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

[Cleaver Greene]

Not if he's found not guilty. IMO.

I disagree. If he’s found not guilty, we will all know his actions were not considered serious enough for him to be convicted. That is, we will find out either way.

 

[purpleandgreen]

I disagree. If he’s found not guilty, we will all know his actions were not considered serious enough for him to be convicted. That is, we will find out either way.

Sorry, I must've misunderstood post #773:


'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.'

It seemed to imply he is guilty.

Reply #775: 'Not if he's found not guilty. IMO.' - was simply pointing out that he hasn't been found guilty yet. It's not a big deal. Just trying to be fair to Jubelin.

 

[peekinandy]

It sounds like Gary J doesn't think he committed an offence and I'm sure he knows the law. Perhaps there is a fine line regarding whether he needed to obtain a warrant or not - subjective even. Ruffled some feathers?

 

[Cleaver Greene]

It sounds like Gary J doesn't think he committed an offence and I'm sure he knows the law. Perhaps there is a fine line regarding whether he needed to obtain a warrant or not - subjective even. Ruffled some feathers?

The law says that’s it an offence to record a conversation without the consent of the other party. This is a VERY BASIC summary.

Then there are some defences if a person has recorded without consent. Jubelin has admitted that he recorded that conversation without the consent of PS. So the onus is on him to prove (on the balance of probabilities) that the reasons for doing so come under one of the defences in the Act.

Like most laws, it will come down to the wording of the legislation and whether Jubelin can convince the court that his actions meet the wording of the laws.

Yep. It’s a fine line.

 

[sleepinoz]

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.)

I have to agree that this is all about internal Politics.

New Head of Homicide, New Police Commissioner, New Premier, New Police Minister and 3 Newish Deputy Directors of Public Prosecutions (1 acting)....etc.

IMO, charges were being held over GJ's head for 6 months while he was made to sit at a desk and they thought about charging him, took him off the case and he resigned/retired.

This was the point that charges were laid - when he handed in his retirement/resignation - really makes you wonder what is happening within NSW Police.

 

[peekinandy]

The law says that’s it an offence to record a conversation without the consent of the other party. This is a VERY BASIC summary.

Then there are some defences if a person has recorded without consent. Jubelin has admitted that he recorded that conversation without the consent of PS. So the onus is on him to prove (on the balance of probabilities) that the reasons for doing so come under one of the defences in the Act.

Like most laws, it will come down to the wording of the legislation and whether Jubelin can convince the court that his actions meet the wording of the laws.

Yep. It’s a fine line.

Yep - for NSW in nutshell
Police powers
A law enforcement officer or police officer can use a listening device in the following circumstances:

• There is an imminent threat of serious violence to a person or an imminent threat of substantial damage to property;
• A serious narcotics offence is being committed or will be committed;
• The circumstances are so serious or of such urgency that use of a listening device is necessary and the circumstances make it impracticable to apply for a warrant;
• The listening device is a body-worn video device, is visible and the officer has produced identification to the parties to the private conversation; or
• The officer has obtained a warrant permitting the use of the listening device in certain circumstances (see below).

Listening Devices and the law in NSW | Criminal Lawyers

 

[SouthAussie]

It sounds like Gary J doesn't think he committed an offence and I'm sure he knows the law. Perhaps there is a fine line regarding whether he needed to obtain a warrant or not - subjective even. Ruffled some feathers?

Yes, I think feathers have been ruffled. Back in the threads there is a post quoting words from a close police associate of his, who said exactly that. He said there were people within the police force who wouldn't speak with Jubes any more because he is single minded in fighting for the victims, pushed to get what he wanted.

I have looked briefly for the post. If I find it later, I will post it.

 

[peekinandy]

Yes, I think feathers have been ruffled. Back in the threads there is a post quoting words from a close police associate of his, who said exactly that. He said there were people within the police force who wouldn't speak with Jubes any more because he is single minded in fighting for the victims, pushed to get what he wanted.

I have looked briefly for the post. If I find it later, I will post it.

Thanks. I also read about problems within the team. There's no doubt there's some red tape around all this :0

 

[Cleaver Greene]

Thanks. I also read about problems within the team. There's no doubt there's some red tape around all this :0

That in itself raises concerns for me. A large scale murder investigation, but it’s very nature, requires a team of investigators. If there are problems within the team, it’s up to the head of the team to fix those problems. And if the head of the team can’t fix them, then that person shouldn’t be heading the team. You can’t have a massive murder investigation being run by just one person.

I have no doubt that Jubelin is a very good investigator and fights very hard for the victims. But if other police won’t work with him, then there is a very big problem.

All my opinion on this post.

 

[peekinandy]

That in itself raises concerns for me. A large scale murder investigation, but it’s very nature, requires a team of investigators. If there are problems within the team, it’s up to the head of the team to fix those problems. And if the head of the team can’t fix them, then that person shouldn’t be heading the team. You can’t have a massive murder investigation being run by just one person.

I have no doubt that Jubelin is a very good investigator and fights very hard for the victims. But if other police won’t work with him, then there is a very big problem.

All my opinion on this post.

Well, he's not heading the team now is he? Jealousy could be a factor. It is a rare workplace where there's no conflict IMO

 

[sleepinoz]

That in itself raises concerns for me. A large scale murder investigation, but it’s very nature, requires a team of investigators. If there are problems within the team, it’s up to the head of the team to fix those problems. And if the head of the team can’t fix them, then that person shouldn’t be heading the team. You can’t have a massive murder investigation being run by just one person.

I have no doubt that Jubelin is a very good investigator and fights very hard for the victims. But if other police won’t work with him, then there is a very big problem.

All my opinion on this post.

It was the head of the team he had the problem with........GJ was the Inspector in Charge, and Lambert was in charge of the investigation on the ground (day to day so to speak). This to me says 'authority clash', both were responsible IMO.

 

[mussopossum]

I have to agree that this is all about internal Politics.

New Head of Homicide, New Police Commissioner, New Premier, New Police Minister and 3 Newish Deputy Directors of Public Prosecutions (1 acting)....etc.

IMO, charges were being held over GJ's head for 6 months while he was made to sit at a desk and they thought about charging him, took him off the case and he resigned/retired.

This was the point that charges were laid - when he handed in his retirement/resignation - really makes you wonder what is happening within NSW Police.

And not to mention NSW losing one of its most dedicated top detectives.

I agree sleep, internal politics.

IMO one of if not the hardest working detectives in NSW.

I hope he also talks about this incident in his book.

 

[mussopossum]

Yep - for NSW in nutshell
Police powers
A law enforcement officer or police officer can use a listening device in the following circumstances:

• There is an imminent threat of serious violence to a person or an imminent threat of substantial damage to property;
• A serious narcotics offence is being committed or will be committed;
• The circumstances are so serious or of such urgency that use of a listening device is necessary and the circumstances make it impracticable to apply for a warrant;
• The listening device is a body-worn video device, is visible and the officer has produced identification to the parties to the private conversation; or
• The officer has obtained a warrant permitting the use of the listening device in certain circumstances (see below).

Listening Devices and the law in NSW | Criminal Lawyers

I wonder if Jubelin was at this point:???

The circumstances are so serious or of such urgency that use of a listening device is necessary and the circumstances make it impracticable to apply for a warrant;

My money on this one.

 

[sleepinoz]

I wonder if Jubelin was at this point:???

The circumstances are so serious or of such urgency that use of a listening device is necessary and the circumstances make it impracticable to apply for a warrant;

My money on this one.

IMO the circumstances are of a serious nature, PS was losing his memory/mind.

 

[Cleaver Greene]

I wonder if Jubelin was at this point:???

The circumstances are so serious or of such urgency that use of a listening device is necessary and the circumstances make it impracticable to apply for a warrant;

My money on this one.

I think that’s likely the one too.

 

[peekinandy]

I wonder if Jubelin was at this point:???

The circumstances are so serious or of such urgency that use of a listening device is necessary and the circumstances make it impracticable to apply for a warrant;

My money on this one.

It could be that he thought some evidence would be destroyed (damage to property) - I wonder?

 

[mussopossum]

That in itself raises concerns for me. A large scale murder investigation, but it’s very nature, requires a team of investigators. If there are problems within the team, it’s up to the head of the team to fix those problems. And if the head of the team can’t fix them, then that person shouldn’t be heading the team. You can’t have a massive murder investigation being run by just one person.

I have no doubt that Jubelin is a very good investigator and fights very hard for the victims. But if other police won’t work with him, then there is a very big problem.

All my opinion on this post.

I can understand your point here,

It certainly will be interesting to hear the details (IF we ever do) on what exactly took place.

 

[peekinandy]

IMO the circumstances are of a serious nature, PS was losing his memory/mind.

True? I have heard that in the last 2 weeks hanging here. Sound like a serious nature...

 

[katydid23]

If Jubes was having issues with his boss, it's possible he didn't think the warrant would be approved. Maybe he thought it was urgent to get the info, and deal with the backlash later.

And maybe that was a poor decision, looking back on it?

 

[sleepinoz]

If Jubes was having issues with his boss, it's possible he didn't think the warrant would be approved. Maybe he thought it was urgent to get the info, and deal with the backlash later.

And maybe that was a poor decision, looking back on it?

His boss would have no say in gaining a warrant, that's up to a Judge.