- Status
have you all lost the plot. You all seem caught up on this 'acting as a solicitor' gig.... Sure that was his original question.
But - the three charges of attempting to influence a witness is what is gonna do the damage here.
While Jaywoo is adamant that there was no intention to intimidate I reckon he is gonna have a bloody hard time convincing anyone (other than me -'cause I believe you despite all the mounting evidence against you...) that he is innocent.
Jaywoo I really really do think it is imperative that you see a solicitor. DIY law is great fun when it is family law, or a minor traffic offence. You know the sort of stuff that if you completely fcuk it up you still get to choose what you're having for breakfast each day BUT this is serious. This is not DIY. Time to laywer up big time.
Based on a little bit of research and depending on what Jaywoo was originally charged with - he could be facing 14 yrs.
www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au
Hey Jaywoo - Those three witnesses. What are they claiming they witnessed you do?
But - the three charges of attempting to influence a witness is what is gonna do the damage here.
While Jaywoo is adamant that there was no intention to intimidate I reckon he is gonna have a bloody hard time convincing anyone (other than me -'cause I believe you despite all the mounting evidence against you...) that he is innocent.
Jaywoo I really really do think it is imperative that you see a solicitor. DIY law is great fun when it is family law, or a minor traffic offence. You know the sort of stuff that if you completely fcuk it up you still get to choose what you're having for breakfast each day BUT this is serious. This is not DIY. Time to laywer up big time.
Based on a little bit of research and depending on what Jaywoo was originally charged with - he could be facing 14 yrs.
Influencing Witnesses or Jurors | Section 323 Crimes Act 1900 NSW
Charged with a Criminal Offence? Call (02) 9261 8881 to arrange a Free Consultation with an Experienced Criminal Defence Lawyer.
www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au
Hey Jaywoo - Those three witnesses. What are they claiming they witnessed you do?
Jaywoo I believe waited until the last week of the 12 months after publication before issuing proceedings for defamation.
He is allowed to maintain his cause of action.
He should have already written to the court hearing the defamation action saying due to pending criminal charges the matter should be adjourned until after the criminal matter is finalised. If he hasn't written, he should do it asap.
As for the crime of intimidation, the police have to overcome the fact that Jawoo's intention is for truth to come out. He is not threatening or intimidating witnesses in the traditional sense. Without having the details it is next to impossible for us to predict or analyse what may happen.
ok BUT making a statement to the police isn't defamation...
yla.org.au
Defamation | Youth Law Australia
Find out about defamation and what to do if you have defamed someone or been defamed.
yla.org.au
ok BUT making a statement to the police isn't defamation...
Defamation | Youth Law Australia
Find out about defamation and what to do if you have defamed someone or been defamed.
It is when it is untrue.
E.g. Lassanah vs State of Nsw
Hey I have asked before. What are the witnesses claiming you did?
So I had a bit of a read of that case. Lassanah v State of New South Wales (No. 3) [2010] NSWDC 241 - BarNet Jade
"The plaintiffs were searched and the police officers took and failed to return the first plaintiff’s driver’s licence. This was done in the presence of members of the public who were passing, which caused the plaintiffs humiliation and embarrassment. Aggravated and punitive damages are sought."
so yet again I'm left scratching my head because I have no idea with the witnesses claim you did or how you were treated at the time. If they went to the police station and made a statement well no public humiliaton
So I had a bit of a read of that case. Lassanah v State of New South Wales (No. 3) [2010] NSWDC 241 - BarNet Jade
"The plaintiffs were searched and the police officers took and failed to return the first plaintiff’s driver’s licence. This was done in the presence of members of the public who were passing, which caused the plaintiffs humiliation and embarrassment. Aggravated and punitive damages are sought."
so yet again I'm left scratching my head because I have no idea with the witnesses claim you did or how you were treated at the time. If they went to the police station and made a statement well no public humiliaton
The point is, imo, false statements to police can be held defamatory.
They are not defamatory when stated in court, but when said to get charges, yes.
No public humiliation? How about having to go to court? Is that not public humiliation.?
Can someone confirm / disagree with above?
They are not defamatory when stated in court, but when said to get charges, yes.
No public humiliation? How about having to go to court? Is that not public humiliation.?
Can someone confirm / disagree with above?
Hey trust me I get it... Mate imagine this scenario. Me outside court. Across the road is the local theatre. I lived in a small town. That morning the teachers were having a stop work meeting at the theatre and there is me across the road in my suit hiding behind a tree.
But in the case you offered to support your case the they were succeeded because of the humiliation of being searched in public. The cops didn't have grounds to search. They had no grounds to suspect... They overstepped their authority in public and that caused the plaintiffs to be humiliated. Now the other interesting fact is that the two plaintiffs made a good case that they were treated differently because of their appearance. One of them was black (hey reminds me of another thread recently) and the other had an intellectual disability. They were put to the ground on a busy street in a city with lots of people watching the commotion as the police interrogated them. It would seem that the appearance of a black man (who was a worker supporting his intellectually disabled client) looked suspicious because of skin color and the demeanor of a person with a severe intellectual disability. The black man had his licence taken by the cops and they failed to return it. Just because they could (remind me again Jaywoo about the comment you made a while back about me thinking the cops were angels).
These poor fellas were publicly humiliated by the cops. Accused of trying to steal from a jewelry shop and were innocent. Now Jaywoo. You wanna use this as an example to show that you have a case for defamation because 3 people made statements which you reckon were incorrect.
So no comparison between the case you quoted and your situation (best as I can tell from the info provided).
So what about the 'public humiliation' of going to court. How is our legal system going to achieve anything if every crook can pull that one as an excuse? So that is a dumb argument and comparing that level of humiliation to the stand over tactics the cops used in the Lassanah vs State of NSW.
But in the case you offered to support your case the they were succeeded because of the humiliation of being searched in public. The cops didn't have grounds to search. They had no grounds to suspect... They overstepped their authority in public and that caused the plaintiffs to be humiliated. Now the other interesting fact is that the two plaintiffs made a good case that they were treated differently because of their appearance. One of them was black (hey reminds me of another thread recently) and the other had an intellectual disability. They were put to the ground on a busy street in a city with lots of people watching the commotion as the police interrogated them. It would seem that the appearance of a black man (who was a worker supporting his intellectually disabled client) looked suspicious because of skin color and the demeanor of a person with a severe intellectual disability. The black man had his licence taken by the cops and they failed to return it. Just because they could (remind me again Jaywoo about the comment you made a while back about me thinking the cops were angels).
These poor fellas were publicly humiliated by the cops. Accused of trying to steal from a jewelry shop and were innocent. Now Jaywoo. You wanna use this as an example to show that you have a case for defamation because 3 people made statements which you reckon were incorrect.
So no comparison between the case you quoted and your situation (best as I can tell from the info provided).
So what about the 'public humiliation' of going to court. How is our legal system going to achieve anything if every crook can pull that one as an excuse? So that is a dumb argument and comparing that level of humiliation to the stand over tactics the cops used in the Lassanah vs State of NSW.
I disagree.
That case is an example rebutting your statement that people cannot sue with defamation cause of action for statement to police.
The public humiliation suffered will depend on the facts of the case and would only relate to the assessment of damages, not whether elements of defamation we're met.
That case is an example rebutting your statement that people cannot sue with defamation cause of action for statement to police.
The public humiliation suffered will depend on the facts of the case and would only relate to the assessment of damages, not whether elements of defamation we're met.
- Status
