SA Police Prosecutors - Communication and Guidelines?

[okanynameyouwishthen]

Hi guys,
I assume these police prosecutors frequent other states lower courts same as here in SA relating to our Magistrates Courts.

My question is, who do police prosecutors answer to? Are they connected with the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) department or is the next level above them within the South Australian Police (SAPOL) .
I ask as I wish to correspond with the police prosecutor prior to an upcoming matter listed in the Magistrates Court to sort a plea bargain. Whilst researching around I have found a "Prosecution Policy & Guidelines" document authored by the DPP & whilst it confuses me as to whether the strict expectant guidelines he writes of relate to a police prosecutor.

The principles he describes are gold to me & my intended use to point out that the police prosecutor should be apportioning a more unbiased & non-political or sexist determination of facts &/or evidence or lack of to my specific matter & stop wasting public monies.


Thanks
ok

 

[Tracy B]

Hi,

Police prosecutors are police officers who have been trained as legal advocates. They need not hold legal qualifications (although many do) and represent the police in minor (summary) offences. Therefore, I believe they answer primarily to the SAPOL. Only when police believe the matter is serious, they will refer the matter to the DPP to prosecute on a higher level. The DPP are the assigned lawyers for the state. I would say, police prosecutors are not part of the DPP.

Read: "SA Office of Director of Public Prosecutions FAQ" for more information, or you can contact them directly to clarify things.

 

[okanynameyouwishthen]

Thanks for reply. I found a DPP produced document titled " Prosecution Policy Guidelines" & in the Directors introduction page 1 is written-

"This Policy and the annexed guidelines are those governing the decision to prosecute criminal offences in
South Australia."
Trust my matter to be determined to civil standards in the magistrates court !
I have correspondence ready to send the police prosecutor seeking him to enter a nolle Prosequi when I am next up seeking an order be revoked.
To present my reasoning why I believe he has no right to continue seeking an order over me I have provided him with pages of examples of shoddy or no reliable evidence regards some claims & used the DPP's expected high standards & fairness & other criteria they are supposed to hold every case to determining if public interest & justice will be served etc. etc..
Actually I still owe them one for denying my FOI requested documents earlier this month claiming what I sought didn't exist. Very odd as I was reading a coroners inquest report that the coroner mentioned & even used several sections of the document I sought in his report many times.
I shall hedge my bets & CC extras out to the commissioner,minister,ombudsman,attorney General & bugger it even bossman Jay Jay can have a read.
Thanks again......ooroo !
ok

 

[Tracy B]

Hi,

Just to clarify, if the police are charging you, it would most likely be of a criminal offence which would need to be proved at the normal "beyond reasonable doubt' (criminal standard) even at the Magistrates' Court. However, some statutory offences have statutory burden of proofs, or are what are called "statutory "strict liability offence" which means that only some action is required for the person to be guilty of the offence (e.g. most traffic offences such as speeding).

It really depends on what you are charged with by the police.

 

[okanynameyouwishthen]

Thanks for reply......To clarify It is due to unfortunately being born a man in this appalling biased "prosecute/represent at all costs & never concede stance " disgracefully sexist treatment afforded me. It is an Intervention order matter that I am certain ( after reading a thorough coroner's report that detailed multi-levels of disciplinary action handed out to a deserving inept SAPOL ) is politically driven. I could deliver a dozen packed suitcases of damning evidence against my ex showing her complete & utter lack of credibility & of her real motives driving her feigned " in fear for her life & anybody she knows for that matter " waste of public purse & resources & it would matter none.
On a brighter related matter though I was up yesterday for my attempt at revocation of order & luckily got the most decent magistrate of the circuit who also happened to be one presiding 14 months ago when I accepted with no admission after several hours of intense police pros. negotiations & for me the sealers were the ex facilitating a weekly phone call between our 6year old & me-even going as far as suggesting the daughter ring me to allay the ex's " he's harassing me " nonsense before it could be spewed & a few other clauses.
I thankfully remained polite & pointed out her reneging on that deal after 2 weekly calls & my subsequent attending local station for help only to be ridiculed & treated less than human ending in giving them what they wanted - a 40 year old man in tears begging them to help me get my court ordered weekly phone call & nothing more.
I finally am letting myself be tempted that justice will indeed prevail in this disgraceful near 2 year long utter abuse of due process & she may finally have to answer for her shameless contempt for law & the courts in general when we are in trial next month !!
Of course I would still rather prosecution just get over themselves & remove their backing for her.
I shall be writing them a letter each week detailing the wrongs in their stubbornness,authoritarian attitude for an innocent victim of false accusations.
Also on that if you wouldn't mind Tracy B as you seem quite learned in the subject.......If prosecution are relying on 2 separate police incident reports ( PIR's) contained within the ex's accompanying affidavit she filed seeking the order & these 2 PIR's both have a report taker officer named as well as an investigating officer named on them ( don't start me on that keystone cop non event) am I correct in assuming I am entitled to call all the related officer's named ( total 4 ) to cross examine at trial ? If so surely at pros. expense wouldn't it be ?
kind regards
ok

 

[Tracy B]

If the prosecution wishes to rely on 2 PIR's and you do not admit the conclusions/reliability/credibility of the reports then you have a right to cross-examine. What would generally happen in this case is that the prosecution would then call the report-makers in to court to give their report orally and afterwards, you have a change to cross-examine them.

The witness expenses are generally born by the state.

 

[okanynameyouwishthen]

Awesome ! Love your work Tracey B. Thanks !
ok