quote:

DPP, cops at war over Bruce Lehrmann trial

The Australian Federal Police Association is calling for a judicial inquiry into the Bruce Lehrmann mistrial amid the outbreak of open warfare between the cops and the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Accusing the DPP Shane Drumgold of attempting to “smear” the AFP, the police union President Alex Caruana said that a full judicial inquiry is an absolute necessity in the wake of an explosive letter in which Canberra’s top prosecutors accused police of “interference in the criminal justice process” and ask police not to contact Brittany Higgins.

“If Mr Drumgold and the Attorney-General want to conduct a judicial inquiry, so be it,” he said.

He complained the letter from the ACT DPP, released under Freedom of Information laws, “to our knowledge, has no redactions, and it includes personal details of officers involved in the investigation. ACT Policing was not consulted on the release of information and its members’ details”.

“The AFPA will make a formal complaint to the Office of the Australian Information Commission and the ACT Ombudsman regarding the possibility of FOI breaches and misconduct by the Director of Public Prosecutions,” he said.

“If the brief didn’t contain enough evidence and there were legitimate concerns about how what evidence was there was obtained, then why did he continue with the trial? Mr Drumgold needs to explain this.”

Just days after leaked documents revealed that police complained of political pressure over the decision to charge former Liberal staffer Bruce Lehrmann, a letter Mr Drumgold wrote to the ACT police chief Neil Gaughan, on November 1 emerged.

“I am of the view that at the conclusion of the trial, there should be a public enquiry into both political and police conduct in this matter,” the DPP wrote.

“There has now been over one-and-a-half years of consistent and inappropriate interference by investigators, firstly directed towards my independence with a very clear campaign to pressure me to agree with the investigators’ desire not to charge, then during the conduct of this trial itself, and finally attempting to influence any decision on a retrial.

“Then when charges resulted, the [investigators’] interests have clearly aligned with the successful defence of this matter rather than its prosecution,’’ he said.

Mr Lehrmann, who has always maintained his innocence, pleaded not guilty to the charge and is now pursuing “legal remedies” including defamation against media outlets.

In the DPP’s extraordinary letter, he also accuses police of “bullying” Ms Higgins and asks in the letter that police not contact Ms Higgins or other witnesses.

“This includes no further contact with defence or other prosecution witnesses, no contact with the complainant, and prohibiting attendance at court beyond formal evidence if required,” he wrote.

The letter was first obtained by The Guardian under freedom of information laws.

During the trial the tensions between the DPP and police became increasingly evident with the prosecutor telling the jury during his closing that Ms Higgins was “right to be scared” about handing her life over to police.

Police were also observed by journalists regularly meeting with Mr Lehrmann’s defence team during breaks in proceedings but rarely engaging with the DPP.

The letter does not suggest any complaints with the conduct of Mr Lehrmann’s defence team, only the conduct of police.

News.com.au also reported over the weekend that Ms Higgins complained police had unlawfully sent her private medical records to the original defence team.

In the correspondence the DPP complains that “key AFP members have had a strong desire for this matter not to proceed to charge”.

A spokesperson for ACT Policing confirmed that an “inquiry was underway in relation to this matter”.

“As such it would be inappropriate to provide any further comment in relation to any aspects surrounding this matter including commentary about the letter from the ACT DPP,” the spokesperson said.

“ACT Policing will continue to work cooperatively with the Office of DPP to ensure the safety and security of the Canberra community.”

Mr Drumgold told the police chief about “serious concerns I hold with what I perceive as some quite clear investigator interference in the criminal justice process”.

The letter also reveals Drumgold’s concerns that Higgins had felt pressured and bullied by police.

“The complainant has long expressed concerns that during the investigation stage, she also felt bullied by police, who she felt were pressuring her into discontinuing the complaint,” Mr Drumgold wrote.

“This is an observation corroborated by at least two of her support people. Although this is a matter for her to raise directly with the AFP, it is relevant for our purposes as it impacted the trial process, as she presented as highly anxious in dealing with either the police or by extension, the DPP.”

As a result, Ms Higgins began communicating with police via the victims of crime commissioner, Heidi Yates.

The DPP writes that the police then sought to make the Victims of Crime Commissioner a witness by asking her “highly unusual” questions in a formal interview.

“On 2 October 2021, I received a letter from yourself, stating that because she was now a witness, the AFP could no longer communicate through her,” he said. “This was a highly unusual step as the complainant was also a witness, yet police still had extensive contact with her until she requested all contact be made through the Victim of Crime Commissioner.”

The release of the DPP’s letter follows a report in The Weekend Australian that revealed police had concerns about the prospects of a conviction if the matter proceeded to trial and the mental health of the complainant.

Over the weekend, Mr Drumgold raised concerns the leak of the police notes was possibly “unlawful” and called for an investigation into the matter.

Bucky Fullminster posted:

Has anyone here used Alternaleaf, or otherwise obtained a prescription for cannabis?


Also if anyone's keeping track of anecdata I got covid for the first time this week and it loving sucked. Like being hit by a goddam freight train.

Serrath posted:

Sorry to keep this conversation going, people make posts that I feel I can reply to but if the conversation is too industry-specific and narrow, I'm happy to drop it... because this is my field, it's interesting to me and I have a lot of opinions but I always imagine this stuff would be boring to outsiders

Bucky Fullminster posted:

did this guy post in here or am I thinking of someone else

freebooter posted:

Read Scott Pape's book. (Not joking.)

quote:

Queensland to override state’s Human Rights Act in bid to make breach of bail an offence for children

Police minister Mark Ryan says the government accepts that its new laws ‘are incompatible with human rights’

The Queensland government will override its own Human Rights Act to implement laws allowing children to be charged with criminal offences for breaching bail conditions, conceding its new laws are “incompatible” with human rights. The police minister, Mark Ryan, said the Palaszczuk government’s strengthening community safety bill will include an amendment to the Bail Act which allows children breaching bail to be charged with the same offence as an adult.

“The government accepts that these provisions are incompatible with human rights,” Ryan wrote in a statement about exceptional circumstances tabled on Tuesday. “Therefore, in this exceptional case, the [Human Rights Act] is being overridden and its application entirely excluded from the operation of these new provisions to protect community safety.”

The Queensland premier, Annastacia Palaszczuk, announced yesterday the government would reverse its previous position and criminalise breach of bail for children, prompting fears it will spark a human rights emergency in the state’s buckling youth detention system. Youth detention centres are already full and about 80 children are being held in adult watch houses, some for more than four weeks. Advocates say the new measures are sure to see the number of children held in watch houses rise.

On Tuesday, Ryan said there was an “acute problem presented by a small cohort of serious repeat offenders” – with 17% of youth offenders committing almost half of all youth crime. The number of these serious repeat offenders had grown from 10% of youth offenders a year earlier, he said. “The measures in this bill are designed to address this serious problem. In the government’s view this presents an exceptional crisis situation constituting a threat to public safety,” Ryan wrote.

Under the Human Rights Act, proposed legislation in Queensland must be accompanied by a statement of compatibility, which says whether the relevant minister believes it is compatible with human rights. It also gives parliament the ability to make an “override declaration”, which allows laws to take effect if they are incompatible with the Human Rights Act. Such declarations should “only be made in exceptional circumstances”, such as war, a state of emergency, or “an exceptional crisis” constituting a threat to public health, safety or order.

The move was also rebuked by Greens MP Michael Berkman. “They don’t care about community safety, all they care about is a headline,” Berkman said. “Queenslanders now know Labor will abandon their supposed principles for political clout, even where they concede they’re breaching Queensland’s Human Rights Act.”

Palaszczuk told parliament the “full force of the law” would be used to crack down on serious repeat young offenders, as she announced further details of the government’s new youth crime legislation. “We have listened to the community and this action is all about putting community safety first,” Palaszczuk told parliament. “When these young people re-offend time and again, we need the police to catch them and we need the courts to do their job. They have the resources. They have the laws. They have the tools.”

The premier said there had been a 7% decline in the number of young people with a proven offence in the past year and a 3% reduction in the number of offences overall. Palaszczuk noted the vast majority of young people in contact with the youth justice system do not re-offend.

Breach of bail was one of several new measures added to a youth justice response that has prompted a backlash from experts since being announced in the aftermath of the alleged murder of Brisbane woman Emma Lovell on Boxing Day. A coalition of more than 50 experts and organisations have called on the government and opposition not to politicise the issue and to adopt a smarter, not a tougher approach that prioritises early intervention and rehabilitation.

The government will allocate $332m to the measures, bringing the government’s total investment in youth justice to $1.1bn since 2015. Big-ticket items include an additional $100m for programs to curb the causes of youth crime, including $4m for on-country programs for First Nations communities, and $66m allocated for “proactive policing”, such as high-visibility police patrols.

So-called “flying squads” will also be expanded, with a $17m investment for expert youth justice workers to partner with police to target high-risk youth offenders. Palaszczuk said the government would expand the number of offences with a presumption against bail, strengthen conditional release orders and enhance intensive case management for youth offenders.

An investment of $15m will be provided to elderly people to help them install security systems in their homes. There will also be $10m allocated for a vehicle immobilisers trial to begin this year in Cairns, Townsville and Mt Isa and an additional $9m to assist victims of crime. Pressed by the opposition about whether the government would remove “detention as a last resort” from the Youth Justice Act, the premier said Queensland was not alone in adopting this approach.

“This principle … is consistent with other jurisdictions and the United Nations,” she told parliament. “So no, we will not be moving away from that principle.” The youth justice bill will go to a parliamentary committee for two weeks before returning to parliament for a final vote.

Recoome posted:

Lmao ALP are really going to walk back climate action because mining companies have them over a barrel. So much for being a party of government huh

I would blow Dane Cook posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jf-jHCdafZY

G-Spot Run posted: