Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, Nsw, 12 Sept 2014 - #38

[purpleandgreen]

BBM, How do you know WT's case involves a sexually motivated crime?

Well sadly, we don’t know that it didn’t. (Not that that’s what SA said at all, let’s remember). There are many possibilities in this case, some of which are too terrible to imagine, and until we find the answer we unfortunately have to be open to all possibilities. IMO.

 

[sleepinoz]

i think they can if they want to but they can't made/forced to.

Initially they have a choice, if they choose not to they can be forced to by the court.

The section recognises that forcing family members to testify against one another can harm the family unit, and that harming the family unit is undesirable.

However, the protection does not apply in all situations. Rather, the court can force a family member to give evidence if the nature and extent of the harm caused is outweighed by the desirability of having the evidence given.

Can I be forced to testify against my family?

 

[sleepinoz]

Just a little more on this subject.

It was in existence until overturned by the High Court in 2011 in the case of "Australian Crime and Corruption Commission v Stoddart"

A couple of links:

Court overturns wife's right to silence

Is There Such A Thing As Spousal Privilege In Australia?

 

[SouthAussie]

I guess if someone has been happy to lie to the police so far, why do they think this person will tell the truth to the Coroner.

Yes, I think a liar may continue to lie. As we have seen in the past, a Coroner's report can actually state how much the Coroner thinks a person(s) has lied when giving evidence.

If you look at the Coronial Report following Matthew Leveson's inquest, it even has a whole section called "Lies, Contradictions, Inconsistencies, and Nonsense".

While this lie-identification may not help in achieving a good outcome, it can sure let everyone know who is lying and make everyone wonder why they are lying. The liar's life may not be very easy after that, due to societal disgust and mistrust toward the liar.

Speaking outside the court, Mr Leveson said justice had been done "in a small way", and he believed the Coroner had gone as far as she legally could. "She named Michael Atkins over and over and over again," he said. "His lies, his deception.
https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw...leveson-inquest-findings-20171205-gzywib.html

http://www.coroners.justice.nsw.gov.au/Documents/Findings Matthew Leveson.pdf

 

[SouthAussie]

Another thing to note about an inquest is that the questioning can become very aggressive and tough when a person is not forthcoming with the truth. An inquest is not necessarily a nice-to-everyone, namby-pamby kind of situation.

Craddock, with his many years of experience as a criminal defence lawyer and as a prosecutor, may be very good at pin pointing the questions that need to be asked .... and may continue to question a witness over and over again about the same thing.

Come to think of it, the foster parents barrister, Gail Furness SC, may be very good at that, too - with her immeasurable and high-profile experience.


Inside the inquest as counsel assisting “ramped up the questioning and got more aggressive” with Mr Atkins, the atmosphere became highly charged.
Matthew Leveson murder: Michael Atkins’ ‘body’ confession to be unsealed

 

[SouthAussie]

I wonder if inquest-questioning can bring alleged/charged/convicted crimes committed by witnesses into the story? As in, perhaps a potential pre-disposition into certain types of criminal activities or acts against other persons.

I am not able to find anything about that, at the moment. Although I know that inquests have different rules than a criminal court, where that is not allowed to happen ... unless it is put forward as tendency evidence.

ETA: Just answering my own question. Looks like it is admissable at an inquest, based on this Coroner's findings.

https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/lcdocs/inquiries/2131/Bowraville - Final report.pdf

 

[they'll get you]

It could be interesting when people are under oath. IMO.

A liar is a liar.
Oath or not.

 

[they'll get you]

I guess if someone has been happy to lie to the police so far, why do they think this person will tell the truth to the Coroner.

The lie has worked so far so why would they change their story on the stand?
The Bible is no reason to tell the truth to some.

 

[they'll get you]

If they are found to be lying, they can get up to 10 years for perjury.

I doubt that would make a difference to this real man.



https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp...l/news-story/3e8b2ffe6b59379416b23214bddac6ea

 

[purpleandgreen]

Another thing to note about an inquest is that the questioning can become very aggressive and tough when a person is not forthcoming with the truth. An inquest is not necessarily a nice-to-everyone, namby-pamby kind of situation.

Craddock, with his many years of experience as a criminal defence lawyer and as a prosecutor, may be very good at pin pointing the questions that need to be asked .... and may continue to question a witness over and over again about the same thing.

Come to think of it, the foster parents barrister, Gail Furness SC, may be very good at that, too - with her immeasurable and high-profile experience.


Inside the inquest as counsel assisting “ramped up the questioning and got more aggressive” with Mr Atkins, the atmosphere became highly charged.
Matthew Leveson murder: Michael Atkins’ ‘body’ confession to be unsealed

The tougher the better, SA. It's critical to find out what happened to the beautiful little boy. IMO

 

[papertrail]

This is an inquest which is much more relaxed regarding rules than other courts ( they are in Qld, am assuming same in NSW) The Coronial can ask anything s/he wants and call anyone s/he wants that will enable a decision to be reached. Two inquests have concluded that Dawson murdered his wife many years ago, but he has only recently been arrested. So it is anyone's guess as to what happens after this inquest.

You talk of a decision. What may this decision be linked to?

 

[papertrail]

This is an inquest which is much more relaxed regarding rules than other courts ( they are in Qld, am assuming same in NSW) The Coronial can ask anything s/he wants and call anyone s/he wants that will enable a decision to be reached. Two inquests have concluded that Dawson murdered his wife many years ago, but he has only recently been arrested. So it is anyone's guess as to what happens after this inquest.

An inquest cannot conclude that a person has committed murder.

 

[BreakingNews]

You talk of a decision. What may this decision be linked to?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...AhAB&usg=AOvVaw0-uCe5OekKdFKwBTp_OCHA&ampcf=1

 

[SouthAussie]

An inquest cannot conclude that a person has committed murder.

The 2003 inquest followed a separate 2001 inquest in which coroner Jan Stevenson also determined a “known person”, Mr Dawson, had killed Lyn.
Nocookies The Australian - Aug 17, 2018

Two separate inquests previously recommended to the NSW Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) that a "known person", now identified as Chris Dawson, be charged with her murder.
Teacher's Pet: The Search For Lyn Dawson | ten daily

 

[Karinna]

An inquest cannot conclude that a person has committed murder.

You are correct for the state of NSW
(quote)
A guide to coronial services in NSW
for families and friends of missing people
THE INQUEST
What is an inquest?
An inquest is a formal hearing in a courtroom concerning the death or suspected death of a person.
The inquest is led by the Coroner to gather more information about whether a death has occurred and,
if so, the cause and circumstances of the death.
An inquest is different to other court cases: the Coroner cannot attribute blame and the hearing is inquisitorial
rather than adversarial. That is, an inquest is not a trial with a prosecutor and a defendant. Coroners have
more flexibility than other jurisdictions with the type of evidence they can accept.
During an inquest, the Coroner may call witnesses (under oath) to give evidence of their knowledge of the
circumstances of the suspected death and exhibits may be presented. The Coroner, the Counsel Assisting
the Coroner, a lawyer representing an interested party, or an interested party (at the discretion of the Coroner)
may ask questions of witnesses.
http://www.coroners.justice.nsw.gov...or families and friends of missing people.pdf

 

[Thebottomline]

An inquest cannot conclude that a person has committed murder.

I think that’s incorrect , look at the Dawson case

 

[Thebottomline]

Sorry just saw south Aussie had referenced that

 

[Thebottomline]

Gosh imagine TJ at the inquest if he called up Awful man he is .

 

[Karinna]

I think that’s incorrect , look at the Dawson case

Wasn't that case in QLD?
WT's CI is in NSW so it might be different to QLD.
(quote)
Will the Coroner determine the person responsible for the death and/or disappearance of
the missing person?
It is not the role of the Coroner to determine guilt or lay blame for a suspected death. The Act prohibits
Coroners from making any findings, comments or recommendations suggesting that a person has committed
any offence.
In some cases, the Coroner may form the view that a known person may have contributed to the suspected
death, and there is sufficient legally admissible evidence to refer the matter to the Director of Public
Prosecutions (DPP). If the Coroner forms this view during or at the end of an inquest, the Coroner may
suspend the inquest and refer the inquest papers to the DPP. The DPP will then consider whether to
pursue indictable charges against that person. The Coroner must also suspend the inquest if he or she is
advised that a person has been charged with an indictable offence connected with the suspected death.
At the conclusion of the criminal proceedings the Coroner will review the matter again.
http://www.coroners.justice.nsw.gov...or families and friends of missing people.pdf

 

[BreakingNews]

Wasn't that case in QLD?
WT's CI is in NSW so it might be different to QLD.
(quote)
Will the Coroner determine the person responsible for the death and/or disappearance of
the missing person?
It is not the role of the Coroner to determine guilt or lay blame for a suspected death. The Act prohibits
Coroners from making any findings, comments or recommendations suggesting that a person has committed
any offence.
In some cases, the Coroner may form the view that a known person may have contributed to the suspected
death, and there is sufficient legally admissible evidence to refer the matter to the Director of Public
Prosecutions (DPP). If the Coroner forms this view during or at the end of an inquest, the Coroner may
suspend the inquest and refer the inquest papers to the DPP. The DPP will then consider whether to
pursue indictable charges against that person. The Coroner must also suspend the inquest if he or she is
advised that a person has been charged with an indictable offence connected with the suspected death.
At the conclusion of the criminal proceedings the Coroner will review the matter again.
http://www.coroners.justice.nsw.gov...or families and friends of missing people.pdf

The Dawson case was in NSW 2001 and 2003