|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:Couldn't his defence just be, "Yes, I have a grudge against that officer because I don't like coppers who beat handcuffed suspects." Bit late to the party here but no, that would probably make things worse. I'm not super familiar with QLD but from the sounds of the article it looks like they are referring to some kind of fraud/abuse of office provisions. Fraud provisions often operate around some flavour of dishonestly benefiting someone (either yourself or another) or causing detriment to another person. If he said he was doing it to ruin another officer he would be admitting one element of the prosecution's case. If he instead says something like "I don't believe it's right or in the public interest for abuse of power/office or crime to go unexposed", then maybe he's on safer grounds. It would be especially bad to admit to trying to ruin someone because I can't see how they would argue that he was trying to benefit himself or another person. The guy who got bashed maybe? Blowing the whistle on police misconduct generally isn't sunshine and roses so I doubt they would say he was trying to benefit himself. Also YUCK! if I check the news and Pauline Hanson's name or face appears anywhere outside of the cartoons... just gross.
|
#
¿
May 29, 2016 10:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 00:13 |
|
|
open24hours posted:So she got costs but no payout? Not usually. I think all the states have legislation ensuring that the state or police authority is liable for civil wrongdoings by police officers on-duty (or apparently on-duty). Here in Victoria the State is liable unless they prove that the conduct giving rise to the wrongdoing was serious and wilful misconduct by the police officer. You can imagine that it might work out poorly for you if you were an unlucky plaintiff, because if a police officer does something REALLY bad to me, I might not want to sue them instead of the state because their pockets aren't as deep.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2016 12:06
|
|