I LIKE YOUR POST.....
Finally a fellow Aussie who knows that we as Australians are not bound to the UN Human Rights Charter, and the effects this has on our legal
This means "We do not have the right to a fair trial, nor do we have the right to refuse search and seizure".
Yes there are laws which outline the correct procedure in which an Australian Police Officer should legally obtain incriminating evidence, but if they
violate these protocols there is nothing you can do, even IF they are caught on camera.
If you are arrested in Australia and the police do not read you your rights, they simply state in their paper work that they did, and their word is
gospel. If you trip over while they are leading you away in handcuffs then an automatic "Hinder Arrest" is added to your charges.
You do not have the right of ANY phone calls during your incarceration.
If your rights are violated by the police while in custody, you cannot claim a technical fault and have the matter dismissed. The matter must be dealt
with and if you win the case (unlikely) then you stand a better chance of pursuing a rights-violation case against the state. Again you are not likely
Lets suppose somebody spiked your drink while at a nightclub and as a result you made an idiot out of yourself and got arrested.
When the matter is heard in front of the magistrate,
If you plead "NOT GUILTY" then YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO CLAIM YOUR DRINK WAS SPIKED as a defence.
If you plead "GUILTY" then you can claim that your drink was spiked in order to reduce the sentence, and this will only be taken into account if you
were previously of sound character. Meaning no priors.
In Australia you can only view the evidence against you if you plead "not guilty", and then if the prosecution have not produced the evidence which
your solicitor has subpoenered the hearing still goes ahead despite the fact that your case is weaker in the absence of nullifying evidence.
I have a friend who has been charged with malicious damage to a police car, in which it was unable to be operated. The police CLAIM that my friend
let the tyres down of the police car, and yet in a written statement by another officer, they claim that the police car had to get driven to a service
station 5km away in order to pump the tyres up. The officer who made that statement did not record the inflation levels before or after inflating each
tyre, but instead in his statement said "Yep they needed a bit of air".
The statements taken by 4 individual officers all state that the tyres were visibly deflated, yet they were able to drive it to a garage and get the
tyres pumped up, and none of them had the brains to take a photo of the evidence. I assume they all had cameras on their phones. My friends solicitor
who works for the Aboriginal Legal Service, subpoenered any/and all photographic evidence, statements, and all the paperwork generated by this case,
and yet on the day of the REPLY TO BRIEF not a single piece of evidence had arrived.
My friend is Aboriginal, and despite an extensive, and expensive inquest into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody which require the police to automatically
ring Aboriginal Legal Aid on his behalf, the police didn't and none of this can be argued at the hearing.
No rights were read. Violates Legislation.
No subpoenaed evidence submitted at Reply-to-Brief. UNKOWN if this Violates Legislation.
No Aboriginal Legal Service notified. Violates Legislation.
An alleged confession of guilt was taken without his solicitor present. Violates Legislation.
The vehicle was able to be driven to a service station.
All I am trying to say is, YES there is legislation which governs the actions of Australian Police Officers,
But NO, you do not have the right to contest any errors or breaches of protocol which led to your arrest and/or compiling of evidence during your
trial, despite the fact that these errors may have violated your civil rights under The Human Rights Charter.
While Australia uses its UN member status to enforce the Human Rights Charter upon other nations, a detailed look into our legal system will reveal a
completely different attitude towards our own citizen rights.
QUESTION TWO: ARE THESE HUMAN RIGHTS CURRENTLY SUFFICIENTLY PROTECTED AND PROMOTED? 79. The Bar Association considers that human rights are not
currently sufficiently protected and promoted in Australia. The Bar Association supports the Law Council of Australia’s submissions at Part 2.5
which provides a comprehensive overview of deficiencies of the Australian legal system in the protection of human rights.
The above quote was from page 32 of THE NEW
SOUTH WALES BAR ASSOCIATION SUBMISSION TO THE NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS CONSULTATION