Comment

Comment on Cape York man’s conviction overturned after court finds magistrate made ‘inappropriate’ remarks

FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

The police attempted to stop the vehicle by activating their lights and sirens. The vehicle did not stop.

The officers contacted other police officers in Aurukun, who set up a tyre deflation device about 5km from the community. A vehicle drove across the tyre deflation device and continued for about 2km, where it was abandoned. There was no sign of the driver.

So he’s guilty as fuck, but the courts overturned his conviction and are letting him walk. Unfortunately this seems typical of our judicial system.

source

Sort:hotnew top

Zagorath@aussie.zone ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
So you just ignored this part?

he usually left the keys on the wall of his home and that the car was accessible to more than 20 extended family members.

And the fact that the magistrate was displaying very obvious bias and behaving illegally by preventing the justice process from playing out properly? And that the police failed to adequately explain his rights, and charged him on the basis that he had not exercised them correctly?

The evidence was exceptionally weak, and justice clearly was not done in the first instance.

source
- FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
  No I didn’t. In Australia the registered owner of the car is legally responsible and assumed to be driving the car unless they nominate the person who was.
  
  The evidence was exceptionally weak
  
  How is a car running from police, getting its wheels blown out, continuing to run for another few kilometres, and then being abandoned “exceptionally weak”? The police had his car. If he can’t name who was driving it, he is responsible. That’s literally the law.
  
  source
  - Zagorath@aussie.zone ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    Read the article ffs
    
    they are required to provide a statutory declaration naming the person they believe was driving, or alternatively giving as much information as possible about the location of the vehicle and who had access.
    
    Police told Ngakyunkwokka: “If you don’t do the stat dec [statutory declaration] and name a person, you can be charged”. He was not told that he had to complete the statement even if he could not nominate the driver.
    
    The police lied to him about what he needed to do. He acted on the advice they gave him.
    
    Your hypothetical is both irrelevant and not correct, based on the information in the article that you refuse to actually read.
    
    You are not smarter or more knowledgeable in the law than a district court judge.
    
    source
    FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    The police didn’t lie to him. Those are what he had to do if he didn’t want to be charged.
    
    What part do you think is a lie?
    
    source
    -> View More Comments