Someone has just pointed me at a perfect example of why we should not allow secret "evidence" in parole board hearings: the police in opposing bail for the man accused of driving his car into a crowd of partygoers a few weeks ago presented "facts" which weren't even true.
They did this shamelessly in open court. Imagine what they'll try if they know their "evidence" can not be effectively challenged.
4 comments:
May I suggest you also look at the discussion document on the review of the Police Act. There are a few things in there that definitely weren't flagged previously
Posted by Randominanity : 6/01/2007 03:42:00 PM
The next item on stuff was "Police may get more powers to 'move on' crowds", which is funny in light of the events in question being largely a result of police moving crowds on from small problems until they accumulated into a very large group of drunk people who didn't really like each other all that much.
Not that one can predict murder or anything, but "moving people on" is both basically offensive to ones freedom of movement and association and more importantly it's contributing to the problem.
Hey, here's an idea. Why not let police lock up public drunks 'till morning again?
Posted by tussock : 6/02/2007 12:57:00 AM
I agree with you re the ease with which cops somehow accidentally fail to get their facts right, always to the detriment of the defendant, suggests we shouldn't allow secret evidence.
In this particular case however, the fact that one of the scumbag's victims was no longer in a coma doesn't make the murdering shit any more suitable for parole. Hopefully, if Arsehole's lawyer does get him another parole hearing, the judge will tell him so.
Posted by Psycho Milt : 6/02/2007 08:40:00 AM
So what do you think of a court that has secret evidence - and secret proceedings - you don't even have to know of the charge - and forbids publication of any information. That's the Family Court!
Posted by Anonymous : 6/03/2007 01:53:00 PM
Post a Comment
(Anonymous comments are enabled).