DPP cocks up again

johnboy 9 November 2010 6

Just in from the Court of Appeal is another humiliation for the Director of Public Prosecutions losing on appeal in their efforts to prove allegations Daniel Schmidt had his hand in the till selling booze at Dickson Woolies.

Both the magistrate and the primary judge said that the prosecution case was confused and presented confusingly. That criticism was well founded. The prosecution case was presented in a disorganised and unsatisfactory manner. That made it unnecessarily difficult to follow.

Largely on that basis verdicts of aquittal have now been entered.


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
6 Responses to DPP cocks up again
Filter
Order
CraigT CraigT 8:07 am 11 Nov 10

Perhaps somebody who fancies themself as a bit of an investigative journalist could examine the leadership of the DPP and the backgrounds of the key members of that leadership including any obvious reasons (if any) justifying their appointment in order to give clues as to why the performance of their Department is so poor?

creative_canberran creative_canberran 9:52 pm 10 Nov 10

Wilco said :

creative_canberran said :

You can blame the law schools for this to some extent. The way they butcher the law and the english language is something to behold.
A lot of people at the DPP are not long out of law school, have little practical experience and crap like this is the result!

But in this case, the Prosecutor was one of the two Assistant Directors who, according to the DPP’s web pages ” … have the responsibility of assisting the Director with the management of the Office, with particular emphasis on providing a high degree of leadership of the Office%u2019s staff and ensuring the effective deployment of resources; conducting more complex litigation; providing high quality legal advice to the Director; achieving effective and productive relationships with the courts, investigators, criminal justice agencies and the legal profession; and representing the Director in forums and meetings”.

Do you really think the Assistant director does his own drafting for submissions?
He doesn’t. At best, he’ll farm it out to staff who prepare it and he will check it.

Wilco Wilco 11:46 am 10 Nov 10

creative_canberran said :

You can blame the law schools for this to some extent. The way they butcher the law and the english language is something to behold.
A lot of people at the DPP are not long out of law school, have little practical experience and crap like this is the result!

But in this case, the Prosecutor was one of the two Assistant Directors who, according to the DPP’s web pages ” … have the responsibility of assisting the Director with the management of the Office, with particular emphasis on providing a high degree of leadership of the Office%u2019s staff and ensuring the effective deployment of resources; conducting more complex litigation; providing high quality legal advice to the Director; achieving effective and productive relationships with the courts, investigators, criminal justice agencies and the legal profession; and representing the Director in forums and meetings”.

creative_canberran creative_canberran 12:26 am 10 Nov 10

You can blame the law schools for this to some extent. The way they butcher the law and the english language is something to behold.
A lot of people at the DPP are not long out of law school, have little practical experience and crap like this is the result!

ConanOfCooma ConanOfCooma 3:56 pm 09 Nov 10

If he was working a till, he would have had to have his hand in it regardless of any accusations.

colourful sydney racing identity colourful sydney racing identity 3:13 pm 09 Nov 10

Having read the decision, I would suggest that the woolworths investigation was the major problem.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top

Search across the site