Posts by Matthew Poole
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Narcissists and bullies, in reply to ScottY,
Balance of probabilities means more probable than not, meaning if the evidence is inconclusive the defendant probably won’t make out the defence.
My earlier comment about the sniff test for the only witnesses being the co-accused, then?
-
I’m really curious how getting people in for interviews is a failure to actively pursue a case, by the way, unless the assertion is that the police are lying about it? Sure it’s not kicking in doors and turning over beds, but it’s a pretty clear message that “We’re watching you” as well as being the best way to try and get actionable information in the absence of a complainant.
-
Hard News: Narcissists and bullies, in reply to BenWilson,
before the time of the act concerned, he or she had taken reasonable steps to find out whether the young person concerned was of or over the age of 16 years
Which is not quite as easy as it sounds. A high school friend (19 at the time) got some very close scrutiny from the police after he got very friendly with a 15-year-old CYFS (or whatever they were back then) ward. He was saved from having to explain things to a judge because the girl had said in the presence of his mother and some of his friends that she was 17 (and looked it).
I don't think that the word of co-accused would pass the sniff test for claims to have asked the girls' ages. -
Hard News: Narcissists and bullies, in reply to Russell Brown,
I think they had grounds to “suspect” an imprisonable offence had been committed, but feel free to explain how they didn’t.
Arguable (in terms of clarity of the victim's age) evidence of under-age sex? Totally. Evidence of rape? Please do explain, in light of Ben's observation about the need for explicit failure to give consent or clearly be incapable of giving consent, how you are so sure that there would be reasonable grounds for believing that such evidence would be found.
-
Hard News: Narcissists and bullies, in reply to BenWilson,
So the question is whether underage sex is unlawful sexual connection. Presumably it is.
It's not. Unlawful sexual connection requires an absence of consent (or ability to give consent). Sex with a person under 16 exists as a specific charge so that consent cannot be a defence. Otherwise a 16-year-old who had consensual (but illegal) sex with their 15-year-old significant-other is in the same legal boat as the same 16-year-old who dragged the same 15-year-old into an alley and forced the matter. It's why one has a 10-year penalty and one has a 20-year penalty.
-
Hard News: Narcissists and bullies, in reply to Russell Brown,
I’m struggling to believe that given the heat on them at the moment, the police would have omitted to say that they tried for a warrant and a judge refused. Do you believe that?
No, I don't, particularly, but it's a possibility that you have completely refused to entertain. There's also the possibility of conversations with police prosecutors, or even informally with a judge, and what they have has been deemed insufficient. The police have interviewed these guys before, remember, and didn't manage to get enough out of those chats for anything to eventuate.
ETA: There may also be a convention of not revealing failed attempts to get warrants. I certainly don't recall ever seeing it revealed in the press that a warrant was sought but refused and I cannot believe that the judiciary simply rubber-stamp every warrant application, no matter how often that charge might be levelled in their direction.
-
Hard News: Narcissists and bullies, in reply to BenWilson,
They want these guys for rape.
Precisely. The cops will be gunning for a hefty chunk of 20 years rather than an equivalent chunk of 10 years. Why settle for sexual conduct with person under 16 when there's sexual violation on the cards? The police don't get to go for charge a and then come back again for charge b, and my understanding is that judges aren't thrilled about multiple attempts to get warrants for the same set of offences.
-
Hard News: Narcissists and bullies, in reply to Russell Brown,
And I really do not believe a judge would be presented with actual admissions of the rape of underage girls and refuse a warrant. I look forward to your excuse for the police not even testing the possibility.
You’re supposing that they haven’t tried, or at least had the discussion with people who really do know what’s required. We just don’t know.
If you’re so certain that the police have actively dragged their heels, go to the IPCA. It’s what they’re there for, particularly now that they’re moving to concurrent investigations into cases where there are prosecutions underway, instead of waiting until legal proceedings have finished.
-
Hard News: Narcissists and bullies, in reply to Russell Brown,
They have an online admission of gang-banging a 14 year-old. That is, gang rape. I think that would get them a warrant so they could seize phones and computers which might contain further evidence.
Thus spake a criminal law expert with no connection to the Police:
But the Law Society’s criminal law convenor Jonathan Krebs said in this case, the police had their hands tied in not being able to lay charges against the group.
“They [Roast Busters] actually have to do something that’s against the law and bragging about something on a website, at the moment that I can see, is not against the law.
“Just because someone boasted on a website doesn’t mean it’s true and we don’t want to start convicting on bragging.’’
The worst thing police could do at the moment was to bring a prosecution that was a “bit loose’’, Mr Krebs said.
“If one of these young ladies were to make a complaint to police, then I would have thought police would take that up and run with it.’’
All due respect, Russell, I’ll take his word over the armchair legal experts who have weighed in thus far. Bragging on Facebook doesn’t amount to evidence if there are no specifics.
ETA: I know you talked about a warrant, not a conviction, but Graeme has indicated that bragging online is not likely to be enough to put anything before a judge.
Hopefully now that there's some cooperation from within the Roasters things will move. Can't help wondering if TV3 found out about this on the quiet from a cop who was frustrated at nothing happening. -
Hard News: Narcissists and bullies, in reply to Russell Brown,
But why the hell haven’t the police seized their phones and computers in search of evidence?
Probably something Graeme can answer with more authority, but a search warrant does require some reasonable level of suspicion that the search will turn up evidence to support prosecution. Along the lines of my comment about it being hard to tell age from video, that's a hurdle to convincing a judge that evidence will be forthcoming if there is a search.