iPhone beats Taser

[Ext User(Phil Allison)]

** This case of police misconduct in Sydney is a shocker:

http://www.smh.com.au/national/taser...630-219m3.html

Several NSW police officers were shown to have committed perjury and assault
after a video from an iPhone was played in court. The charges against the
falsely accused man were immediately withdrawn.

" The footage, which will be central to Mr Lindsay's upcoming District Court
case for wrongful arrest, false imprisonment, assault and malicious
prosecution, tells a different story. "

Interesting how the iPhone vid was kept secret until the hearing.

What a bombshell to drop in court.


.... Phil

[Ext User(Sylvia Else)]

On 30/06/2012 10:53 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
> ** This case of police misconduct in Sydney is a shocker:
>
> http://www.smh.com.au/national/taser...630-219m3.html
>
> Several NSW police officers were shown to have committed perjury and assault
> after a video from an iPhone was played in court. The charges against the
> falsely accused man were immediately withdrawn.
>
> " The footage, which will be central to Mr Lindsay's upcoming District Court
> case for wrongful arrest, false imprisonment, assault and malicious
> prosecution, tells a different story. "
>
> Interesting how the iPhone vid was kept secret until the hearing.

Very sensible, so as not to let the police construct a version of events
that, while still indicating an offence, was consistent with the video.

>
> What a bombshell to drop in court.
>
>
> ... Phil

On the face of it, this should be career ending for a few people, and
some terms of imprisonment should be in prospect.

Sylvia.

[Ext User(Phil Allison)]

"Sylvia Else"
>
>> Interesting how the iPhone vid was kept secret until the hearing.
>
> Very sensible, so as not to let the police construct a version of events
> that, while still indicating an offence, was consistent with the video.


** The Q is about how ( and when) the accused came into possession of the
video and why the police had no clue it might exist. Since it was used only
as " rebuttal " evidence in court, I assume the magistrate had to allow it.

All the police involved should be charged with conspiracy to commit perjury
as well as indictable assault and perverting the course of justice. The
sergeant who prosecuted should never be able to do that job again.

The really big issue is that police conspiring in this way is more the rule
than the exception.

I hope the poor guy who was tasered gets a big payout, ie hundreds of
thousands.


.... Phil

[Ext User(peterwn)]

On Jul 1, 6:40*pm, "Phil Allison" <phi...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> "Sylvia Else"
>
>
>
> >> Interesting how the iPhone vid was kept secret until the hearing.
>
> > Very sensible, so as not to let the police construct a version of events
> > that, while still indicating an offence, was consistent with the video.
>
> ** The Q is about how ( and when) the accused came into possession of the
> video and why the police had no clue it might exist. *Since it was usedonly
> as " rebuttal " evidence in court, I assume the magistrate had to allow it.
Perhaps the person who took the video was so disgusted with what
happened he had no intention of bring it to the attention of the
police.

In NSW does the defence in a criminal case have to disclose its
evidence to the prosecution before a trial?

On what basis could the magistrate disallow such evidence? Matters of
admissibility are of concern for a jury trial, but there would be no
problem for a magistrate or judge viewing the evidence to determine
its admissibility.

Obviously the police prosecutor knew the game was up upon seeing the
evidence - he could have tried to challenge its admissibility or tried
to have the case adjourned so it could be checked out.

[Ext User(atec77)]

On 1/07/2012 5:19 PM, peterwn wrote:
> On Jul 1, 6:40 pm, "Phil Allison" <phi...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>> "Sylvia Else"
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Interesting how the iPhone vid was kept secret until the hearing.
>>
>>> Very sensible, so as not to let the police construct a version of events
>>> that, while still indicating an offence, was consistent with the video.
>>
>> ** The Q is about how ( and when) the accused came into possession of the
>> video and why the police had no clue it might exist. Since it was used only
>> as " rebuttal " evidence in court, I assume the magistrate had to allow it.
> Perhaps the person who took the video was so disgusted with what
> happened he had no intention of bring it to the attention of the
> police.
>
> In NSW does the defence in a criminal case have to disclose its
> evidence to the prosecution before a trial?
>
> On what basis could the magistrate disallow such evidence? Matters of
> admissibility are of concern for a jury trial, but there would be no
> problem for a magistrate or judge viewing the evidence to determine
> its admissibility.
>
> Obviously the police prosecutor knew the game was up upon seeing the
> evidence - he could have tried to challenge its admissibility or tried
> to have the case adjourned so it could be checked out.
>
Not the first case of police lies to construct a case , something
similar happened here in Qld to a bloke I knew , coppers were told by
the magistrate they were liars when the independent witness came forward :)

--









X-No-Archive: Yes

[Ext User(Phil Allison)]

"peterwn"
"Phil Allison"
> "Sylvia Else"
>
> >> Interesting how the iPhone vid was kept secret until the hearing.
>
> > Very sensible, so as not to let the police construct a version of events
> > that, while still indicating an offence, was consistent with the video.
>
> ** The Q is about how ( and when) the accused came into possession of the
> video and why the police had no clue it might exist. Since it was used
> only
> as " rebuttal " evidence in court, I assume the magistrate had to allow
> it.

^ Perhaps the person who took the video was so disgusted with what
^ happened he had no intention of bring it to the attention of the
^ police.


** But how did he or she even KNOW who's attention to bring it to without
alerting the police ?

Be a real nice story behind that one.


^ In NSW does the defence in a criminal case have to disclose its
^ evidence to the prosecution before a trial?

** Not sure about all the rules - but normally any documents, physical
evidence and the names of witnesses that are to be produced in court need to
be revealed.

^ On what basis could the magistrate disallow such evidence?

** Mainly because the prosecution side has had no time to examine the
evidence and come up with counter evidence.

The prosecution would have strong grounds to ask for an adjournment to allow
them time.


^ Matters of admissibility are of concern for a jury trial,

** The Q is mainly about lack of notice.

Material can be ruled inadmissible even with plenty of that.


^ Obviously the police prosecutor knew the game was up upon seeing the
^ evidence - he could have tried to challenge its admissibility or tried
^ to have the case adjourned so it could be checked out.

** That was because he ALREADY knew the police witnesses were lying.

See the magistrate's comment to him in the news story.

Talk about being caught red handed !!!


.... Phil

[Ext User(Perloin)]

"Phil Allison" <phil_a@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:a5a9n7F69iU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Sylvia Else"
>>
>>> Interesting how the iPhone vid was kept secret until the hearing.
>>
>> Very sensible, so as not to let the police construct a version of events
>> that, while still indicating an offence, was consistent with the video.
>
>
> ** The Q is about how ( and when) the accused came into possession of the
> video and why the police had no clue it might exist. Since it was used
> only as " rebuttal " evidence in court, I assume the magistrate had to
> allow it.
>
> All the police involved should be charged with conspiracy to commit
> perjury as well as indictable assault and perverting the course of
> justice. The sergeant who prosecuted should never be able to do that job
> again.
>
> The really big issue is that police conspiring in this way is more the
> rule than the exception.
>
> I hope the poor guy who was tasered gets a big payout, ie hundreds of
> thousands.
>

Why on earth would he get that amount of money? What would have been his
medical bills for being tasered?

[Ext User(Sylvia Else)]

On 1/07/2012 6:02 PM, Perloin wrote:
>
> "Phil Allison" <phil_a@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
> news:a5a9n7F69iU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "Sylvia Else"
>>>
>>>> Interesting how the iPhone vid was kept secret until the hearing.
>>>
>>> Very sensible, so as not to let the police construct a version of
>>> events that, while still indicating an offence, was consistent with
>>> the video.
>>
>>
>> ** The Q is about how ( and when) the accused came into possession of
>> the video and why the police had no clue it might exist. Since it was
>> used only as " rebuttal " evidence in court, I assume the magistrate
>> had to allow it.
>>
>> All the police involved should be charged with conspiracy to commit
>> perjury as well as indictable assault and perverting the course of
>> justice. The sergeant who prosecuted should never be able to do that
>> job again.
>>
>> The really big issue is that police conspiring in this way is more the
>> rule than the exception.
>>
>> I hope the poor guy who was tasered gets a big payout, ie hundreds of
>> thousands.
>>
>
> Why on earth would he get that amount of money? What would have been
> his medical bills for being tasered?
>

It wouldn't be an untypical damages award for such an case. It reflects
how seriously the courts regard abuse of power.

Sylvia.

[Ext User(Phil Allison)]

"Perloin"

> Why on earth would he get that amount of money? What would have been his
> medical bills for being tasered?


** Remember this gal ?

She was and still is completely crazy and was locked up for about a year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornelia_Rau#Overview

Then she got a settlement of $2.6M

Nuts.


.... Phil

[Ext User(Sylvia Else)]

On 1/07/2012 5:19 PM, peterwn wrote:
> On Jul 1, 6:40 pm, "Phil Allison" <phi...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>> "Sylvia Else"
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Interesting how the iPhone vid was kept secret until the hearing.
>>
>>> Very sensible, so as not to let the police construct a version of events
>>> that, while still indicating an offence, was consistent with the video.
>>
>> ** The Q is about how ( and when) the accused came into possession of the
>> video and why the police had no clue it might exist. Since it was used only
>> as " rebuttal " evidence in court, I assume the magistrate had to allow it.
> Perhaps the person who took the video was so disgusted with what
> happened he had no intention of bring it to the attention of the
> police.
>
> In NSW does the defence in a criminal case have to disclose its
> evidence to the prosecution before a trial?

Generally speaking, no. There are couple of exceptions relating to
alibis and mental impairment in cases tried on indictment.

>
> On what basis could the magistrate disallow such evidence?

I don't really see that it could have been disallowed in the normal way
of things.

The prosecution could have sought to prove that the event shown in the
video was not the event to which the trial related, in which case the
evidence would be excluded as lacking in relevance. No doubt the defence
barrister was ready to produce as a witness the person who took the
video (or indeed, already had done, we don't really know), who would no
doubt state when and where it was taken.

In the event, clearly the prosecution immediately realised that it would
be futile to dispute the veracity of the video.

Sylvia.

[Ext User(DavidW)]

Phil Allison wrote:
> "Perloin"
>
>> Why on earth would he get that amount of money? What would have
>> been his medical bills for being tasered?
>
>
> ** Remember this gal ?
>
> She was and still is completely crazy and was locked up for about a
> year.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornelia_Rau#Overview
>
> Then she got a settlement of $2.6M
>
> Nuts.

A fair result for taking a whole year of your life.

[Ext User(Phil Allison)]

"DavidWanker"
> Phil Allison wrote:
>> "Perloin"
>>
>>> Why on earth would he get that amount of money? What would have
>>> been his medical bills for being tasered?
>>
>>
>> ** Remember this gal ?
>>
>> She was and still is completely crazy and was locked up for about a
>> year.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornelia_Rau#Overview
>>
>> Then she got a settlement of $2.6M
>>
>> Nuts.
>
> A fair result for taking a whole year of your life.
>

** Not the case and not rational compensation for an error.



.... Phil