Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 
Send Topic Print
Justice. (Read 1189 times)
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 37678
Gender: male
Justice.
Aug 29th, 2016 at 4:28pm
 
Remember the furore in Queensland about greyhoud racing and that footage we saw on TV.  Well the prosecution of the alleged offender has fallen over because evidence was obtained illegally.

What say ye?  Law or Justice (and for whom) or both.

Quote:
Judge throws out cruelty case after finding video footage inadmissable
Exclusive, The Courier-Mail
August 29, 2016 12:00am
Subscriber only

ANIMAL cruelty prosecutions have been thrown into chaos after a judge ruled video footage of live baiting was inadmissable and threw out a charge against a greyhound trainer.

The District Court at Ipswich was told in a pre-trial hearing on Friday that animal rights activists obtained the video illegally after trespassing on private property to secretly install the cameras.

Judge Greg Koppenol accepted that the recordings should not be used.

Trainer Ian Hoggan, 64, was due to face trial today on one count of animal cruelty but instead walked free after the decision.
A screen grab from Four Corners’ expose of live baiting in the greyhound industry.

Queensland Attorney-General Yvette D’Ath has been informed and will have to decide whether to ask the Court of Appeal to provide a definitive ruling on the issue, The Courier-Mail has been told.

Animal Liberation Queensland activists installed the hidden cameras on a training track at Churchable, west of Ipswich, and surrounding bushland and made repeated trips to collect the footage.

The recordings caused a national furore when aired on the ABC’s Four Corners.

Mr Hoggan’s lawyer, Sam Di Carlo, prepared 18 pages of submissions for why the charge should be dismissed.
Lawyer Sam Di Carlo prepared 18 pages of submissions for why the charge should be dismissed.
The inadmissable footage was shot at greyhound trainer Tom Noble’s track.

“These people trespassed, the police didn’t charge them with trespassing. So other people will be able to say ‘we’ll just go on other people’s property when we see a crime’,” Mr Di Carlo said.

He also argued that a warrant to search Mr Hoggan’s property was unlawful because it was the result of him initially being incorrectly identified in video footage.

Mr Di Carlo also told the court interviews were inadmissable.

“There was an offer to my client to make admissions on the basis of an indemnity,” he said.

Prosecutors unsuccessfully sought an adjournment to ask the Court of Appeal for a ruling on whether the video could be used.

Friday’s decision came as a surprise because District Court Judge Alexander Horneman-Wren ruled in July that the recordings were admissible in the public interest. In that case, greyhound trainer Reg Kay asked the court to throw out the footage.

Judge Horneman-Wren’s earlier ruling had paved the way for police to charge more people with animal cruelty offences.

Mr Hoggan has been suspended from involvement in greyhound racing pending the result of the criminal charge.
A live piglet is used to bait greyhounds in footage screened on Four Corners.

“I’ve been 16 months on the sidelines of an industry I’ve been involved in for 50 years,” he said yesterday.

The latest ruling came at a pivotal time, with live-baiting “kingpin” Tom Noble due to be sentenced tomorrow on animal cruelty offences. Noble’s track was used for live baiting by an array of Queensland trainers and it was there that the footage was captured.

The greyhound racing community is rejoicing over the decision, taking to social media to celebrate the court win.

“Yesterday Ian had his day in court and after what I understand was a brilliant performance by his barrister, the judge ruled that Ian had no case to answer. A result for the goodies,’’ wrote industry insider Garry Carson.


(It is a Courier Mail story so I have not tried to put up a link as it probably will be paywalled now.)
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
BigOl64
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 14438
Townsville QLD
Gender: male
Re: Justice.
Reply #1 - Aug 29th, 2016 at 5:08pm
 
Aussie wrote on Aug 29th, 2016 at 4:28pm:
Remember the furore in Queensland about greyhoud racing and that footage we saw on TV.  Well the prosecution of the alleged offender has fallen over because evidence was obtained illegally.

What say ye?  Law or Justice (and for whom) or both.




The law says he walks free, justice would have ensured he faced prosecution for being a cruel bastard.


We have the law, because that is all we deserve.


Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Valkie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16088
Central Coast
Gender: male
Re: Justice.
Reply #2 - Aug 29th, 2016 at 5:29pm
 
Justice can never be found in a court of law.

Law is there to control the people and generate income for governments and the legal fraternity.
Justice is never served.

Judges dont want to stop crime.
Lawyers dont want to stop crime.
Govco dont want to stop crime.

Imagine if somehow, all crime was stopped.
Some method to prevent people from committing crime.
If the punishment was sufficient to make criminals think twice knowing that they would always be caught and that the punishment would be swift and severe.

Who would suffer the most?
Judges......Out of work.
Lawyers.....Out of work
Govco.......Loss of revenue

Who would win

Everyone else.

For this simple reason, judges will not punish criminals enough to prevent crime.
One could even say the that punishment is so small so as to actually encourage crime.

Or it could be that the judges are just plain stoopid, take bribes or are afraid of criminals.
Back to top
 

I HAVE A DREAM
A WONDERFUL, PEACEFUL, BEAUTIFUL DREAM.
A DREAM OF A WORLD THAT HAS NEVER KNOWN ISLAM
A DREAM OF A WORLD FREE FROM THE HORRORS OF ISLAM.

SUCH A WONDERFUL DREAM
O HOW I WISH IT WERE TRU
 
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 37678
Gender: male
Re: Justice.
Reply #3 - Aug 29th, 2016 at 5:36pm
 
BigOl64 wrote on Aug 29th, 2016 at 5:08pm:
Aussie wrote on Aug 29th, 2016 at 4:28pm:
Remember the furore in Queensland about greyhoud racing and that footage we saw on TV.  Well the prosecution of the alleged offender has fallen over because evidence was obtained illegally.

What say ye?  Law or Justice (and for whom) or both.




The law says he walks free, justice would have ensured he faced prosecution for being a cruel bastard.


We have the law, because that is all we deserve.





And what about Justice for the person whose privacy was invaded, his property repeatedly trespassed and film taken from inside his property without his consent.  (You'd be happy, would you that I broke into your house, set up some sneaky cameras including in your bedroom, and then published the images of you and your Mrs doing whatever you do in the privacy of your Castle?)

Ya see, that's where the Law has to balance up competing interests.....convicting an offender, and protecting fundamental common law human civil rights.

We do not have Big Brother yet.  Resistance probably is futile, but it is good to see the battle is still being fought and won, at least in that Ipswich District Court.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
thehermit
Full Member
***
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 209
Gold Coast, Australia
Gender: male
Re: Justice.
Reply #4 - Aug 29th, 2016 at 5:36pm
 
justice in Australia went out the window a long time ago, when
courts/governments decided it was better to attempt to rehabilitate the crims rather than punish them...and cheaper...
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
BigOl64
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 14438
Townsville QLD
Gender: male
Re: Justice.
Reply #5 - Aug 30th, 2016 at 8:12am
 
Aussie wrote on Aug 29th, 2016 at 5:36pm:
BigOl64 wrote on Aug 29th, 2016 at 5:08pm:
Aussie wrote on Aug 29th, 2016 at 4:28pm:
Remember the furore in Queensland about greyhoud racing and that footage we saw on TV.  Well the prosecution of the alleged offender has fallen over because evidence was obtained illegally.

What say ye?  Law or Justice (and for whom) or both.




The law says he walks free, justice would have ensured he faced prosecution for being a cruel bastard.


We have the law, because that is all we deserve.





And what about Justice for the person whose privacy was invaded, his property repeatedly trespassed and film taken from inside his property without his consent.  (You'd be happy, would you that I broke into your house, set up some sneaky cameras including in your bedroom, and then published the images of you and your Mrs doing whatever you do in the privacy of your Castle?)

Ya see, that's where the Law has to balance up competing interests.....convicting an offender, and protecting fundamental common law human civil rights.

We do not have Big Brother yet.  Resistance probably is futile, but it is good to see the battle is still being fought and won, at least in that Ipswich District Court.



If we were ripping apart small animals for our enjoyment, then we would need to be prosecuted.

As you should know, seem to not. There is a big difference between invading privacy of persons doing NOTHING illegal and the incorrect gathering of evidence for a scumbag criminal.

So the competing interest of the criminal has won out as it always does under the law.

Not justice is it?


As for big brother the lawyers have long let the leaky ship sail.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
mantra
Gold Member
*****
Offline


ozpolitic.com

Posts: 10750
Gender: female
Re: Justice.
Reply #6 - Aug 30th, 2016 at 8:35am
 
What a farce. The RSPCA goes into people's backyards without their permission on reports of cruelty, seizes the animal and charges them when necessary. Obviously private citizens report these incidents - so what's the difference in filming it even if it was on private property. The same could be said for any photographic evidence on cruelty to animals, regardless of where it was filmed.

I don't think even the legal profession fully understand the law. It's open to individual perceptions and precedents. In this case the Judge was swayed by a barrister's rhetoric. Perhaps graft played a part in this judgment.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
BigOl64
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 14438
Townsville QLD
Gender: male
Re: Justice.
Reply #7 - Aug 30th, 2016 at 8:55am
 
mantra wrote on Aug 30th, 2016 at 8:35am:
What a farce.

I don't think even the legal profession fully understand the law. It's open to individual perceptions and precedents. In this case the Judge was swayed by a barrister's rhetoric. Perhaps graft played a part in this judgment.



They understand the law perfectly that is why the scumbag walked free, on a point of law. Once again justice was not served, but the law was.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
The_Barnacle
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6205
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: Justice.
Reply #8 - Aug 30th, 2016 at 10:40pm
 
BigOl64 wrote on Aug 30th, 2016 at 8:12am:
As you should know, seem to not. There is a big difference between invading privacy of persons doing NOTHING illegal and the incorrect gathering of evidence for a scumbag criminal.



The problem is that you don't know that they are doing anything illegal until AFTER you have invaded their privacy. It sets a dangerous precedent where you can allow anyone to have their privacy invaded on the off chance that might be doing something illegal.

I know that is probably a bit complex for you keyboard warriors to comprehend but the law doesn't have 20-20 hindsight.
Back to top
 

The Right Wing only believe in free speech when they agree with what is being said.
 
IP Logged
 
Emma
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9853
OZ
Gender: female
Re: Justice.
Reply #9 - Aug 31st, 2016 at 1:58am
 
I agree with The Barnacle. The means don't justify the ends.
Back to top
 

live every day
 
IP Logged
 
BigOl64
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 14438
Townsville QLD
Gender: male
Re: Justice.
Reply #10 - Aug 31st, 2016 at 5:24am
 
The_Barnacle wrote on Aug 30th, 2016 at 10:40pm:
BigOl64 wrote on Aug 30th, 2016 at 8:12am:
As you should know, seem to not. There is a big difference between invading privacy of persons doing NOTHING illegal and the incorrect gathering of evidence for a scumbag criminal.



The problem is that you don't know that they are doing anything illegal until AFTER you have invaded their privacy. It sets a dangerous precedent where you can allow anyone to have their privacy invaded on the off chance that might be doing something illegal.

I know that is probably a bit complex for you keyboard warriors to comprehend but the law doesn't have 20-20 hindsight.


A few people tell you that some piece of sh1t is using live animals to blood his dogs


Do you .....


c) nothing but respect his privacy, you know it is his place to do what he wants.


I have fully acknowledge that we do not have justice i this country, just a bunch or lawyers and judges making sure the guilty go free as soon as possible.

Which is why I recommend to avoid becoming a victim of crime, no fun being fkked twice, once the crim ad again by the courts.


Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
BigOl64
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 14438
Townsville QLD
Gender: male
Re: Justice.
Reply #11 - Aug 31st, 2016 at 5:25am
 
Emma wrote on Aug 31st, 2016 at 1:58am:
I agree with The Barnacle. The means don't justify the ends.



That is why we have the high crime rates we do.


Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Grappler Truth Teller Feller
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 79545
Proud pre-1850's NO Voter
Gender: male
Re: Justice.
Reply #12 - Aug 31st, 2016 at 8:47am
 
Valkie wrote on Aug 29th, 2016 at 5:29pm:
Justice can never be found in a court of law.

Law is there to control the people and generate income for governments and the legal fraternity.
Justice is never served.

Judges dont want to stop crime.
Lawyers dont want to stop crime.
Govco dont want to stop crime.

Imagine if somehow, all crime was stopped.
Some method to prevent people from committing crime.
If the punishment was sufficient to make criminals think twice knowing that they would always be caught and that the punishment would be swift and severe.

Who would suffer the most?
Judges......Out of work.
Lawyers.....Out of work
Govco.......Loss of revenue

Who would win

Everyone else.

For this simple reason, judges will not punish criminals enough to prevent crime.
One could even say the that punishment is so small so as to actually encourage crime.

Or it could be that the judges are just plain stoopid, take bribes or are afraid of criminals.


Of the organised crime groups in Australia - three stand out - legislators, the judiciary, and the police. These three form part of the 'right' side of Grappler's Barbell - picture a bar with, on one side, a massive weight of Govco ®, and on the other the massive weight of criminal activity as defined by actually doing something to others (get my drift?  If not, you are way behind and need remedial classes) - in the middle is the Common Person - who carries the weight of both 'sides' of the Barbell.
Back to top
 

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams
 
IP Logged
 
cods
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 88048
Re: Justice.
Reply #13 - Aug 31st, 2016 at 10:43am
 
mantra wrote on Aug 30th, 2016 at 8:35am:
What a farce. The RSPCA goes into people's backyards without their permission on reports of cruelty, seizes the animal and charges them when necessary. Obviously private citizens report these incidents - so what's the difference in filming it even if it was on private property. The same could be said for any photographic evidence on cruelty to animals, regardless of where it was filmed.

I don't think even the legal profession fully understand the law. It's open to individual perceptions and precedents. In this case the Judge was swayed by a barrister's rhetoric. Perhaps graft played a part in this judgment.



mantra it depends on what you can AFFORD to have stand up for you in court.. Roll Eyes Roll Eyes simple as that..

do not tell me the legals fighting for the defence...believe what they are doing is justice???????

how else would anyone get this information???? which in fact means it is still going on......live bait.. terrific!..

the animals involved are DEAD just like the victim of murder.. why bother.. they are DEAD justice wont help them...

we live in funny times... here once again its been spelt out for others..

who wish to behave the same


the law is more on their side... than any victim... Angry Angry Angry Angry Angry Angry Angry


if you are going to train dogs with live bait it stands to reason you would have a large expanse of land to do it on......the police wont act without proof.... how does a dead animal tell its story??....

the word Justice needs to be struck from the law books..

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 37678
Gender: male
Re: Justice.
Reply #14 - Aug 31st, 2016 at 10:56am
 
Quote:
how else would anyone get this information????


With a search warrant, or with approved covert surveillance, not by trespass and other illegal activity.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 
Send Topic Print