ARREST!!! Australia - Allison Baden-Clay, Brisbane QLD, 19 April 2012 -#23

[Watsonian Institute]

The Criminal Code and Jury and Another Act Amendment Act 2008 allows for judge-only trials in specific circumstances, one of which is "there has been significant pre-trial publicity that may affect jury deliberations".

Page 5 (Part 2, Chapter Division 9A): http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/ACTS/2008/08AC050.pdf

Cheers

Jury only trials. Murder trial will require a decision on intention. Judge will require a jury be present. Common law requirement, regardless of statutory ammends.

I'm a bit confused - would it be possible to elaborate on what you mean? That would be so helpful.

Cheers

 

[coolcat]

I just wanted some more info about the cost of all this. Person A is accused of murder, can't get legal aid and has to engage barrister and lawyer. Witnesses need to be called (I assume that travel costs have to be paid), testing, experts etc. Are we talking hundreds of thousands, a million. What if the person can't pay , how do lawyers get their money.

This is something I do know as I am a Clerk at a Law firm and do Cost Agreements all day long......First of all I am in NSW so I am unsure of costings in QLD and Court Costs...?

If the person can't pay then the Lawyer won't work....SIMPLE...Unless they have an agreement on costs and upfront disbursements a Lawyer will do nothing and this is the case for a Barrister as well.

In this case I think it was mentioned that the Lawyer was a friend so they may have an agreement?

Seeing as though it is certainly going to be a High Profile case not only for the State but across the Country it is Fantasic Publicity so some Law Firms Half Costs or do it Pro-Bono.

As far as Witness' are concerned this is part of Court Costs as far as I am aware and only if the witness has been supeoned . Witness' don't make for great witness' if they are not willing to testify in court for your side so in most circumstances unless they are valuable they are not called upon. Most witness' will appear in court without travel or other cost being paid. My sister was Supeoned to Court a few years ago because she was unable to take time off work and had to travel 800km's to the Court - Once the Court Served her Supeona Papers her employer had to let her go. The Court paid Travel and Accommodation. I don't really know who picks up these costs exactly but I have never had to bill for any witness' that have been called upon for our clients.

As far as tests go - Depending on who has ordered the testing and what the testing is for it could be either party picking up the tab on them...In some cases the taxpayer pays???

Once GBC was charged and arrested he became entitled to Legal Aid.... It is my understanding that the court will then evaluate his Financial Position and can order his assets and bank accounts to be frozen in order to pay costs if need be.

It is very likely that GBC had to pay a few thousand dollars upfront when he Lawyer-ed up as this is the procedure most Law firms use and this then goes into Trust then progress payments are asked for to top up.

I could go on and on about billing because as we all know lawyers like to charge and there are so many things that can be billed for......You know it is at least $10 just to open an email from a client......lol!

 

[kiwi50]

My understanding is that any evidence they wish to use in court must be provided to the defence team in Discovery so that they can do their own testing refuting etc. A list of witness's each side are intending to call must also be provided to the defence and vis versa.
The real trick is when and how questions are phrased in order to trap witness's. These are not part of Discovery procedures.

And sadly this is where the games begin, experts for hire to contradict the other side, entrapment of witnesses, which seems pretty easy to do, jurors who don't have the intelligence to grasp forensic evidence.

Maybe if Hawkins or someone else knowlegible is around, can solve this puzzle for me.
Are prosecutors not allowed to show witnesses their previous statements, or even tell them what questions they will be asked?
The case I am watching at the moment, witnesses are asked things such as "do you remember telling X two years ago etc etc"
Then the witness says they can't remember the date or something (which is understandable if they haven't been been allowed to see their previous statement)
For many people it is probably the first time they have ever been in a High Court, you can see how nervous they are, and how easily it is for a lawyer to make them look unsure or lying.

 

[coolcat]

good thinking....but Greg out thunk you and thought of that last night

Sorry...I thought I read everything but must admit skipped a few pages because a lot of repeating was happening....Sorry Greg! Great Minds must think alike!:blushing:

 

[Watsonian Institute]

So does the public get to know any of the evidence shown at the committal hearing?

No. IMO.

Committals. Most open. This one almost certainly orders to contrary. IMO. ...

My apologies - I am now thoroughly perplexed. Would it be possible to please reiterate? I think this might help clear up any confusion?

Cheers

 

[UnfoldingTruth]

Wakesksate, I agree about seeing the "right person convicted" and that sometimes they do make mistakes in this area. It is probably inevitable over the course of many convictions that sometimes the innocent are pronounced guilty and also that the guilty get off.

However, I don't believe that someone would have been arrested if they were only a suspect. I believe that the police would only arrest and charge someone who they strongly believe, as a result of their investigations, was the perpetrator. I am obviously no expert and could be wrong in my understanding of the system though. In one of the media reports......and I don't know how to link.....they said that there have been a few occasions that they have planned to arrest him but they delayed the process to gather more evidence to just make double sure to try and avoid the possibility of charging an innocent man with murder (and to avoid the serious ramifications that has, not only to the man himself, but also to his dear children and the wider family).

Having said all of this, over the course of time new evidence could potentially emerge that demonstrated that someone was innocent or proved a different person to be the perpetrator which would obviously change things.

I was heartened to hear that the police where trying to make double sure before they made an arrest. The thought of an innocent man being charged with murdering his wife is quite distressing to me...especially for the sake of the children and the family as well. In saying this I am not assuming that an arrested man is definitely guilty......that is for the courts to determine....and as Hawkins said many threads ago...........no one is ever likely to know the whole TRUTH anyway except the actual perpetrator!

One question that I do have though is:

Early in the piece Mr Ainsworth said that GBC wasn't a person of interest anymore and then it changed to no comment. If that is the case why is the indication now that they have known for a long time who did it and were going to arrest him a few times but then delayed it? Did they initially not think that it was him? How long have they known for sure that it was him?

Obviously these thoughts are just my own opinions and questions as we wait for the workings of justice for Allison.

The police do and say alot of things for a reason. Most of what is said is carefully worded for a reason. Police did not want it known to those POI'S that they indeed had their sights set on them. It is all part of the investigations and why they would not make any comment. They have kept an awful lot close to their chests. (I believe they have known vitually since day one who they believed guilty, but its a matter of getting the evidence.)I wonder when we will find out COD? at this stage I am wondering if it will not be until the trial.

I agree completely that Police would not make an arrest in a case like this without alot of evidence and certainty they have the right person. This is why they held off making arrest. AS it was reported they had intended to a few times but decided to hang off for more evidence. Its very , very tempting for them to want to go in and get the person they believe responsible, but they do need to time things right in terms of evidence etc. If they go arrest with not enough evidence there is a much higher risk of a perp getting off. It would be totally awful if an innocent person was convicted. But as much as in the back of my mind it is always a possibility(a slim one)- (without knowing the evidence) that this is the case. But I believe it not likely that GBC did not have a part(or did it on his own) in his Allisons death, awaiting to see if there will be more arrests. I believe Police have done the hard yards to ensure they get the right person. MOO

 

[UnfoldingTruth]

This is something I do know as I am a Clerk at a Law firm and do Cost Agreements all day long......First of all I am in NSW so I am unsure of costings in QLD and Court Costs...?

If the person can't pay then the Lawyer won't work....SIMPLE...Unless they have an agreement on costs and upfront disbursements a Lawyer will do nothing and this is the case for a Barrister as well.

In this case I think it was mentioned that the Lawyer was a friend so they may have an agreement?

Seeing as though it is certainly going to be a High Profile case not only for the State but across the Country it is Fantasic Publicity so some Law Firms Half Costs or do it Pro-Bono.

As far as Witness' are concerned this is part of Court Costs as far as I am aware and only if the witness has been supeoned . Witness' don't make for great witness' if they are not willing to testify in court for your side so in most circumstances unless they are valuable they are not called upon. Most witness' will appear in court without travel or other cost being paid. My sister was Supeoned to Court a few years ago because she was unable to take time off work and had to travel 800km's to the Court - Once the Court Served her Supeona Papers her employer had to let her go. The Court paid Travel and Accommodation. I don't really know who picks up these costs exactly but I have never had to bill for any witness' that have been called upon for our clients.

As far as tests go - Depending on who has ordered the testing and what the testing is for it could be either party picking up the tab on them...In some cases the taxpayer pays???

Once GBC was charged and arrested he became entitled to Legal Aid.... It is my understanding that the court will then evaluate his Financial Position and can order his assets and bank accounts to be frozen in order to pay costs if need be.

It is very likely that GBC had to pay a few thousand dollars upfront when he Lawyer-ed up as this is the procedure most Law firms use and this then goes into Trust then progress payments are asked for to top up.

I could go on and on about billing because as we all know lawyers like to charge and there are so many things that can be billed for......You know it is at least $10 just to open an email from a client......lol!

I would like to know who is paying his legal bills, if he has no money? Legal aid would only entitle him to a court appointed lawyer wouldn't it? Not a top criminal lawyer.

 

[Paradox11]

Jury only trials. Murder trial will require a decision on intention. Judge will require a jury be present. Common law requirement, regardless of statutory ammends.

Hey Hawkins,

I don’t know if this has been covered as I haven’t been able to keep up with the threads, but I would be grateful if you could talk us through what might be the expected defenses in this case.

I know you mentioned that GBC will most likely not take the witness stand, and it will be up to QPS to prove that he is responsible for Allison’s death, but will his team be presenting some kind of defense?

From what I remember studying criminology there are three main defenses in DV related cases:

1. Self defense
2. Provocation
3. Intention

Not sure if this is still relevant or how it applies to QLD law, (from memory there was some changes to provocation laws recently) so would be grateful if you could enlighten us as to what the defense strategy might be

 

[UnfoldingTruth]

Well that case is almost at the end & maybe by next week a verdict.

It's taken sooo long...NINE years...heck if it takes that long with GBC's case the threads on here will be in the 100000000s...poor Kimster...welcome to Australian Justice system....lol.

Singh case? I am so interested to find out the final verdict there.. ALOT of stuff has come out of the woodwork there, wonder what we will be in store for with the Baden-Clay case, when it finally gets to trial.

 

[J-Diggety]

Im not really sure to be honest. Just read that he was very good at what he does and has been involved in some high profile cases in the past.

I guess I'm asking in a more general sense. Whether it is him that represents the accused or someone else and due to a technicality they are acquitted rather than lack of guilt (imo) iykwim.

It always made me sick to my stomach when people get away with serious crimes for something like that.

Cheers

Its an interesting point if he does have extensive knowledge/experience in that regard.

 

[CIB]

I don't think anyone has answered this (correct me if I am wrong)

WHY OH WHY would QPS have asked Channel 9 for their programming schedule from 4PM WEDNESDAY April 18th - 4AM Thursday 19th?

Allison was apparently murdered on the Thursday evening/early Friday morning 20th.

WHY do QPS need the TV schedule for 4pm Wed - 4am Thur?

Baffles and intrigues me!

 

[Amee]

had a chat to my daughter today regarding the hair samples. She works in a lab.
She was saying in the lab she is in they do a Mitochondrial DNA testing which is passed on from the mother to her siblings. Thats with "cut" hair.
Not sure if this helps but thought Id pass it on

 

[EllaN]

Thanks for the info Coolcat

 

[UnfoldingTruth]

I don't think anyone has answered this (correct me if I am wrong)

WHY OH WHY would QPS have asked Channel 9 for their programming schedule from 4PM WEDNESDAY April 18th - 4AM Thursday 19th?

Allison was apparently murdered on the Thursday evening/early Friday morning 20th.

WHY do QPS need the TV schedule for 4pm Wed - 4am Thur?

Baffles and intrigues me!

Don't think any of us are going to know the answer to that one I'm afraid. And in actuallity, they are asking ALL tv stations(brisbane) for their programing. I wasn't sure what date channel 7 reported- I thought it was for the 19th/20th..but can't remember and can't find a link to see it/ If its the same dates as you mentioned, then I would think it is to verify something in timing or someones alibi in timing. But if it was reported by them to be the 19th/20th, then channel 9 probably got dates wrong, however that seems a pretty big thing to get wrong.

 

[Hawkins]

I'm a bit confused - would it be possible to elaborate on what you mean? That would be so helpful.

Cheers

Sure happy to help, but just IMO and MOO. This is a murder indictment. In Qld we have two forms of murder but this will almost certainly be an indictment brought pursuant to s.302(1)(a) of the Code. The main job for the Crown will be to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Mr Baden Clay intended at the material time to kill or cause GBH to some person and as a result some person (not necessarily the intended victim) did in fact die. The tests for intention adopted in Qld are subjective, and have been developed as common law principles. This means you wont find them in any statute such as the Code, but in the decisions of the Qld Courtof Appeal and sometimes the High Court of Australia. There is a very strong common law presumption that these subjective tests of intention must be applied by a jury of the accused's peers. The jury is to be the arbiter of fact, and the judge of law. The Bligh government attempted to address some efficiency issues in our criminal courts by providing for, inter alia, judge only tries for serious indictable offences. The move was seriously criticised by some memebrs of the judiciary and the legal professions. What was actually needed they said, were more judges and expedited forensic procedures. The result is that although an accused may apply for a juryless trial (as Mr Sica considered), the common law presumption that subjective tests of intention in homicide matters requires lay determination prevails. In the unlikely event that a murder trial ever goes without a juy, there will be interlocutary proceedings to establish the validity of the statutory reforms. Challeneges on the basis of constitutional breaches and of international law obligations have also been flagged. Or so I hear. Hope that is of some assistance. It's always tempting to assume that where there is a statutory provision that it is a simple statement of 'the law'. With the criminal law, it rarely is. But as I say JMO.

 

[KatiKutloose]

Don't think any of us are going to know the answer to that one I'm afraid. And in actuallity, they are asking ALL tv stations(brisbane) for their programing. I wasn't sure what date channel 7 reported- I thought it was for the 19th/20th..but can't remember and can't find a link to see it/ If its the same dates as you mentioned, then I would think it is to verify something in timing or someones alibi in timing. But if it was reported by them to be the 19th/20th, then channel 9 probably got dates wrong, however that seems a pretty big thing to get wrong.

It was a female TV reporter and she definitely said the 18th, it's had me wondering also.

 

[The Dark Shadow]

Committals. Most open. This one almost certainly orders to contrary. IMO. MOO. Wait and see.

Yes, it is a possibility that the court will completely suppress the MSM from reporting , but i am confident they will allow some info through
(as i have previously stated, Judges discretion e.t.c.).

So, my question is, what do you all think? a complete blackout or partial?
Also, WI and Hawkins (and anyone else, for that matter ); in your experience, what aspects (other than charges), if any, will the court allow MSM to report on?
Will be interesting to find out, when the time comes.

 

[Hawkins]

Hey Hawkins,

I don’t know if this has been covered as I haven’t been able to keep up with the threads, but I would be grateful if you could talk us through what might be the expected defenses in this case.

I know you mentioned that GBC will most likely not take the witness stand, and it will be up to QPS to prove that he is responsible for Allison’s death, but will his team be presenting some kind of defense?

From what I remember studying criminology there are three main defenses in DV related cases:

1. Self defense
2. Provocation
3. Intention

Not sure if this is still relevant or how it applies to QLD law, (from memory there was some changes to provocation laws recently) so would be grateful if you could enlighten us as to what the defense strategy might be

Not being rude but getting tight for time. I have some views as to how the defence is likely to proceed but not helpful to air those views here. The defence will scour every detail of the DPP brief, possibly hire their own forensic experts and look at all possible theories of the case contrary to that proposed by the Crown before deciding on a strategy. If the defence issufficiently resourced they can even go to the lengths of having animations designed to explain elements of accident etc if that's to be pursued. All MOO.

 

[KatiKutloose]

There's a photo that comes up on here periodically. Gee it reminds me of something......

Which photo Dodo? I've looked all over the place and it's driving me mad that I can't pick anything odd.

 

[coolcat]

I would like to know who is paying his legal bills, if he has no money? Legal aid would only entitle him to a court appointed lawyer wouldn't it? Not a top criminal lawyer.

I am assuming his lawyer is being paid by his family..IMO or an arrangement has been made?

His Lawyer may be on the Legal Aid Panel so therefore he may be getting Legal Aid from him...But IMO he is paying this Lawyer... I really believe that the Police hinted that they suspect him early on and that is why he has hired a Lawyer already so they had plenty of time to prepare.

The Court can appoint you a Legal Aid Solicitor but if you are able to find a Solicitor who does Legal Aid work this is much better.....IMO!

As far as him having No money - I am unsure if this is entirely true?

His Real Estate would have to have a trust fund and if this is the case and from what I am aware of you can't be a bankrupt ( or criminal ).

I wonder how much his Rental Roll is worth?

He also has 2 Cars?

He most likely has Superannuation?

He may also have Life Insurance?

Most Business people have Share Investments?

He maybe Cash poor but if you delve deeper he may be able to cash in on all of the above??? IMO!