David Fearnside not guilty

Mike Crowther said :

” Why not? According to the law he’s done nothing wrong. The problem is putting police into the role of custodians. The poor buggers have neither the training nor equipment to deal with today’s rat-bags. This Govt however hasn’t the wit to notice there is a problem.”

Gee, no equipment. What comes after a canister of capsicum spray and padded cell to quell the bad behaviour? The mind boggles.

Didn’t the spray work? According to the news reports, the lady concerned was left in her padded cell, alone and naked with a new distraction in her life – dealing with the effect of the spray on her body. The AFP trained Mr Fearnside well and provided him with appropriate and effective equipment.

P Taker said :

Spidey dog – it was another officer at the counter using capsicum spray, not Mr Fearnside.

Thats what I was saying 🙂

Mike Crowther said :

Why not? According to the law he’s done nothing wrong. The problem is putting police into the role of custodians. The poor buggers have neither the training nor equipment to deal with today’s rat-bags. This Govt however hasn’t the wit to notice there is a problem.

I hope he enjoys a long and unblemished career (and is kept out of the watch-house).

I wholeheartedly agree with you Mike. I hope he finally gets the support he needs. I hope he finds this website and sees your comment.

Spidey dog – it was another officer at the counter using capsicum spray, not Mr Fearnside.

TAD said :

You can’t really compare Tominac with this one.

QED?

You can’t really compare Tominac with this one.

bd 84

Agree completely. This is the second ACT Supreme Court trial in 2009 where the judgment of a very senior ACT DPP prosecutor has been found to be wanting.

As in Tania Tominac’s case, Mr Fearnside’s career and reputation has been ruined because of the attitude of “we’ll put it up in the small chance that the jury will believe us”. It might also explain why in 40 ACT Supreme Court trials in 2008-09, the DPP secured only 13 convictions – a ‘strike rate’ of only 32%. In NSW, the comparable figure in the District Court was 52.2%.

A remedy for those aggrieved might lie in the tort of misfeasance in public office. This tort is concerned with the misuse of public powers or authorities. “Putting it up in the small chance that the jury will believe us” is arguably a misuse of public power.

sepi said :

This woman didn’t seem like a witness that the jury would have much sympathy for.

I do remember footage of this officer capsicum spraying other people in the watchhouse who were just standing at the desk doing nothing = perhaps those people didn’t want to testify.

I think the one you are referring too in regards to footage is another officer.

If you are a witness to a matter, you have no say in whether you want to “testify” or not. If your summoned to court to give evidence, you have no choice.

This woman didn’t seem like a witness that the jury would have much sympathy for.

I do remember footage of this officer capsicum spraying other people in the watchhouse who were just standing at the desk doing nothing = perhaps those people didn’t want to testify.

Judging by the evidence reported in the media over the past few weeks, it makes you wonder how the case ever made it to court. The evidence put forward by the prosecution appeared as though it was nothing more than circumstantial and was easily contradicted by the woman in question’s history.

It looks like it was a case of “we’ll put it up in the small chance the jury believe us” rather than looking at the evidence available and making an assessment whether it would prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. If they actually bothered doing this then they would not have ruined this man’s career. I don’t see him being reinstated given that he resigned and wasn’t sacked, I suppose he could reapply for a position.

Speaking in general terms, firstly an aquittal does not mean that the matter is one that should not have proceeded to court.

For the matter to have gone to charge there needed to be at the first instance a “reasonable prospect of a successful conviction”.

To have been committed to the Supreme Court by a Magistrate the test is that there is a (prima facie)case to answer.

To only prosecute matters where there is a high likelyhood of conviction in the ACT would certainly cut the court lists by 90%.