Karmichael Hunt charged with cocaine supply.

[liquor box]

The fact that Hunt's lawyers were able to get the charges dropped to simple possession so quickly, the fact the CCC has zero evidence of Hunt offering to supply drug to others, and the complete and total lack of physical evidence of any kind regarding Hunt's alleged transactions or the cocaine itself..

This was a very weak case, in terms of KH. The police prosecutor involved in the case didn't even submit evidence of any kind during the hearing. This was the primary catalyst for the charges being dropped down to possession.

There is a massive percentage of cases before courts in QLD where there is a guilty plea for a lesser charge.

The interesting thing is that this occurred at the first mention, generally there will be two mentions and then if the grub is still pleading not guilty a court date will be set and this is the point where a negotiation will occur.

It is far cheaper for the government if they accept a lesser charge and finalise the matter rather than a court fight, this is also the point where police will show their evidence.

Most matters are settled out of court, if a shoplifter is charged with stealing and contests it will be dropped to shop lifting (shop lifting is not the name of the charge), AOBH to common assault, GBH to AOBH, Indictable offences to a similar simple offences like wilful damage is also common.


Police never submit evidence at the first hearing, they would submit a document called a QP9. This outline what has occured and how what has occured or been revealed in the investigation covers the elements of the offence in question. This will also list on paper what evidence the police hold. This list is the basis on which a lawyer decides whether to fight a charge.

I would strongly suggest that the list of evidence that was to be relied on was sufficient and gained in a way that is not in dispute so the plea of guilty was made. This document would also outline what Khunt said to police when they dealt with him, he might have made admissions to them that would also be used against him. Even a simple "I am not a dealer, I only have it for personal use" would be sufficient.

 

[HighPlainsDrifter]

Why not test politicians ? If I had to sit through question time I would probably need to be loaded up with something to get through it ... a placebo would probably do it for me and some blunt razor blades to add to the futility of it all . This thread seems to have run its course , and anyway we have a World Cup to win !

 

[Chris McCracken]

Why not test politicians ? If I had to sit through question time I would probably need to be loaded up with something to get through it . a placebo would probably do it for me and some blunt razor blades to add to the futility of it all . This thread seems to have run its course , and anyway we have a World Cup to win !

I don't think you've watched Question Time. They don't get through it. Only half of them turn up and the ones that do play games and check email on their iPads. That's after they've knocked off a couple of bottles at the cafeteria at lunchtime.

 

[liquor box]

No they don't. That's where corruption comes in. If they have the evidence, they have a duty to put people before the Court.

A police officer would never get 500m from their station if that was the case.

It should be in the public interest

 

[Chris McCracken]

I think the lawyers seem to have summed up. Now we're up to how many people use and how they beat tests.

I hereby stand corrected on this point.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

For those arguing, is BDA the only person here with an actual career and experience within the legal profession?

Just saying..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No he's not.
Being a lawyer or Having "an actual career and experience within the legal profession" doesn't make your philosophy (decriminalisation) "right" or relevant however.
Obeying the laws you approve of is code for anarchy.
The powers of the CCC and the ability to compel the giving of incriminating answers is subject to a highly relevant limitation on the use to which answers may be put:

197
Restriction on use of privileged answers, documents, things or statements disclosed or produced under compulsion

1. (1) This section applies if—
   1. (a) before an individual answers a question put to the individual by the commission or a commission officer or produces a document or thing or a written statement of information to the commission or a commission officer, the individual claims self-incrimination privilege in relation to the answer or production; and
   2. (b) apart from this Act, the individual would not be required to answer the question or produce the document, thing or statement in a proceeding if the individual claimed self-incrimination privilege in relation to the answer or production; and
   3. (c) the individual is required to answer the question or produce the document, thing or statement.
2. (2) The answer, document, thing or statement given or produced is not admissible in evidence against the individual in any civil, criminal or administrative proceeding.
3. (3) However, the answer, document, thing or statement is admissible in a civil, criminal or administrative proceeding—
   1. (a) with the individual’s consent; or
   2. (b) if the proceeding is about—
      1. (i) the falsity or misleading nature of an answer, document, thing or statement mentioned in subsection (1) and given or produced by the individual; or
      2. (ii) an offence against this Act; or
      3. (iii) acontemptofapersonconductingthehearing;or

198
(1)
(4) (5)
(6)
(c) if the proceeding is a proceeding, other than a proceeding for the prosecution of an offence, under the Confiscation Act and the answer, document, thing or statement is admissible under section 265 of that Act.
Also, the document is admissible in a civil proceeding about a right or liability conferred or imposed by the document.
In a commission hearing, the presiding officer may order that all answers or a class of answer given by an individual or that all documents or things or a class of document or thing produced by an individual is to be regarded as having been given or produced on objection by the individual.
If the presiding officer makes an order under subsection (5), the individual is taken to have objected to the giving of each answer, or to the producing of each document or thing, the subject of the order.

So playing the "Big Brother" card is not generally relevant and has SFA to do with KH's position - since there is no suggestion he was forced to incriminate himself.

Additionally does the fact that trendsetters in society generally or AFL stars in particular use the stuff make it legitimate? I'll bet Harmcichael's lawyer did not put that submission in his plea in mitigation on sentence.

 

[TOCC]

Lol was all that directed at me IS?

If it was, I think you've read too far into my post, I have chosen to say very little about the aforementioned subject..

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BDA]

I think we can all agree it's almost time for the mods to shut this down.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Lol was all that directed at me IS?

If it was, I think you've read too far into my post, I have chosen to say very little about the aforementioned subject..

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

no it was directed at BDA and you got caught in the crossfire

I think we can all agree it's almost time for the mods to shut this down.

spot on

 

[Quick Hands]

Do you seriously think your average detective is OBLIGATED to press charges for every minor crime he comes across?! they would serious never catch any proper criminals if that discretion didn't exist.

If you are characterising jay-walking as a minor crime then obviously not, if you are talking possession and/or supplying prohibited drugs THEY ARE. Well in NSW anyway.

 

[Quick Hands]

This is the point i disagree with. the CCC need convictions. that's how they justify their enormous funding. The more high profile the better.

At least we agree on something, which is a good way to finish.

 

[USARugger]

Actually our legal systems are completely different.

Thanks for this, and I stand corrected. Grand Juries are a bit of a dated, ugly anomaly in our legal system.

I know that many of the cases that carry over on international broadcasts involve some form of Grand Jury indictment/lack of but they're hardly the norm. A Grand Jury indictment isn't the same as a conviction either, it's grounds to prosecute at trial. They're strange and morally dubious at best.

In the vast majority of cases a preliminary hearing precedes the trial, not a Grand Jury.

Exclusion of evidence happens in US courts in the same way but at the end of the day if it can't be presented, well..

Is there a discovery process in Australian criminal trials?

 

[Happy]

Is there a discovery process in Australian criminal trials?

If a matter is going to trial in the Supreme Court, rather than being determined in the Magistrates Court, then there will usually be a Committal Hearing. At that hearing the prosecution have to present enough evidence for the defendant to be committed for trial. It is not a determination of guilt, so the Defence usually presents nothing at the Committal Hearing.

In a case like Karmichael Hunt's, it would not have gone to a Supreme Court trial. If he had pleaded not guilty, it would eventually have been heard in the Magistrates Court. Most defendants would rather avoid the Supreme Court if they can, because the penalties handed out are invariably higher.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

There's also a thing called a police brief (in NSW) which contains all the evidence against the person.
My reading suggests that KH pleaded guilty before that (or QLD equivalent) had even been served on him

 

[Quick Hands]

A police officer would never get 500m from their station if that was the case.

It should be in the public interest

I have a fair bit of experience in this area and you're under a misapprehension.

 

[brokendown]

being high profile has its consequences,-he will learn from this and hopefully wont allow himself to get into a similar situation again

 

[2bluesfan]

Sometimes, when the tree has been shaken a bit, some fruit doesn't fall straight away. In this case, it seems most of the trees shaken were in the same orchard but who knows if the Qld CCC may have also been looking at other orchards, perhaps in co-operation with other agencies/orchardists?

Seems the orchardists may have shaken the tree again.

 

[ChargerWA]

Fuck him off. Aus rugby doesn't need him.

 

[liquor box]

Fuck him off. Aus rugby doesn't need him.

totally agree

I wonder if the players union will too?

He has done his crime and done his time as far as the law goes so he is reformed. So unless there is new information to the Reds I doubt anything can happen with his contract.

I would imagine that the other players in the Reds set up are very wary of him after "dogging" on his team mates.

 

[ChargerWA]

totally agree

I wonder if the players union will too?

He has done his crime and done his time as far as the law goes so he is reformed. So unless there is new information to the Reds I doubt anything can happen with his contract.

I would imagine that the other players in the Reds set up are very wary of him after "dogging" on his team mates.

I'd imagine Carmichael and co are kicking themselves now for not pulling the "bringing game into disrepute" trigger while they had it.