Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, Nsw, 12 Sept 2014 - #48

[purpleandgreen]

Im wondering if he is able to write about it in his book

I sure hope he does. I hope he shouts it from the rooftops if it helps find out what happened to our little man.

 

[Cleaver Greene]

Do you think the recordings will end up being heard by the coroner?

I am curious to see when inquest resumes if (regardless of the pending charges of Jubelin) these will be heard by the coroner. Even in a closed court. I think I have seen discussions that regardless of them being 'illegally" recorded, it might be the coroners decision as to if they hold relevance to the case to be considered?

Not going to go over old topics again however I am curious to see if these will be considered at inquest.

I don’t know whether the Coroner will use the recordings. It is a very complex and messy situation.

In a criminal trial, inadmissible evidence is excluded. Inquests are not bound by the normal rules of evidence. It’s entirely a decision for the Coroner. So, in theory, the Coroner could hear the recordings even if they are found to have been illegally obtained.

What muddies the waters in this case is that usually illegally obtained evidence only emerges in the lead up to a trial and during the trial the judge decides whether it is admissible or not. It is highly unusual for a police officer to be charged with an offence stemming from an investigation when there hasn’t even been an arrest. This means that what Jubelin is alleged to have done is considered so illegal that he is being prosecuted. I don’t think I have ever come across this scenario before.

It’s also unusual for an inquest to run at the same time as an investigation, where the findings of the inquest will be used to further the investigation. So while the Coroner in theory could admit the recordings even if Jubelin is found guilty, this will skew the Coroner’s findings, because it may rely on evidence that can’t be relied on if someone is ever charged over WT’s abduction.

I think that if the recordings are found to be so illegal that Jubelin is convicted, the Coroner probably won’t use them in the inquest. The Coroner can make a recommendation that a “known person” be charged and refer the matter to the DPP. But the Coroner can’t make that recommendation if she has relied on illegally obtained evidence.

My view is that if the Coroner admits the recordings (if they are found to be illegal) her findings can’t be used to further the investigation. Contrary to some of the posts on this thread, the Coroner isn’t there to do the investigation for police. Her job is to make a finding on what happened. She is completely impartial. If there is enough evidence to recommend a charge, she will do that. But she can’t do that if she relies on evidence that will never be accepted by a criminal court.

 

[SouthAussie]

But she can’t do that if she relies on evidence that will never be accepted by a criminal court.

And that, to me, is the big question. How would the Coroner know if a criminal court judge will allow the recordings? As it is not a black and white decision, being based on a judge's discretion.

Perhaps Margaret Cunneen successfully showing that Jubes had a legal right to make the recordings will sway all decisions regarding the use of the recordings (if they are needed).

 

[mussopossum]

I don’t know whether the Coroner will use the recordings. It is a very complex and messy situation.

In a criminal trial, inadmissible evidence is excluded. Inquests are not bound by the normal rules of evidence. It’s entirely a decision for the Coroner. So, in theory, the Coroner could hear the recordings even if they are found to have been illegally obtained.

What muddies the waters in this case is that usually illegally obtained evidence only emerges in the lead up to a trial and during the trial the judge decides whether it is admissible or not. It is highly unusual for a police officer to be charged with an offence stemming from an investigation when there hasn’t even been an arrest. This means that what Jubelin is alleged to have done is considered so illegal that he is being prosecuted. I don’t think I have ever come across this scenario before.

It’s also unusual for an inquest to run at the same time as an investigation, where the findings of the inquest will be used to further the investigation. So while the Coroner in theory could admit the recordings even if Jubelin is found guilty, this will skew the Coroner’s findings, because it may rely on evidence that can’t be relied on if someone is ever charged over WT’s abduction.

I think that if the recordings are found to be so illegal that Jubelin is convicted, the Coroner probably won’t use them in the inquest. The Coroner can make a recommendation that a “known person” be charged and refer the matter to the DPP. But the Coroner can’t make that recommendation if she has relied on illegally obtained evidence.

My view is that if the Coroner admits the recordings (if they are found to be illegal) her findings can’t be used to further the investigation. Contrary to some of the posts on this thread, the Coroner isn’t there to do the investigation for police. Her job is to make a finding on what happened. She is completely impartial. If there is enough evidence to recommend a charge, she will do that. But she can’t do that if she relies on evidence that will never be accepted by a criminal court.

Thank you, Cleaver for such a detailed and informative reply.

And you are right. This case is messy and complex.

It has been from day one.

But the one thing that I do believe is that Gary Jubelin put his whole heart, his dedication and his determination into this case and finding little William.

All I have seen is praise and support from past families that he has worked with on cases.

As I said I respect the law, but not when it protects criminals (in any situation)

Thanks again for your reply it was very informative.

 

[mussopossum]

And that, to me, is the big question. How would the Coroner know if a criminal court judge will allow the recordings? As it is not a black and white decision, being based on a judge's discretion.

Perhaps Margaret Cunneen successfully showing that Jubes had a legal right to make the recordings will sway all decisions regarding the use of the recordings (if they are needed).

This investigation has gone on 5 years now with no solid direction or an arrest.

You have to wonder, a missing child possibly, a child sex offender out there who was responsible who may well still be in that community today and I think we can call this a high profile case.

If said recordings such as my original example were obtained and Jubelin was prosecuted and those recordings could convict a person based on their content (and obviously further evidence they have on that person already from maybe a different source)

Being 5 years with no arrest, an inquest, 1 million dollars still out there, the possible suspect who may have already or will soon offend again.

Maybe situations like this can make a change to our system. Probably not. But I can only imagine the strike force and those involved working this case how frustrated they must be, if in the case there is one or two pieces to the puzzle within reach however they cant use them to complete the puzzle.

 

[SouthAussie]

Maybe situations like this can make a change to our system. Probably not. But I can only imagine the strike force and those involved working this case how frustrated they must be, if in the case there is one or two pieces to the puzzle within reach however they cant use them to complete the puzzle.

I will always feel that Jubes was charged as an internal political move ... no other reason. To think that someone(s) in the police force is willing to put another police officer in potential life threatening danger (prison) over a few 'illegal recordings' is a travesty. It is well known that police record without warrants or permission frequently.

If anyone has scuttled this investigation, it is the persons who decided to charge Jubes and make this whole thing bigger than it needed to be. imo


(Having said that ... in the future, if our police are enabled to all wear bodycams and have dashcams - as in the US - they should have blanket approval for recording anything. And that, to me, is how it should be. We are way behind the times.)

 

[mussopossum]

I will always feel that Jubes was charged as an internal political move ... no other reason. To think that someone(s) in the police force is willing to put another police officer in potential life threatening danger (prison) over a few 'illegal recordings' is a travesty. It is well known that police record without warrants or permission frequently.

If anyone has scuttled this investigation, it is the persons who decided to charge Jubes and make this whole thing bigger than it needed to be. imo


(Having said that ... in the future, if our police are enabled to all wear bodycams and have dashcams - as in the US - they should have blanket approval for recording anything. And that, to me, is how it should be. We are way behind the times.)

That is a really good point you made SA about dashcams and also body cams with police.

So if an individual shot dead a person in front of a police officer and the police officers' bodycam recorded this it can be used as evidence? Or cars dash cam footage even? I have never even thought of this and the law/evidence.

I presume the difference here in the matter of law is that the police officer did not record with intent a single individual to catch them committing a crime and it just happened in front of them randomly, where as the phone recording made to PS was an intention of obtaining information from an individual to help make a possible conviction?

How would or could this have differed say if Paul Savage had a conversation with Jubelin at say an event, one in which was being filmed by a professional video recording person or news reporter and the intent was to film whatever event was happening at the time but in doing so this video or recording accidentally picked up a confession of some sort or incriminating evidence that was discussed between Jubes and Savage. Another example again.

I am just trying to understand our laws and different ways in which recording is and can or cannot be used here.

A bit more off topic it is really just to get an understanding and I am interested about the dash cam and body cam side in evidence.

 

[mussopossum]

I know there are a few here that are really knowledgeable and good with google maps data and mapping in general.

I am working on a project at the moment and really need some help with understanding different data in maps that is displaying in my google account timeline compared to data I actually entered and followed on my device. I need accurate settings and cannot for the life of me work it out,

If anyone here is really good with understanding this stuff and location settings etc can you please PM me, it would be really appreciated

 

[mussopossum]

Duplicate message deleted

 

[Wexford]

It’s also unusual for an inquest to run at the same time as an investigation, where the findings of the inquest will be used to further the investigation. So while the Coroner in theory could admit the recordings even if Jubelin is found guilty, this will skew the Coroner’s findings, because it may rely on evidence that can’t be relied on if someone is ever charged over WT’s abduction.

I think that if the recordings are found to be so illegal that Jubelin is convicted, the Coroner probably won’t use them in the inquest. The Coroner can make a recommendation that a “known person” be charged and refer the matter to the DPP. But the Coroner can’t make that recommendation if she has relied on illegally obtained evidence.

Thank you Cleaver Greene. A couple of questions if you don't mind?
Is it possible that the inquest is deliberately being run during the investigation to clear Jubelin and use evidence to the maximum advantage (I hope it is the case and not the reverse scenario)?
Can you give an example of what sort of recording could be so illegal that someone could be convicted over it?

 

[Cleaver Greene]

And that, to me, is the big question. How would the Coroner know if a criminal court judge will allow the recordings? As it is not a black and white decision, being based on a judge's discretion.

Perhaps Margaret Cunneen successfully showing that Jubes had a legal right to make the recordings will sway all decisions regarding the use of the recordings (if they are needed).

Alternatively, Jubelin being convicted would also sway all decisions.

 

[SouthAussie]

Alternatively, Jubelin being convicted would also sway all decisions.

That seems self evident to me.

However, there are many people here and out there in Australia who don't want to see a good man like Jubes convicted. So I will keep pumping the good vibes out for Jubes. Karma will have its way with those who chose to charge him and yet let others who record without warrants or permission go uncharged. imo

I’m sure that police illegally record conversations all the time. They would then use that recording to find other, admissible evidence and the recording would never see the light of day.

Australia - Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, Nsw, 12 Sept 2014 - #47

 

[Cleaver Greene]

I will always feel that Jubes was charged as an internal political move ... no other reason. To think that someone(s) in the police force is willing to put another police officer in potential life threatening danger (prison) over a few 'illegal recordings' is a travesty. It is well known that police record without warrants or permission frequently.

If anyone has scuttled this investigation, it is the persons who decided to charge Jubes and make this whole thing bigger than it needed to be. imo


(Having said that ... in the future, if our police are enabled to all wear bodycams and have dashcams - as in the US - they should have blanket approval for recording anything. And that, to me, is how it should be. We are way behind the times.)

The DPP, who decides whether charges are laid, is an entirely independent statutory authority. Perhaps Jubelin was reported because of internal politics (I don’t know this. I’m just responding to the above post), but those people/police who reported him have zero say in whether he is charged. That decision lies with the DPP. So unless you are suggesting that there is some sort of corruption and the DPP is just doing whatever police want, the decision to charge him was based on an independent analysis of the available evidence.

That is the exact reason the DPP has been set up as an independent authority.

 

[Cleaver Greene]

Thank you Cleaver Greene. A couple of questions if you don't mind?
Is it possible that the inquest is deliberately being run during the investigation to clear Jubelin and use evidence to the maximum advantage (I hope it is the case and not the reverse scenario)?
Can you give an example of what sort of recording could be so illegal that someone could be convicted over it?

The Coroner won’t make a decision on the admissibility if the recordings. That’s done by a criminal court.

To make things even more complicated, even if Jubelin is acquitted, it doesn’t mean that the recordings are admissible. If a crime has been committed, then the recordings will definitely be out. However, even if the evidence has been lawfully obtained, the judge in any trial for the disappearance of WT has the discretion to exclude it for “public policy” reasons.

As to your question about how serious an illegal recording is for a person to be convicted over it, I guess we will find out next year. Like I said earlier, I’ve never heard of it before.

 

[SouthAussie]

The DPP, who decides whether charges are laid, is an entirely independent statutory authority. Perhaps Jubelin was reported because of internal politics (I don’t know this. I’m just responding to the above post), but those people/police who reported him have zero say in whether he is charged. That decision lies with the DPP. So unless you are suggesting that there is some sort of corruption and the DPP is just doing whatever police want, the decision to charge him was based on an independent analysis of the available evidence.

That is the exact reason the DPP has been set up as an independent authority.

BBM

As referenced in Thread #41 ......

"For weeks, the top brass has been deliberating whether or not to charge Insp Jubelin, one of the state’s most recognised homicide investigators, with the minor offence after receiving advice from the Director of Public Prosecutions that there was sufficient evidence to proceed."

We’re for Sydney | Daily Telegraph
Jubelin charged over breaches to Listening Devices Act
June 21, 2019 9:02am

 

[purpleandgreen]

The Coroner won’t make a decision on the admissibility if the recordings. That’s done by a criminal court.

To make things even more complicated, even if Jubelin is acquitted, it doesn’t mean that the recordings are admissible. If a crime has been committed, then the recordings will definitely be out. However, even if the evidence has been lawfully obtained, the judge in any trial for the disappearance of WT has the discretion to exclude it for “public policy” reasons.

As to your question about how serious an illegal recording is for a person to be convicted over it, I guess we will find out next year. Like I said earlier, I’ve never heard of it before.

Not if he's found not guilty. IMO.

 

[Cleaver Greene]

BBM

As referenced in Thread #41 ......

"For weeks, the top brass has been deliberating whether or not to charge Insp Jubelin, one of the state’s most recognised homicide investigators, with the minor offence after receiving advice from the Director of Public Prosecutions that there was sufficient evidence to proceed."

We’re for Sydney | Daily Telegraph
Jubelin charged over breaches to Listening Devices Act
June 21, 2019 9:02am

That’s a bit of a misinterpretation of legal procedure. I’ve never heard of a single case where a person has been reported, the DPP has found there is enough evidence to charge someone, and police have ignored DPP recommendations. In fact, if police ignored a DPP recommendations, I reckon there would be an inquiry as to why that advice was ignored.

 

[Cleaver Greene]

I will always feel that Jubes was charged as an internal political move ... no other reason. To think that someone(s) in the police force is willing to put another police officer in potential life threatening danger (prison) over a few 'illegal recordings' is a travesty. It is well known that police record without warrants or permission frequently.

If lawyers/courts/defendants find out that evidence is obtained illegally, then an application is made for exclusion. It’s not as if the entire criminal justice system turns a blind eye to it. They only reason nothing would be done about it is because no one who would object to it finds out about it.

If someone is imprisoned for a crime, and therefore in “life threatening danger”, it’s because they committed a crime. It’s not because someone dobbed on them (and therefore the fault of the person who dobbed on them. The person in prison is the architect of their own demise.

 

[Cleaver Greene]

deleted

 

[Cleaver Greene]

Just wondering if this varies from state to state?

No it doesn’t.