Beware of The Dog

Criminal Lawyer

Sydney based Barrister

 

[HOME]   [DEALING WITH THE POLICE]  [DANGERS IN IDENTIFICATION]   [TEST YOURSELF]   [TEST QUESTIONS]   [TEST RESULTS]   [CONTACT] 

BEWARE  OF  THE  DOG

 

Defence Barrister has appeared in many cases for clients whose childhood friends, trusted business associates, cell mates, or fellow prisoners have betrayed them.  These people may have been "wired for sound" by the police, or a "bug" may have been placed in a room or in a cell (perhaps in a TV in the cell), and the person persuaded to ask incriminating questions of the accused person.  Similarly, phone calls by the person to the accused person may be made with that person knowing that the phone calls are being intercepted and recorded by the police.  The police must, of course, have obtained legally valid warrants for the use of listening devices, "bugs" and phone intercepts. Alternatively, a cell mate or fellow prisoner or anyone else may give oral evidence incriminating an accused person.  Defence Barrister will have alerted his client about such dangers usually in their first conference.  As you will know from watching TV and movies, such informers are labelled "DOGS" in the colloquial language of the prison and underworld cultures.

 

Remember also that phone calls which a prisoner makes from a gaol (Correctional Centre) are usually recorded.

 

Right now you are invited to view this short American video clip:

 

 

 

It is vitally important that you choose a vastly experienced and skilled Defence Barrister like to FORCEFULLY cross-examine a Police Informer.

 

The New South Wales Evidence Act 1995 and the Commonwealth Evidence Act 1995 both contain the following Section 165 which deals with unreliable evidence:

"(1)  This section applies to evidence of a kind that may be unreliable, including the following kinds of evidence:

(a)  evidence in relation to which Part 3.2 (hearsay evidence) or 3.4 (admissions) applies;

(b)  identification evidence;

(c)  evidence the reliability of which may be affected by age, ill health (whether physical or mental), injury or the like;

(d)  evidence given in a criminal proceeding by a witness, being a witness who might reasonably be supposed to have been criminally concerned in the events giving rise to the proceeding;

(e)  evidence given in a criminal proceeding by a witness who is a prison informer;

(f)  oral evidence of questioning by an investigating official of a defendant that is questioning recorded in writing that has not been signed, or otherwise acknowledged in writing, by the defendant;

(g)  in a proceeding against the estate of a deceased person--evidence adduced by or on behalf of a person seeking relief in the proceeding that is evidence about a matter about which the deceased person could have given evidence if he or she were alive.

(2)  If there is a jury and a party so requests, the judge is to:

(a)  warn the jury that the evidence may be unreliable; and

(b)  inform the jury of matters that may cause it to be unreliable; and

(c)  warn the jury of the need for caution in determining whether to accept the evidence and the weight to be given to it.

(3)  The judge need not comply with subsection (2) if there are good reasons for not doing so.

(4)  It is not necessary that a particular form of words be used in giving the warning or information.

(5)  This section does not affect any other power of the judge to give a warning to, or to inform, the jury.

(6)  Subsection (2) does not permit a judge to warn or inform a jury in proceedings before it in which a child gives evidence that the reliability of the child's evidence may be affected by the age of the child. Any such warning or information may be given only in accordance with subsections 165A(2) and (3)."

 

HOWEVER, THERE IS NO OBLIGATION ON A JUDGE UNDER THIS SECTION 165 TO GIVE A WARNING IF IT IS NOT REQUESTED BY A PARTY (THROUGH HIS/HER BARRISTER, OF COURSE).

 

 In the High Court of Australia, our final appellate court and our very highest court, Justice Heydon in the case of Evans -v- The Queen (2007) 82 ALJR 250 stated:

“The conditions necessary to satisfy the word 'requests' in s165(2) in relation to a warning about 'evidence of a kind that may be unreliable' would involve counsel making the request identifying what the ‘kind’ of evidence was, why it was unreliable, and what terms of the warning requested were.”

 

"Counsel" is simply another word for "Barrister".

 

Quite obviously, it is IMPERATIVE that YOU have a highly competent, vastly experienced and skilled Defence Barrister such as us.

 

Take control of your own future.   Do it now.   Make direct contact with

 

 

 

[HOME]   [DEALING WITH THE POLICE]  [DANGERS IN IDENTIFICATION]   [TEST YOURSELF]   [TEST QUESTIONS]   [TEST RESULTS]   [CONTACT] 

Criminal Lawyer

Sydney based Barrister