When it was discovered (many years ago) that Robert Trimboli was hiding in Ireland, the New South Wales police force immediately set off to arrest him and have him extradited ... but they didn't really want to arrest him for two reasons:
- He had bribed them to let him stay free.
- He had information that could embarrass the police force.
But now that the whole country knew where Trimboli was hiding the police had no option but to serve the arrest warrant. A couple officers hopped on a plane with all the official paper work and off they flew to Ireland. And then, oh dear me, what a surprise! The arrest warrants hadn't been signed properly! The poor, befuddled, police officers couldn't understand how it happened, but it had happened and now Mr Trimboli was free to go. Dear oh dear, what a shame.
More recently the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) began an investigation into Crown prosecutor, Margaret Cunneen. The investigating officers knew there would be plenty of incriminating evidence stored on her mobile phone (text messages etc) so they immediately got a warrant to seize the phone.
Oh no, wait a minute, they forgot to get the warrant; they just seized the phone without a warrant! What a bunch of silly-billys they must be.
Even I know that you need a warrant before you seize personal items for use in a legal investigation.
You knew it too didn't you?
But not the silly old officials at ICAC. They had no idea!
So what does that mean? it means that every piece of incriminating evidence on that phone cannot be used in the court room. The evidence is now inadmissible and the investigation has come to a halt. Margaret Cunneen has been exonerated.
Now what do you think?
Were the ICAC officials so inept that they didn't know they needed a warrant to seize the phone? Or so incompetent that they just forgot to get the warrant? Or did they deliberately break the law in order to make sure that the evidence could NOT be used in court, and Margaret Cunneen would be exonerated as a consequence?
It's good having friends in high places. Saves you from all sorts of trouble.
Oh no, wait a minute, they forgot to get the warrant; they just seized the phone without a warrant! What a bunch of silly-billys they must be.
Even I know that you need a warrant before you seize personal items for use in a legal investigation.
You knew it too didn't you?
But not the silly old officials at ICAC. They had no idea!
So what does that mean? it means that every piece of incriminating evidence on that phone cannot be used in the court room. The evidence is now inadmissible and the investigation has come to a halt. Margaret Cunneen has been exonerated.
Now what do you think?
Were the ICAC officials so inept that they didn't know they needed a warrant to seize the phone? Or so incompetent that they just forgot to get the warrant? Or did they deliberately break the law in order to make sure that the evidence could NOT be used in court, and Margaret Cunneen would be exonerated as a consequence?
It's good having friends in high places. Saves you from all sorts of trouble.
The NSW corruption watchdog has been accused of illegal conduct and "oppressive maladministration" in its ill-fated investigation into Crown prosecutor Margaret Cunneen, including seizing her phone without a warrant and releasing almost a decade of her personal text messages.In a scathing report into the Independent Commission Against Corruption's aborted inquiry into Ms Cunneen, ICAC Inspector David Levine, QC, said it was a "low point" in the history of the agency and the watchdog had engaged in "unreasonable, unjust, [and] oppressive maladministration".
No comments:
Post a Comment