Tully Trial Timing Tussle?

weeziepops said :

Thanks for the info. I was interested to know the restrictions which can be used to mitigate risk – curfews etc seem like they would be hard to enforce…

Almost certainly the bail conditions will include a curfew (at minimum), or perhaps even a restriction to only attend certain places (I.e. home, work, ACT Corrective Services, etc). There will probably a condition to report to police daily. And depending on any criminal history and/or Statement of Facts on the charges, there could also be a restriction from using drugs & alcohol, or owning/using a device that connects to the internet, etc. Given the seriousness of the charges, I’d be surprised if there isn’t a condition to submit to supervision from Corrective Services and follow all reasonable directions from them.

In practice, the reporting to police and corrections supervision are how most people are monitored. You’d be surprised how effective these things can be, but of course it won’t prevent everything.

One said :

‘presumption of innocence’ is false.

The law is that the DPP/Police has reasonable grounds for making a charge (no application of being innocent is ever applied). The respondent is to front the court and give answer, failure to do as instructed that complies with each courts request/s is considered a breach (unless you fax a not saying sorry, etc), and could result in punishment (for having innocence).

The DPP/Police will reduce the charges against a person if the police is required to investigate any crime that links to the ACT Government, its departments, or people they employ which has not been investigated.

Just say, if there was a computer with emails to a Government Minister that were not investigated, and the DPP thought it may affect their case – then the charges are reduced to allow the conviction to proceed without further police action being required (and the Minister will not be held to account until another case is brought before the courts that does have a police investigation of the Minister).

If you can understand the above, then worry! 🙁

For those who post back junk replies without content saying junk like – I cant understand, then well – Don’t bother – fools need not reply.

I don’t see how this affects the function of “presumption of innocence”? How ever they choose to proceed, the crown must prove guilt, defendant doesn’t need to prove innocence. Police charging someone can be simply because they believe they have evidence enough for it to stick. That is why we have courts so all the facts can be heard by astute legal opinion. Prosecutors and defence, cops etc are always amending charges so as to trade off to a point where all parties get a piece of a good outcome. Some cases are just to complex to try and yield nothing but the all or nothing result. Better to get a little than none at all?

One said :

‘presumption of innocence’ is false.

The law is that the DPP/Police has reasonable grounds for making a charge (no application of being innocent is ever applied). The respondent is to front the court and give answer, failure to do as instructed that complies with each courts request/s is considered a breach (unless you fax a not saying sorry, etc), and could result in punishment (for having innocence).

The DPP/Police will reduce the charges against a person if the police is required to investigate any crime that links to the ACT Government, its departments, or people they employ which has not been investigated.

Just say, if there was a computer with emails to a Government Minister that were not investigated, and the DPP thought it may affect their case – then the charges are reduced to allow the conviction to proceed without further police action being required (and the Minister will not be held to account until another case is brought before the courts that does have a police investigation of the Minister).

If you can understand the above, then worry! 🙁

For those who post back junk replies without content saying junk like – I cant understand, then well – Don’t bother – fools need not reply.

Source?

One said :

‘innocence’

But hay – I may be wrong, so if you find a official instrument for application of ‘innocence’ then let the world know. There is instrument to quash, null, void, or make a court finding of guilty/not guilty.

‘presumption of innocence’ is false.

The law is that the DPP/Police has reasonable grounds for making a charge (no application of being innocent is ever applied). The respondent is to front the court and give answer, failure to do as instructed that complies with each courts request/s is considered a breach (unless you fax a not saying sorry, etc), and could result in punishment (for having innocence).

The DPP/Police will reduce the charges against a person if the police is required to investigate any crime that links to the ACT Government, its departments, or people they employ which has not been investigated.

Just say, if there was a computer with emails to a Government Minister that were not investigated, and the DPP thought it may affect their case – then the charges are reduced to allow the conviction to proceed without further police action being required (and the Minister will not be held to account until another case is brought before the courts that does have a police investigation of the Minister).

If you can understand the above, then worry! 🙁

For those who post back junk replies without content saying junk like – I cant understand, then well – Don’t bother – fools need not reply.

weeziepops said :

I did not say anyone was guilty. Nor did I suggest I was taking media reports as read. I was using this as an example of how bail conditions for people facing serious charges can be used to mitigate risk.

I have read that he has been accused of sexually assaulting eight young girls ranging in age from 4 to 13 years mostly in the 1990?s.Apparently he has been refused permission to live in the family property at Cook where he has five young children and also where the alleged offences occurred.Given that the DPP has received a lengthy brief of evidence and is considering his position in relation to the charges one could suspect that the Crown may not have a strong case against Tully.Look at Rebecca Massey she was out on strict bail awaiting trial even though she had stabbed and killed Booshand.So as you realise it’s pretty much up to the Judge or Magistrate to weigh up the risks and make the call regardless of what you or i think is justified.

I did not say anyone was guilty. Nor did I suggest I was taking media reports as read. I was using this as an example of how bail conditions for people facing serious charges can be used to mitigate risk.

I thought it was just a case of being innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? This charge isn’t simply guilt laden because of the subject matter. Many have been to court on this charge and dismissed immediately. Quite apart from that, reading about these types of court reportings in the news is only ever going to give you a wind you up version of a story they construct. If you are genuinely interested in seeing process, observe at the source. The media today have no credence at any level, least of all with serious matter such as this.

Thanks for the info. I was interested to know the restrictions which can be used to mitigate risk – curfews etc seem like they would be hard to enforce…

Pretty much the same criteria as murder or shoplifting. Remember the bench isn’t interested in ‘Did they do it?’ Its about weighing up risks. The bench has to be satisfied that the defendant will turn up so Q1 is… is there a history of not turning up for court.. if you have ties to the community.. family, a stable residence… a job… you’re more likely to get bail than an itinerant. Q2. Might they interfere with witnesses? Again, history is the guide… a stand-over man with a history of violence is less likely to get bail than someone with a stable family who promise to put up money to vouch for them adhering to bail conditions. Sometimes these will include a curfew or to reside out of town so there can be no casual contact between accused and witnesses. and Q3, are they likely to commit further offences whilst on bail. In theory a junkie with an $800 per day habit would, one would think tick this box in big black crayon, yes our Canberra beaks tend to grant them bail to live with their mums. (Go figure.) However, I get the sense that you may feel that certain nasty crimes should carry no presumption of bail. We still have a presumption of innocence which means that until proven, people should be at liberty in the community. Subject to certain conditions (mum and dad lodging $$$, reporting to police daily/weekly where there is a question mark over someone.) Fine if you have no problem with possibly innocent people sitting in gaol for the three or so years it takes to get a trial in the ACT. Ive visited countries where to be accused (of anything) is to be convicted. Much as I might hate rockspiders, its not a system I’d want to see imported here.