.
If you or anyone else were in a mind to prove to me (no balance of probabilities here) of their honesty & high morals they too would gain my respect. Funnily enough I was once publicly taken to task by one of your compatriots for having too high a morals. I never thought such a thing was possible.
Good and bad in every profession. No reasonable doubt there.
Its good to question our systems of justice and their participants. I dont try to offend anyone here intentionally and I think, for most others on this forum, the same applies.
As long as Im not attacked personally, I take no offence to any comments which for the most part are generalisations and misconceptions about my profession. Most of it I find amusing.
I guess this is just one of those topics that I feel I can contribute to, albeit tainted with my own personal bias.
boban you know that most of your clients are guilty like dan said they dont get to court unless they are, the evidence act doesnt come into it at court everyone knows that magistrates are a law unto them selves and they can do what they like without any serious reprucussions. Ive seen alot of cases where costs were awarded and no they werent crappy cases. The system is set up for the police to fail and every opportunity for the poor defendant, in fairness to the defendant, how many times have I heard that. I too have met some great solicitors but the dribble that comes out of there mouth about their poor client is sickening, too many of these innocent people should stand up and take account for there actions.
solidarity reg(sorry dan)
I had a conversation with a duty solicitor (legal aid) one lunchtime in Melb Magistrates Court and he was telling me the most difficult aspect of his job was to put forward a glowing appraisal of his newfound client that is as original as the one he did 20 minutes earlier, and knowing that in another 20 minutes he will have to do another one.
That would have to be a challenge.
Is there a little book of repertoire that is used?;)
The lawyers and the cops will always be adversaries.
But thats not the problem.
When the bums are convicted and go off to jail they usually get out before they have served the full time bequeathed to them.
yeah there is, my client has had a troubled past and he's been a good boy for the last 15 minutes, he has a wife and kids and he's trying to get back on track, because most magistrates are now from a defence background its accepted, as can be seen in the media about lax sentencing.
He got 8 years jail, 10 years probation or was that a good behaviour bond, or was the 10 years how long he had to stay away from the man, girlfriend and her children for.
Now to close it and leave it.......
W
Probably the wisest words that could be said!Quote:
Originally Posted by rufflyrustic
Exactly, its not your fault he did what he did, in fact, its his fault you had to go through this. You took your responsibility seriously, to your credit, but its over for you now. rest assured that if someone else was sitting in your seat the outcome would still have been the same. he will probably do about 2 years of his 8 year sentence, the victims will still be suffering when he is released. just make sure you arent!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by rufflyrustic
At least you got to find out what happened to him. I did three cases and NOT ONCE did we find out what the sentence was.Quote:
Originally Posted by rufflyrustic
Jurours - treated like #### and irrelevant to the 'real' game.
Richard
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daddles
In the case I sat on we were given a special phone number and the ref. no to ring to find out the sentence given.
Whilst I didn't like being on a jury I found that we were very well treated by the court staff and Judge and we were made to feel a very real and important part of the process. In my case I must agree with Danp and his comments about the accused being guilty.
The case came to the County Court after a Coroners hearing and a Committal hearing. The evidence was overwelming, not only the photographic evidence taken at the scene of the accident, the expert evidence, our own inspection of the site and the taped record of interview where the accusaed admitted guilt. Yet the accused pleaded not guilty, making us sit through 6 days of hearing evidence.
The only sad thing is that we couldn't set the lenght of sentence as I feel the Judge was too lenient.
Wendy, now that it is over forget about it, no good dwelling on it anymore.
Peter.
I popped in late on this one.
Wendy you can feel proud that you did everything that could be expected of you to perfection. Others played their part and in that you had no control. You should only feel pride about this that you did what was asked of you.
Something I can't help feeling about the justice system is that those accused get legal aid and a proper lawyer representing them. The victim doesn't get anyone to argue for them. There is a prosecuting officer, who is frequently a policeman without a tertiary degree and his/her job isn't to argue for the victim, it is to argue for the law and see that charges are brought against the accused.
It should be no surprise then that the system lets down victims of crime.
Possibly the most serious issue with the courts is that judges have no real world experience. They know law and arguements and consider offence to the law as the most greivious thing. This is why they can toss things out on technicalities.
Boban I am sure you have heard the law is an ass. *G* Two cases spring to mind. One is the Ausmac case where an individual tried to sue the big banks for a couple of billion. The case spent 18 months in court before being tossed out on a technicality that the individual could not pay NAB their costs if he lost. This was before the court had even heard what the complaint was. The bank did the usual bank thing of just running the case so long that the other side ran out of money. 18 months and they could not even hear what the complaint was one side against the other.
The other one which would be a scream if it wasn't real is that a driver in WA was accused for driving over a man who was sleeping in the middle of the road wrapped in a black blanket whilst his drunk friend was wandering around on the side of the road. The High Court decided that the driver was 30% responsible. Obviously never driven a car! I know in that situation out bush on a dark road I'd be watching the drunk and to avoid the sleeping man would be very unlikely. The High Court in it's wisdom found against the driver after the various lower courts had all found for the the driver. What makes me wonder is how did the sleeping man manage to get it before the high court?
Anyway enough bleating.
Studley
No system is perfect and the cases you hear about are certainly in the minority. The system works on a daily basis with thousands of cases being dealt with. You hear nothing of those cases.
Yes there are ones that go pear shaped but for the most part we have a very good system of law. It is expensive, but that is not unique to this country.
As to the cases you mention, it is difficult to comment on cases where you only have snippets of information. The reasoning process is usually revealed in the judgments that most people, especially shock jocks dont want to read.
To get to the High Court, you usually need a unique matter of law to be determined or a constitutional argument. Thereafter all the courts down below must follow the principles of the decision determined by the High Court.
As to your comments about Judges, they come in all flavours.
Agree fully Boban, but poo flavour seems to be a bit more prevalent these days.:eek: :DQuote:
Originally Posted by boban
Dan
Thanks all for the support.
A day of sawdust, sanding and shellac has been very soothing. Another one is due, if only the weather would agree:rolleyes:
A couple of points coming from yesterday's posts. I needed to hear the sentence to get that additional piece of closure.
I don't think the Crown Prosecutor was a learned policeman in this instance.
I've never been able to make a general comment and have it apply 100% to everything, everyone and every situation. There are always exceptions and qualifications needed, to be fair.
If it was one of mine as the accused, I'd want the jurors to do what I did. What goes around can come around, but hopefully not in this particular instance.
W
___
is the sun shining yet?:)
All flavours, mate of mine years ago got done for speeding on Nepean Hwy, mid week at 3.ooam, in court and some meathead on before him got a good behaviour bond for robbery, he got a $300 fine, he was reallllllllllly peed off, that was a weeks pay back then.
I suppose Boban my main grief with the law is that it should make sense to normal people. Housewifes and Tradesmen because by and large they are the ones under it's rule. You are right about shock jocks who just like it all cut and dried black and white when of course the world never is. The man who ran over the sleeping man case was criticised in the editorial of the Australian. That's where I got that from. The Ausmac case was running for some time and was reported in the business pages. So it is my own shock that they didn't even get to say what their case was. It was legal tactics and trickery on the part of the bank so that the case was never heard. They were paying a lot of very expensive lawyers who must have decided that was the best way to do things. Mind you Michael West said right at the beginning that was what was going to happen because they do it every time.Quote:
Originally Posted by boban
The trouble with the law is that it is reservered for the very rich or the very poor. The rest of us miss out on it pretty much.
Studley
I'm a bit confused about the comment that the victim doesn't have anyone argueing for them.
Doesn't the victim press charges, then the prosecution introducing the evidence is in fact arguing the victim's case?
The evidence is presented by both sides I guess, and then the defence and prosecuting officials try to poo on the other sides evidence.
Or does the original comment come from a "victim's rights", "victim impact" or ownership pespective?
The case last week was a criminal one, which means the police brought the charges against the accused, not the victims. The Crown Prosecutor presented evidence to try to show the accused did it. The Defence let the accused be his own witness - isn't this very unusual?. The Defence did what he is supposed to i.e. introduce doubt.
Is it a civil case when the victim decides to press charges?
W
A civil case is where two parties (either individuals or companies) commence proceedings that have nothing to do with the criminal law. The most common examples are breaches of contract (sale agreements, leases, service agreements) and tortious liability (trespass, negligence, damage to property).
99% of Criminal cases involve the police/DPP who usually charge the defendants/accused person and run the hearing/trial. A private individual can commence criminal proceedings but its not the most intelligent thing to do.
If a victim decides to sue, it is usually a civil case where the victim is seeking damages for any injury they suffered as a result of the criminal or negligence act of another.
I love it when a defendant decides to make an in person plea of not guilty (They defend themselves). Makes for a very amusing hearing usually.
Another one is when the crook asks who is charging them. Answer, the police. Yeah but who's laying the charge - the police.
Victims make complaints. It's the police who charge people where enough evidence exists to suggest that the person has a case to answer.
Dan