Allison Baden-Clay - GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD #42

[Liadan]

The 5th in the US I think is only so that a husband and wife cannot testify against each other. So I would think that would still discount NBC and GBC from using the 5th over there ......



Just wondering- if NBC is not called as a witness by the defence - is he going to be able to be called by the prosecution? Is this a different protocol given that he is not in the hot seat?

 

[squizzey1]

Ah Ok I get it now.
However its a beautiful sunny day here.

Sorry if you took that the wrong way . That is what I was told last night. I just meant u only need something like this and the whole site changes

 

[Judicious]

Squizzy says that she heard this information last night, if it was true, it would have leaked to the media by now surely....It is nearly 24 hrs since Squizzy says she heard this info...

 

[squizzey1]

The 5th in the US I think is only so that a husband and wife cannot testify against each other. So I would think that would still discount NBC and GBC from using the 5th over there ......



Just wondering- if NBC is not called as a witness by the defence - is he going to be able to be called by the prosecution? Is this a different protocol given that he is not in the hot seat?

I would have thought either side could call him and then other side has right to cross examine . Help Alioop

 

[Maigret]

OW husbands fb is also still there and so is Nigelaine, however she has changed her last name...can't quiet remember how it was spelt..it started with chit???

Yes - sorry I couldn't find them before (iPad is a bit limited) but NBC's Facebook is definitely not there

 

[squizzey1]

Squizzy says that she heard this information last night, if it was true, it would have leaked to the media by now surely....It is nearly 24 hrs since Squizzy says she heard this info...

I was told it was suppressed , but i see what u mean, oh and squizzey hasnt got *advertiser censored* has he

 

[Makara]

Sorry if you took that the wrong way . That is what I was told last night. I just meant u only need something like this and the whole site changes

Well what you were inferring was pretty controversial Squiz but I personally don't believe any of it. I think someone may have been yanking your chain. :twocents:

 

[squizzey1]

Well what you were inferring was pretty controversial Squiz but I personally don't believe any of it. I think someone may have been yanking your chain. :twocents:

I find it hard to believe too . But my son who is a local would not do that to me, why would he ?????????????

 

[alioop]

To answer some questions and clarify some things that have been mentioned today, a conviction for the crime of perjury in QLD does carry a maximum sentence of 14 years but I expect that this would be a very rare sentence if it has ever been imposed by a QLD court and I suspect not. But still a very serious penalty can be imposed.

The fifth amendment to the United States Constitution does not say explicitly that you have the right to remain silent. It does say that you do not have to be a witness against yourself. This means that you cannot be compelled to reveal information that might implicate you in a crime. It is not about spouses testifying against each other.

In Australian law, both the common law privilege of confidentiality between married people and the privilege of spouses not to testify against each other were assumed to have been part of our common law, that is our law inherited from England that had not been changed by legislation. However in late
2011, in a case against a wife bought by the Australian Crime Commission seeking testimony by her against her husband, the High Court of Australia decided that neither privilege existed in common law.

In Qld our Evidence Act is clear and states

EVIDENCE ACT 1977 - SECT 8

8 Witnesses in a criminal proceeding
(1) In a criminal proceeding, each person charged is competent to give evidence on behalf of the defence (whether that person is charged solely or jointly with any other person) but is not compellable to do so.

(2) The husband or wife of an accused person in a criminal proceeding is competent and compellable to give evidence in the proceeding in any court, either for the prosecution or for the defence, and without the consent of the accused.

(3) In a criminal proceeding, a husband or wife is competent and compellable to disclose communications made between the husband and the wife during the marriage.


See the attached link for more info on the limitations on spousal privilege in Aust and QLD

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...ence-for-spouses/story-e6frg97x-1226210643949

 

[Makara]

<modsnip>

To answer some questions and clarify some things that have been mentioned today, a conviction for the crime of perjury in QLD does carry a maximum sentence of 14 years but I expect that this would be a very rare sentence if it has ever been imposed by a QLD court and I suspect not. But still a very serious penalty can be imposed.

The fifth amendment to the United States Constitution does not say explicitly that you have the right to remain silent. It does say that you do not have to be a witness against yourself. This means that you cannot be compelled to reveal information that might implicate you in a crime. It is not about spouses testifying against each other.

In Australian law, both the common law privilege of confidentiality between married people and the privilege of spouses not to testify against each other were assumed to have been part of our common law, that is our law inherited from England that had not been changed by legislation. However in late
2011, in a case against a wife bought by the Australian Crime Commission seeking testimony by her against her husband, the High Court of Australia decided that neither privilege existed in common law.

Thanks very much for this Ali. :rocker:

 

[alioop]

I wish all the BC's very good health.

 

[Makara]

I wish all the BC's very good health.

Absolutely and the very best of health to TM also.

 

[Liadan]

thank Alioops - I did get my facts all fussed up! Really appreciate the clarification!

 

[Curiousasacat]

Thanks curious - I always appreciate your twitter updates!

Thank you thinking, that is very kind : )

 

[Curiousasacat]

Oh Squiz......good one.
I could totally see NBC doing it.I can't see Olivia doing it.
It will be interesting to see if this one pans out.
Hoping your roundabout info also pans out.
Nice to see you back Squiz.

 

[Maigret]

Oh Squiz......good one.
I could totally see NBC doing it.I can't see Olivia doing it.
It will be interesting to see if this one pans out.
Hoping your roundabout info also pans out.
Nice to see you back Squiz.

Yes it's livened up the afternoon roll on next Monday

 

[alioop]

I would have thought either side could call him and then other side has right to cross examine . Help Alioop

Correct squizzy.

 

[Liadan]

Thanks Alioops - and please forgive my pedantic question -

So EBC, NBC, OW, IW aka the Clan - can be crossexamined by the prosecution? But because GBC has elected not to testify he is exempt from being put on the stand by the prosecution?

Thanks for your endless patience here Alioops- the law for a layperson is quite foreboding!

 

[alioop]

To answer a question about mobile phones in court, they must be on silent and don't talk on them. Don't answer calls and do leave the court room if you need to talk on your phone. These days discreet texting and Internet seem acceptable. If the magistrate makes any comments or directions to the public you must abide by them. Keep generally quiet, though the occasional whisper to the person next to you should be ok. Be of good behaviour and respectful of all persons in the courtroom including GBC, any BC'S, all witnesses and all lawyers. Also most importantly do eat before you go in and use the toilet so you will be comfortable for long periods of time. If you leave you may lose your seat. Take a notepad and pen and take lots of notes.

 

[Obsessor]

Speaking of people going to unusual lengths to get out of presenting themselves next week, I've been wondering for the past week whether GBC is likely to perform a stunt to get out of appearing, or at least delay it for a while longer. ( I know "normal" people would want to just do it and get it out of the way, but he seems to think differently to most people, IMO)

If he was to bung on a faux suicide attempt, or a meltdown at the 11th hour, what would happen?
They wouldn't start without him present would they?
Would they reschedule the whole committal in that case rather than sit around waiting?