Category: Criminal Law

G men love stoolies. It’s a fact of life. Over the centuries, the one thing that has most frustrated the work of ‘government guys’ – the regulators of all shapes and sizes, the G men, the Jacks, the fuzz, the heat, the traps, the Johnny Hoppers, federalies, wallopers, flatfoots, boys in blue, whatever you want to call them – the one thing that has most frustrated their valiant efforts to rein in the miscreant criminal milieu has been the unshakeable conspiracy of silence that has long existed between partners in crime.
Big-time prize fighting has always walked hand in hand with big money litigation. It’s a world of feast and famine, full of tough guys and shrewd businessmen, all capable of being very heavy handed, each in their own way. The fast and the lucky rake in the big bucks while the rest are left to fight for the scraps. For more than 20 years the celebrated Don King was sued for allegedly short-changing nearly every one of his big name clients, from Joe Frazier to Mike Tyson, and even the late great Muhammad Ali. Some time ago our firm was involved in a client’s contract discussions with Don King Promotions about a scheduled heavyweight bout in Vegas. King’s approach to contract obligations was simple: ‘If you don’t like it, sue us. We’ve got more lawyers than you have.’
Today’s news that six NRL stars will be interrogated over alleged match fixing, and face jail if they refuse to co-operate with investigators, brings into sharp focus a recurring issue for professional sports people. Having endured the debacle that was the recent ASADA doping investigation into the AFL and NRL, and more recently still match fixing allegations in the sport of basketball and the greyhound industry live baiting scandal, it is very clear to me that few sports administrators, and virtually no sports men and women, have any real appreciation of the concept and purpose of the right to silence, and the interplay between contractual and legislative obligation as it affects statements against interest.
Today’s news out of the Broncos Rugby League headquarters about an alleged “drunken incident” involving star centre James Roberts has let more than a few old spectres out of the closet. Newspapers today reported that an allegation Roberts verbally abused a barmaid in a drunken rage at the Normanby Hotel has been referred to the NRL’s integrity unit, which reportedly imposed a 12 month alcohol ban on Roberts in 2014 following his sacking at Penrith.
At festivals like Splendour in the Grass and Greazefest, music lovers have become accustomed to seeing police routinely searching people suspected of having drugs in their possession. In certain circumstances police are entitled to do that, but it’s not just open season. Police are not entitled to just randomly stop and search people for no good reason. Unless a police officer has an actual search warrant, then they’re not entitled to detain and search a person except where they suspect on reasonable grounds that person has drugs in their possession.
I was just a kid when OJ was publicly apprehended by the LAPD. I knew little of the man known as ‘The Juice’, and had no understanding of his place in the psyche of 20th century USA. I had no idea he was so revered by the American public, or why, and had no inkling of the bloodshed that had defined LA’s racial divide in the decades preceding the case. I merely saw another celebrity on trial.
The Australian justice system has at last stomped decisively into the 21st century, striking out at online bullying and harassment. Following the first Commonwealth criminal prosecution of its kind last week, a young man entered a plea of guilty to a charge laid against him by AFP investigators in relation to a series of offensive comments he had posted online regarding a photo of a woman’s Tinder profile that one of his friends had posted on Facebook. It has been reported the man posted some 50 disparaging attacks on the photo, including rape threats and other derogatory and threatening comments. Following his plea of guilty, he was remanded to be sentenced later this year, and could face up to 3 years imprisonment.
Life is a risky undertaking that involves an endless series of perilous decisions. Some turn out triumphant, others disastrous.
“So what did you think of the Baden-Clay decision?” It was the question I’d been dreading all night. As soon as it hit the dinner table seven pairs of accusing eyes turned my way, waiting for the slightest slip-up. “Well…”
This summer many of us became budding couch detectives and expert criminologists, all from the air-conditioned comfort of our very own lounge-rooms, as we sat glued to the TV screen and on the edge of our seats, watching the rivetting Netflix series Making a Murderer. Without giving away too much for those who haven’t finished the series, Making a Murderer is a documentary treatment of the true crime story of Steven Avery, a man convicted of sexual assault and attempted murder, and then exonerated and freed from prison after serving 18 years for the crime. But the story doesn’t end there, and - SPOILER ALERT - the next shocking turn of events has left many people stunned and outraged over the terrifyingly capricious and sometimes sinister workings of the American legal system, leaving many scratching their heads and asking 'could what happened to Stephen Avery happen here in Australia?'
The old show business adage warns you should never work with animals or children. They’re unruly, unpredictable, and way too cute, and in the end they’re always going to steal the show. It’s a pearl of wisdom usually attributed to the curmudgeonly actor-comedian W C Fields, of whom writer Leo Rosten once quipped “Any man who hates dogs and small children can’t be all bad.”
Last week the press had a field day taking pot-shots at Southport magistrate Bernadette Callaghan for ordering police to remove handcuffs from a defendant appearing in court. When the man subsequently made a run for it, according to newspaper reports police went into a spin, with one ‘police source’ accusing the magistrate of treating herself as being “above the law” because she refused to have the defendant manacled in her courtroom, and another high-ranking officer threatening to boycott the courts over the matter.