QLD Police Constable Powers in Relation to Indictable Charges?

Australia's #1 for Law
Join 150,000 Australians every month. Ask a question, respond to a question and better understand the law today!
FREE - Join Now
Status
Not open for further replies.

Tim W

Lawyer
LawConnect (LawTap) Verified
28 April 2014
4,913
820
2,894
Sydney
You need to remember (having had it explained to you previously)
that the power of arrest is available on mere reasonable suspicion.
That doesn't take much, but it does take "something".

While I defer to my Queensland colleagues for detailed commentary
on Criminal Procedure in Queensland, a QP9 is one part of the prosecution brief,
and typically contains
  • your criminal history;
  • a summary of the offence and;
  • the laws under which you have been charged*
There are of course numerous other documents and materials ("evidence")
that can be part of a prosecution brief.
In the normal course of events, each item of evidence would be tested in the trial proper.
Sometimes, admissibility (as distinct from reliability, or "probative weight")
of individual items of evidence will be tested separately (you sometimes here about "pre-trial legal argument",
that can be what they mean).

It is also important to remember that you were convicted beyond reasonable doubt.
This is a very high threshold for the prosecution to meet.
It requires evidence upon which great reliability can be placed.

Any exculpatory evidence (that is, evidence sufficient to raise reasonable doubt,
even if not to show the factual innocence of the accused) should have emerged at trial,
(even if concealed or ignored by police during the investigation).
Any new or compelling evidence that was not available at trial, but which has emerged since,
could, in theory, ground an application for the conviction to be quashed.
That's if you have any.
 

AnthonyC

Well-Known Member
7 September 2014
47
4
124
Thanks Tim W. I've never heard the right to falsify an accusatory document expressed so eloquently :)

So what you are saying is once a person enters the pit of snakes commonly known as a Police Station, they can enter the "Court System" with a very serious charge to answer based on the merest suspicion?

After a great deal of consideration of your points, it is now clear to me that any monumental failures of Justice must of necessity occur outside that particular arena.

And to make things quite clear, yes there was, and I am still trying to figure out how and why it happened!
 

Tim W

Lawyer
LawConnect (LawTap) Verified
28 April 2014
4,913
820
2,894
Sydney
So what you are saying is once a person enters the pit of snakes commonly known as a Police Station, they can enter the "Court System" with a very serious charge to answer based on the merest suspicion?
No, that's not what I said.

What I did say was... that reasonable suspicion is enough to enliven the power of arrest.
The prospects of successful prosecution are a different mechanism and require more,
as I have described.
And to make things quite clear, yes there was, and I am still trying to figure out how and why it happened!
That would be because the jury was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt
that you committed the offences of which you have been found guilty.
In other words - you were found guilty because the evidence proved that you did it.
The obstacle to your understanding here is your seeming failure to accept
that as a matter of fact and law, the act(s) you committed amounted to the offence.
You were not convicted, and certainly not imprisoned, as a mere precaution.
 

AnthonyC

Well-Known Member
7 September 2014
47
4
124
No, that's not what I said.

What I did say was... that reasonable suspicion is enough to enliven the power of arrest.
The prospects of successful prosecution are a different mechanism and require more,
as I have described.That would be because the jury was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt
that you committed the offences of which you have been found guilty.
In other words - you were found guilty because the evidence proved that you did it.
The obstacle to your understanding here is your seeming failure to accept
that as a matter of fact and law, the act(s) you committed amounted to the offence.
You were not convicted, and certainly not imprisoned, as a mere precaution.

There are a few flaws in your logic, Tim.

1. It didn't happen. If it did happen, I would have been there and I would have known.

2. The Complainant didn't actually say it happened. It was suggested very obliquely with for all intents and purposes no actual link to the supposed context.

3. There was no Crime. Without any context or a proper explanation of what the Crime actually was, how could the elements of a Crime possibly be satisfied?

4. The Prosecution failed to include earlier testimony where the Complainant doesn't mention the Crime either.

5. There is nothing to differentiate the alleged Crime from a random and / or completely accidental happening.

6. Half of the Jury were idiots who looked like they'd been dragged out of the nearest pub. They are not my peers.

Even in QLD.
 

Gorodetsky

Well-Known Member
21 February 2016
146
35
519
Hi again,
Flaws in Tim W's logic? I don't see them.

His comments about powers of arrest...he's saying you've practically no chance of success with wrongful arrest. Ok? They just need "reasonable suspicion"....which is more than "a hunch" but less than "reasonable belief". That's all they need to put someone in front of the court. F#+% all proof. The proof is required for the "successful prosecution".

You were convicted by more than a dodgy QP9. I can't express it better than :

It is also important to remember that you were convicted beyond reasonable doubt.
This is a very high threshold for the prosecution to meet.
It requires evidence upon which great reliability can be placed.

Your 5th numbered point should have been tested at your trial.

The others won't help you much...maybe the 4th point...

Regards
Gorodetsky
 

Tim W

Lawyer
LawConnect (LawTap) Verified
28 April 2014
4,913
820
2,894
Sydney
There are a few flaws in your logic, Tim.

1. It didn't happen. If it did happen, I would have been there and I would have known.
By "it", you mean the offence?
The jury disagrees with you. That's why you were found guilty.
That you do not agree with them is not a fault in my logic.
2. The Complainant didn't actually say it happened. It was suggested very obliquely with for all intents and purposes no actual link to the supposed context.
No doubt this was raised at trial?
3. There was no Crime. Without any context or a proper explanation of what the Crime actually was, how could the elements of a Crime possibly be satisfied?
The court disagrees with you.
In any event, you had an opportunity to provide explanation and context when you were interviewed by police.
Your defence would have had further opportunity to challenge the reliabilty of the child's evidence at trial.
Mere denial no matter how emphatic, is not evidence.
4. The Prosecution failed to include earlier testimony where the Complainant doesn't mention the Crime either.
If that material didn't mention the offence, then perhaps it had neither probative nor exculpatory value. In which case perhaps, it was irrelevant, and would therefore have been inadmissible.
5. There is nothing to differentiate the alleged Crime from a random and / or completely accidental happening.
Except the evidence.
6. Half of the Jury were idiots who looked like they'd been dragged out of the nearest pub. They are not my peers.
That is neither a point of law, nor a flaw in my logic.
Even in QLD.
I have always thought it the height of vanity to consider yourself worthy of being conspired against.
 

AnthonyC

Well-Known Member
7 September 2014
47
4
124
Well Tim, you know everything. YOU tell me what I'm guilty of? Because I sure as hell don't know! Not only that but I have gone over and over and over it in my head and I can't even begin to understand how they could get away with shovelling THAT in front of a Jury!

And don't you dare presume to tell me something happened and I am responsible for it when I damned well know nothing of the kind ever took place!

What kind of moral high ground are you standing on? You can't imagine that your precious and infallible "Law System" could ever possibly go wrong?

Keep your utopian BS to yourself. [Removed by Moderator - Breach of Community Guidelines]

But if the Courts truly are as great as you make them out to be, why do we even need a Defence Lawyer at all? Would you have won my Case for me?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.