There's a few plate on here http://www.plate-planet.com/bodypages/au-aust.html
I can;t remember but if Telecom was a government entity, it probably would have had its plates issued to the govt dept, wouldn't it?
Australia Claremont Serial Killer, 1996 - 1997, Perth, Western Australia - #19
- Thread starter bessie
- Start date
New Posts
-
TN - Karen Swift, 44, murdered, Dyersburg, 30 Oct 2011 *husband charged in 2022* #4
- Latest: GeorgeWambles
-
- Status
There's a few plate on here http://www.plate-planet.com/bodypages/au-aust.html
I can;t remember but if Telecom was a government entity, it probably would have had its plates issued to the govt dept, wouldn't it?
https://goo.gl/images/389p3M
Wanted vehicle .
"White 1992 Toyota Camry Station Wagon"
https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp...nce-and-suspected-murder-20180131-h0rnw4.html
There is little in the way of competition for the description the Banality of Evil than a 26 year old Camry. I am not making light of the darkness, but this would be hiding in plain sight. Who ever notices a Camry, so ordinary!!
One can only the hope the instigator of his harassment for a decade suffers a similar fate.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
<modsnip>
Sequence of events though in this case it refers to the Supreme Court as it is a serious charge.
[h=2]Criminal matters[/h]In the case of a criminal offence, the accused is arrested and taken to a police station where the charge is explained and a formal written charge is made.
The alternative is that the accused is summonsed by police to attend court to answer the charge or charges.
Usually, the arrested person is released on bail, which is an undertaking/agreement to attend court on a certain day at a given time. For the most serious offences, the arrested person may be kept in custody.
For less serious offences, rather than arrest, the charging officer can exercise discretion and commence the action by prosecution notice accompanied with either a court hearing notice or summons.
The accused receives a document requiring his or her attendance at court, which also provides information as to the alleged offence.
A date is set for the court attendance and the accused person will be requested to plead ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’.
If a person needs legal help before being able to plead, the case is adjourned to a later date.
If the accused pleads guilty, the magistrate will deal with the matter. If the plea is not guilty, a trial date is set and trial preparations begin.
http://www.courts.dotag.wa.gov.au/C/court_procedure.aspx?uid=0834-3018-6231-5614
Sequence of events though in this case it refers to the Supreme Court as it is a serious charge.
[h=2]Criminal matters[/h]In the case of a criminal offence, the accused is arrested and taken to a police station where the charge is explained and a formal written charge is made.
The alternative is that the accused is summonsed by police to attend court to answer the charge or charges.
Usually, the arrested person is released on bail, which is an undertaking/agreement to attend court on a certain day at a given time. For the most serious offences, the arrested person may be kept in custody.
For less serious offences, rather than arrest, the charging officer can exercise discretion and commence the action by prosecution notice accompanied with either a court hearing notice or summons.
The accused receives a document requiring his or her attendance at court, which also provides information as to the alleged offence.
A date is set for the court attendance and the accused person will be requested to plead ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’.
If a person needs legal help before being able to plead, the case is adjourned to a later date.
If the accused pleads guilty, the magistrate will deal with the matter. If the plea is not guilty, a trial date is set and trial preparations begin.
http://www.courts.dotag.wa.gov.au/C/court_procedure.aspx?uid=0834-3018-6231-5614
Further information. https://www.slp.wa.gov.au/statutes/...9f9f57776c8614f648256ff5001cc921?OpenDocument
- 44. Disclosure/committal hearing, procedure on(1) At a disclosure/committal hearing in relation to a charge, the court must ¾
(a) if satisfied that the prosecutor has complied with section 42 ¾
(i) require the accused to plead to the charge;
(ii) commit the accused for sentence or trial, as the plea requires, to a superior court with jurisdiction to deal with the charge; and
(iii) comply with subsection (2);
(b) if not so satisfied ¾
(i) adjourn the charge to another disclosure/ committal hearing on a new court date that allows a reasonable time for the prosecutor to comply with section 42;
(ii) order the prosecutor to comply with section 42 before that new court date; and
(iii) if the prosecutor does not obey the order, adjourn the charge again or dismiss it for want of prosecution.
(2) As soon as practicable after committing the accused for sentence or trial to a superior court under subsection (1), the court of summary jurisdiction must ¾
(a) give the superior court a copy of ¾
(i) the prosecution notice containing the charge and the information recorded under section 47(1);
(ii) any remand warrant for the accused;
(iii) any witness documents for the charge;
(iv) any order made under section 138; and
(v) any other document prescribed;
(b) if necessary, comply with the Bail Act 1982 section 27; and
(c) give the relevant authorised officer a copy of ¾
(i) all documents that it has sent to the superior court under paragraph (a); and
(ii) any bail documents for the accused.
Fast Eddie
Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2017
- Messages
- 51
- Reaction score
- 50
There is no suggestion that Telecom/Telstra used Z Plates on their cars, however, the best info I can find is that Telecom did use Z plates up until privatisation. The only certainty is that the vehicle in question was first purchased by the Federal Govt. Its a reasonable assumption, given the current situation, that it is fairly likely that the vehicle was used in WA by Telecom. As for disposal after 2 years or so, it was and is very common for the user of the vehicle to purchase it at the time of disposal.
I guess because it fits with what is already known. The accused worked for Telstra and had access to Telstra vehicles. Of all the Camrys registered in WA that year I wouldnt think very many would have been registered to the federal government. State government departments there was probably plenty. Being in WA, what other federal government employees would have been based here?
Just my opinion but its awfully coincidental.
I do not know how many Federal Government agencies operated from Perth in the 90,s , in the latest Perth white pages from page 5 to 11 covers Federal Government agencies so I would think at least some were here then ... also from the articles re the Camry in WA Today the police know the cars history up to 2008 ... they would know if it was a Telstra car , they would know who bought it afterwards ... they are asking for info from after 2008 , not from the 90,s
petedavo.au
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2016
- Messages
- 2,314
- Reaction score
- 1,024
Federal and State government vehicles could have Z or Q plates issued by WA DOT, but it wasn't mandatory. Many govt Dept and trading enterprise either did or didn't, some had both. SGIO when it was govt owned for instance all had personalised plates starting SGI.0nnP
where nn was a number. Western Power had both. Police only used standard issue plates. Telecom started with Z plates, but numbers ran out, so used standard.
Besides, it cost them to change plates when vehicles were disposed.
I think Z and Q plates might not be issued anymore. I haven't seen any on the road for a long while.
Sent from my HTC 2PQ910 using Tapatalk
Government departments requiring a presence in WA would have had cars for use particularly if they serviced country areas. Armed Services, Customs/Immigration, Social Security, Education, Employment and Training would be some.
https://www.australia.gov.au/about-...and-agencies/list-of-departments-and-agencies
Fast Eddie
Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2017
- Messages
- 51
- Reaction score
- 50
Obviously the Police know the history of the car pre 2008. The info was purchased and posted by me for the benefit of other members.
As the police obviously know the history of the car prior to 2008 any talk about what or who used it before is pointless , assuming it was a telecom vehicle is pointless ... the obvious is not always obvious in this forum
Personally even if police know what happened to the vehicle before 2008, it is not in the media. I am interested in who owned it and was driving it specifically in January 1996, perhaps 1995 perhaps March 1997. I could hazard a guess. Government cars are often sold after 2 years or 40,000 km or they were at the time. I am assuming that SS's DNA may not be associated with the Commodore currently seized by police so other options are being looked at.
I am looking to make a freedom of information request in regards to a crime from the early 90's, investigators and forensics were involved. I need some general advice from somebody who is experienced with the process and the FOIA, so that I can make the best attempt possible.
I have visited police on three occasions, once in 2016 and twice in 2017. Firstly in Fremantle and twice in Northbridge. They stonewalled me. Only on the third attempt did they attempt to search their database. They found nothing, but informed me the information would still be available in hard copy archives, but that I would have to request the information through a FOI request.
I have spent hundreds of hours searching newspaper microfilms searching for similar offenders, and getting supplementary information for a list I compiled from MAKO. I have narrowed it down to three offenders with similar MO's.
The primary victim of the crime re-contacted police in Claremont in the late 90's when an information appeal tent was set up for info on the Claremont Serial Killer. The police never contacted her at any point after the initial reporting of the crime and forensics, nor after she re reported it in Claremont.
The crime was a violent home intrusion and sexual assault. I was a witness. The perp planned and knew the targets schedule - he entered the house ahead of time, he came prepared and left on foot with his toolbox. There is no doubt he was a serial offender with experience. There are distinct features to the attack that make his MO easily identifiable, if police took a closer look at cases of the three offenders I have identified, they could possibly identify which was responsible. One of these POI's is a free man in Tuart Hill under a strict supervision order.
I may not be listed as a witness / victim in the case files, although I am quite certain I am. Rather than dredging up the past and asking the primary victim to relive the events and fill out the FOI request, I would like to do it myself, but if that is unlikely to yield results, I will involve the primary victim. If I have to involve a lawyer I will.
There are two distinct MO similarities to the failed 1988 Huntingdale attack by Bradley Robert Edwards that I will not disclose here. However, it occurred about 15 minutes drive from Huntingdale, a few years later, with similar victimology. While he is not my primary person of interest, I thought police would at least be interested in hearing about a potential CSK pre-murder phase crime. Turns out they have no interest, and were completely unwilling to pass the information on to anybody, let alone the Macro taskforce.
I am skeptical of the information I will receive in the FOI request. I have an acquaintance who worked at the POST and can have the story published, but this is likely to anger WAPOL. It is quite the dilemma.
I have decided to firstly try reach out here and reddit, and see if anybody has any experience with FOI requests, works for the Western Australia Police, or has any influence with WAPOL.
If you made it to the end, thanks for your time. If you can help, inbox me.
I have visited police on three occasions, once in 2016 and twice in 2017. Firstly in Fremantle and twice in Northbridge. They stonewalled me. Only on the third attempt did they attempt to search their database. They found nothing, but informed me the information would still be available in hard copy archives, but that I would have to request the information through a FOI request.
I have spent hundreds of hours searching newspaper microfilms searching for similar offenders, and getting supplementary information for a list I compiled from MAKO. I have narrowed it down to three offenders with similar MO's.
The primary victim of the crime re-contacted police in Claremont in the late 90's when an information appeal tent was set up for info on the Claremont Serial Killer. The police never contacted her at any point after the initial reporting of the crime and forensics, nor after she re reported it in Claremont.
The crime was a violent home intrusion and sexual assault. I was a witness. The perp planned and knew the targets schedule - he entered the house ahead of time, he came prepared and left on foot with his toolbox. There is no doubt he was a serial offender with experience. There are distinct features to the attack that make his MO easily identifiable, if police took a closer look at cases of the three offenders I have identified, they could possibly identify which was responsible. One of these POI's is a free man in Tuart Hill under a strict supervision order.
I may not be listed as a witness / victim in the case files, although I am quite certain I am. Rather than dredging up the past and asking the primary victim to relive the events and fill out the FOI request, I would like to do it myself, but if that is unlikely to yield results, I will involve the primary victim. If I have to involve a lawyer I will.
There are two distinct MO similarities to the failed 1988 Huntingdale attack by Bradley Robert Edwards that I will not disclose here. However, it occurred about 15 minutes drive from Huntingdale, a few years later, with similar victimology. While he is not my primary person of interest, I thought police would at least be interested in hearing about a potential CSK pre-murder phase crime. Turns out they have no interest, and were completely unwilling to pass the information on to anybody, let alone the Macro taskforce.
I am skeptical of the information I will receive in the FOI request. I have an acquaintance who worked at the POST and can have the story published, but this is likely to anger WAPOL. It is quite the dilemma.
I have decided to firstly try reach out here and reddit, and see if anybody has any experience with FOI requests, works for the Western Australia Police, or has any influence with WAPOL.
If you made it to the end, thanks for your time. If you can help, inbox me.
I would like to wish you all the best with your quest but to avoid disappointment in the future find out exactly what YOU are allowed to see under freedom of information
You may go to a lot of trouble to finish up with a lot of blacked out pages , as in you will only see where you yourself are mentioned , if the victim was willing to apply for the information you would get a lot more that would be of use, but I realise this could be traumatic
Things may have changed but in the past protecting departments was the first priority , especially if mistakes were made , there are a few places that offer a small amount of free legal advice it may be worth speaking to someone , I would think a lawyer would know how to word a request to get the most information
I have in the past requested info under FOIA and know what you can expect , [ Not from the police ] , and its a frustrating experience , pages of black ink that were not worth printing at first ... but I realised it was being done to deter me so I kept at it until I got what I wanted
Once again good luck , but to save yourself some heartache try and find out first what you can see if successful
Dr Guidini El Gordo is correct I have been down that track many times.
If you are not the victim or the perp you are unlikely to get anything. If you do it will likely be the usual blanked out info
though if there is enough in between wording you can work out quite a lot of what's missing.
You can appeal the refusal decision if you can show reason you need it. As has been said above a long winded process.
https://www.police.wa.gov.au/~/media/Files/Police/.../FOI/FOI-Application-Form.pdf?.
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
papertrail
Former Member
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2015
- Messages
- 2,573
- Reaction score
- 2,618
To submit a foi application with any hope of success you must supply exactly what you are referring to. You cannot submit an application that is a fishing expidition if you know what I mean. In other words as an example. I had accident on a certain date involving my vehicle and another. The foi application would need to have an accurate date and detail. You must also prove the foi application and subsequent (prospective) release to you is in the public interest. There are many exemptions applied. This link I'll provide solid info. Research using Google to see where some people have hit snagshttps://www.police.wa.gov.au/About-Us/Our-governance/Freedom-of-information
papertrail
Former Member
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2015
- Messages
- 2,573
- Reaction score
- 2,618
Well worth getting onto the Supreme Court WA's website, find the "Judgement" link on the left hand side, type in Wark in the search box located at top of right hand side. The 2nd to last and last pdf's have an excellent description of how evidence is stored and recorded and how the filing system and storage systems and locations have drastically altered over the last few years! This link will get you to the final document...very very interesting reading imo http://decisions.justice.wa.gov.au/...D3571662B4825821D000BA8BD&action=openDocument
- Status