Australia's leading provider of affordable DIY legal kits
Call our Customer Care Specialists on 1300 728 200
   

Legal Forum

Welcome to the FREE AussieLegal Forum

This FREE legal forum is supported by participating lawfirms in your local area.
The information contained in this public forum, and any comments made by the administrators, it's appointed mediators, or members of the public are of a general nature and may not be regarded as financial or legal advice in any way. We recommend that you seek formal advice from a practicing solicitor or licensed financial advisor regarding your particular situation. By registering to use this forum you meet the above criteria and agree to abide by all of the above rules and policies.

To be sure we provide you with the most relevant information to your state, please let us know which state you your legal matter resides in:

ACT  NSW  NT  QLD  SA  TAS  VIC  WA  

AussieLegal recommends this law firm:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

When is Attempt to Pervert the Course of Justice N

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
justiceforall View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 19/December/2017
Location: Australia
Posts: 9
  Quote justiceforall Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: When is Attempt to Pervert the Course of Justice N
    Posted: 19/December/2017 at 11:40
Can a lawyer or barrister articulate when the pursuit of an attempt to pervert the course of justice is considered to be NOT in the public interest.

From my understanding of this law, it is paramount that the judicial process is protected from any attack on its integrity and ability to deliver justice for all.

Are there any barristers out there who feel strongly enough about this issue that would consider pro bono work to ensure that this principle is maintained for the greater good of the community in all area of law no matter what.

If the principle to protect the judicial process is compromised and is abandoned by arbitrary decision not to conduct proper investigation by police, what then becomes of fair and equal justice for all?

Is this principle NOT well and truly in the public interest.

I await your replies.

citizen-joe View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 09/October/2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 519
  Quote citizen-joe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19/December/2017 at 12:10
Never seen a reply to a question asked in the abstract here or on any other forum.

Specifics may get you an answer, but probably not from a lawyer, they don't waste their valuable time coming here.

Who did what to who and what would you like to see happen - a question along those lines may get you an answer.

justiceforall View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 19/December/2017
Location: Australia
Posts: 9
  Quote justiceforall Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19/December/2017 at 12:42
Thanks for your reply however, my post is very specific for the type of reply I am after either Attempt to Pervert the Course of Justice is not in the public interest or it is, there is no middle ground here.

In your reply you said " what would you like to see happen", this should be obvious by " not to conduct proper investigation by police" in my post, clearly this suggests that what I would like to see happen is police conduct full and proper investigations irrespective of specifics in any action civil or criminal pertaining to the crime of attempting to pervert justice, in any action civil or criminal, if the action by one party has a tendency to pervert justice then, it needs to be investigated by the proper authority, the police to ensure that justice is not perverted and any attempt to do so is appropriately dealt with by law.

For your information;

From bench notes 7.11.3.1

The comments made by judges when sentencing administration of justice offences resonate with the language of attack on the justice system.

The offences “strike at the very core of the integrity of the administration of justice” 47 or “strike at the very heart of the justice system” 48 or the “very foundation of the legal process.” 49


21.     The following are recognised ways in which the proper administration of justice can be interfered with and thus the course of justice perverted:
a)     Erosion of the integrity of the court or competent judicial authority; or
b)     Hindering access to the court or competent judicial authority; or
c)     Deflecting applications that would be made to the court or competent judicial authority; or
d)     Denying the court or competent judicial authority knowledge of relevant law; or
e)     Denying the court or competent judicial authority knowledge of the true circumstances and facts of the case; or
f)     Impeding the free exercise of the jurisdiction and power of the court or competent judicial authority including the power to execute its decisions (R v Rogerson (1992) 174 CLR 268 at 280 per Brennan and Toohey JJ).

If, as you say, lawyers do not come here because ... then any reply to any question made on this forum are, for want of a better word, pointless and misleading as they attempt to answer legal questions by people who are clearly not qualified to do so.

Don't get me wrong, but this forum promotes an engagement of conversation in areas of law so it would be safe to assume that there is at least one lawyer that visits the forum that can answer questions of law.

If I gave you specifics of an action civil or criminal the answers you may give would be as useful as a bucket full of dung.

No disrespect meant.

citizen-joe View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 09/October/2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 519
  Quote citizen-joe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20/December/2017 at 00:46
Take a look at these Principles for some information which may assist you.

Note: These are guidelines not directions. They are designed to assist the exercise of
prosecutorial decisions to achieve consistency and efficiency, effectiveness and
transparency in the administration of criminal justice.
The Director of Public Prosecutions represents the community.
The community’s interest is that the guilty be brought to justice and that the innocent not be wrongly convicted.

justiceforall View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 19/December/2017
Location: Australia
Posts: 9
  Quote justiceforall Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20/December/2017 at 07:57
Thank you for the link you provided.

This information reinforces my expectations of requiring police to conduct investigations into crimes like attempt which undermines the integrity of the judicial process.

whatplanetisthis View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 19/August/2013
Location: Australia
Posts: 184
  Quote whatplanetisthis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20/December/2017 at 23:27
~ @justiceforall- I'm pretty sure I know from where your coming & I fully concur with what also seems to me as such a vivid black or white argument/question. Problem is the "talking heads" needed to advance the logic & argument that are viewed as sufficiently educated enough to warrant the time & audience of those higher level talking heads in positions to effect change, would be killing off their own proffesional careers($'s) & more tragic ( & very strict no-no in their chummy world) bagging out their own fellow guild members.
Yeah I'm an A grade cynic of such an archaic, pompeous & grossly egocentrical system thats without a doubt run for certain sections of society & by the very same section of society.
Anyone else not even partially in the clique, either bend/accept or self justice outside of the outdated & reduntant hallowed halls of (in)justice.
The link given above by fellow member reminding (i think) that they were only guidelines, I personally feel after much research this seems to be the standard.
At some stage some level of participant links in the self serving chain gets tasked to put together some documentation to cover their asses at one level & doesn't matter if what they've produced holds value or not, the mere production was sufficient to satisfy some other potential hole in the dyke type leak from occuring.
Point in case is Johnstone & Johnstone - falsely ascertained to be the legal principles containing the minimum standards of procedures a self represented litigant can expect to be shown in litigation against legal counsell etc. in Family Law matters.
Sounds great reading that for first time but soon becomes evident you mat as well wipe your a** with the document as (a) their only a guideline & (b) the same obnoxious tw*t perched up high that a selfy is trying to point out to just how their own treatment in the matter & its effective aggrieved nature it has made you feel seems to be making sense now that you've read just how you should have been treated, is the same tw*t who's got to admit error on his/her behalf -& that aint never gonna happen !!
I swear to god its a perverted game of aloofness & intellectual mind- chess for those all too familiar working colleagues involved in my matter. I have had times where my requests to have explained why certain expected outcomes haven't occured just been ignored/bullied/threatened with punitive action & condascendingly mocked with the infuriating words of " that's within my discretion.", which to me comes back to what you're saying I think, it's either Law or its not....with no added clause stating " unless this or that " or " accept whereby my discretion trumps it." !!
Good luck in pursuing remedy.
wpit

citizen-joe View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 09/October/2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 519
  Quote citizen-joe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21/December/2017 at 01:37
Folks don't forget one of the overriding tests to be applied to criminal cases is, 'Is there a reasonable chance of success?'

Remember a criminal case can take weeks in the court, months in preparation and million of dollars from the public purse, to mount. Without that reasonable chance of success, to pursue every case no matter, could send the country broke, and result in many successful cases of unlawful prosecution, which in turn could result in the country (that's you and me) paying huge compensation bills.

I too really don't like seeing apparently guilty persons walking free, but remember that adage - "It is far better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man is wrongfully convicted"

With civil cases it's up to the individual (to some extent) whether to pursue the case. However again costs are a factor. I know of one case where a prominent businessman brought an action for defamation against another. The case went on for ages and resulted in the person who brought the action, becoming a bankrupt, losing the case, losing his business, losing his house and losing his marriage.

Those who decide that a case should not proceed often know a lot more about the likely outcome, than those of us who can only sit on the sidelines and say this case is ironclad, why the hell don't they act.

Hence my initial request for details of the matter you believe is being ignored.

whatplanetisthis View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 19/August/2013
Location: Australia
Posts: 184
  Quote whatplanetisthis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21/December/2017 at 05:06
You say " I know of one case where a prominent businessman brought an action for defamation against another. The case went on for ages and resulted in the person who brought the action, becoming a bankrupt, losing the case, losing his business, losing his house and losing his marriage. "

I dunno maybe I am wired wrongly or similar but reading that line I am instantly filled with rage picturing the advancements of a sellect few of society, in financial,professional,reputation & self righteous aspects that is directly resultant on the annihilation of at least one other fellow human beings very existence.

In my family law matter I without a doubt state I had long since been locked in this insidious adversarial " pantomine show" more against the disgusting maggot of a barristor briefed in my ex's case. The conduct of this disgrace of a human is undoubtedly " I'll show you up for inferior intellect & get aroused bullying you,provoking you & misleading the court about you & stretch this thing out so long you wished you never tried stepping up to my elitist standing".

The smirks & trouncing of even base levels of decency & courtesy have got not the remotest connection to my childs best interests. I caught him out "pants down, undeniable" misleading the judge on a pivotal issue & objected, protested,pleaded,demanded & yep fell for it & ended up mildly abusing the sheer bias & "closed ranks" attitude that entailed.

I pleaded all that, Rule of law,administration of justice,magna carta,duty to honesty & the courts by its officers etc. etc. & got nothing but lectures by the bench as to why I am mistaken & how this stuff doesn't happen.

Then of course the next salvo comes when I dusted off & presented again at next hearing & again started by telling them I was there seeking help for our child & me to be able to enjoy a future relationship after me & her mum had split & no I wouldn't be bullied away, nor neck myself & nor transform into the version of a man that their over complicating of a fairly basic     matter needs in order to validate the disgraceful outcome that they are steering it to.

I searched cases this pig has been involved with & was outraged to read the same muppet that would argue in his sleep against me having phone calls from my child in between the pis*y amount of contact centre visits allowed, was the same wank that argued forcefull y for a father to have a midweek visit on top of EOW overnights & calls that his client had beat his ex, broke in her home many times,stalked her & finally promised to cut the tattoo off of her thigh with a broken bottle.

Now its not for me to judge his client but again when these barristors are actively running the show & judges act on their demands unquestioned, under the disgraceful guise of advocating for childrens best interests.......this country is doomed to suffer generational defects of growing moral & civil decay.

May as well start penning a new national anthem & rename ceremony to United States of Australia !!!!

Edited by whatplanetisthis - 21/December/2017 at 05:08

justiceforall View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 19/December/2017
Location: Australia
Posts: 9
  Quote justiceforall Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21/December/2017 at 08:59
Thanks citizen-joe and whatplanetisthis for your comments.

There is no doubt that in these modern times there are discrepancies between law and how the law is applied, arguments for what is and what is not in the best interest of the public are as they aught to be.

Some matters are clearly NOT in the public interest while others are and SHOULD be in the public interest.

What must always be in the public interest is any attack on the judicial process that undermines its own integrity, you and I already know that t he integrity of the judiciary is already tainted by self interest and need to keep the public in the dark in all matters of law.

I have not given any detail of the issue I am seeking to resolve, this is intentional as I do not wish to cloud this issue with issues that is not related to the law of attempt to pervert justice even though the issue that has put to question Attempt is the catalyst for me seeking to get a resolution.

A single case on its own could be seen as "not in the public interest" even though it could be a very serious matter, my contention is, when more than 240,000 people (in 2012) are falsely accused of something they did not do is a more serious matter than that of a single case.

If the judiciary believe that 240,000 falsely accused people do not have the right to fair and equal representation in law as those who make the false allegations then those who hinder the ability of a single individual to bring his / her grievance before the courts are guilty of perversion of justice by it's own standards.

I can say one thing without going into detail, I am kicking up a storm about this issue, we as individuals look for solutions to our own problems, I am seeking a solution for the hundreds of thousands of people who are falsely accused each and every year because the system of government we have wants to encourage reporting of crimes without ANY protection or avenue for recompense for the falsely accused and say it is not in the public interest to make false accusers accountable for their action, yet it seems to be in the public interest to squander hundreds of millions of dollars protecting offenders making the false accusation encouraging those to make the false claims of whatever.

I imagine that intelligent, reasonable people would clearly understand that discouraging false allegations by accountability of their action would save hundreds of millions of dollars in resources and clear up the courts with REAL matters that need to be dealt with.

I already have the attention of certain ministers in government and police so I will see how far I get.


justiceforall View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 19/December/2017
Location: Australia
Posts: 9
  Quote justiceforall Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21/December/2017 at 09:46
For a better perspective of where I am coming from, though the link provided by citizen-joe are as stated guidelines the following are not.

From 7.11.3.1     Bench Notes: Perverting and attempting to pervert the course of justice

1.     The following are recognised ways in which the proper administration of justice can be interfered with and thus the course of justice perverted:
a)     Erosion of the integrity of the court or competent judicial authority; or
b)     Hindering access to the court or competent judicial authority; or
c)     Deflecting applications that would be made to the court or competent judicial authority; or
d)     Denying the court or competent judicial authority knowledge of relevant law; or
e)     Denying the court or competent judicial authority knowledge of the true circumstances and facts of the case; or
f)     Impeding the free exercise of the jurisdiction and power of the court or competent judicial authority including the power to execute its decisions (R v Rogerson (1992) 174 CLR 268 at 280 per Brennan and Toohey JJ).

This list is not exhaustive, but merely illustrative.
            
In accordance with the bench notes (b) a person who hinders access to the court can be seen to be acting in a manner that would have a tendency to pervert justice, as is (e) denying the court of the true facts.

Refusing to conduct an investigation into an allegation of attempting to pervert the course of justice is in itself an attempt to pervert justice, this is based on their own standards, not mine.

Also, irrespective of the false accusations against a defendant, proving attempt beyond reasonable doubt is NOT dependent on proving the false allegations beyond reasonable doubt as has been indicated by police, all that is needed to be proved is that the truth of the false allegations have been altered sufficiently giving them a TENDENCY to pervert the course of justice, if an investigation determines that, then the ATTEMPT to pervert justice can be proven beyond reasonable doubt, if not, then no further action need be taken.

Remember there are only 2 elements constituting attempt that need to be considered;

a.)     Engage in conduct that had the tendency to pervert the course of justice.   
b.)     An intention for that conduct to pervert the course of justice







Edited by justiceforall - 21/December/2017 at 10:34

justiceforall View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 19/December/2017
Location: Australia
Posts: 9
  Quote justiceforall Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21/December/2017 at 10:55
@citizen-joe

I did not address this bit of your comment "Hence my initial request for details of the matter you believe is being ignored."

The details of the matter being ignored is the allegation for "Attempting to Pervert Justice" itself.

If there is no investigation, there is no crime, here is a question;

If a person reports to police that x killed a person and police do not investigate x, did x commit a crime? After all, x is not guilty of any crime until x is found guilty of the crime but only if police determines by investigation that x must be prosecuted for the alleged crime.

Does this make sense?

citizen-joe View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 09/October/2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 519
  Quote citizen-joe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21/December/2017 at 11:15
Originally posted by justiceforall

If there is no investigation, there is no crime, here is a question;
If a person reports to police that x killed a person and police do not investigate x, did x commit a crime? After all, x is not guilty of any crime until x is found guilty of the crime but only if police determines by investigation that x must be prosecuted for the alleged crime.
Does this make sense?

Yes, so many of the questions here relate to a particular situation that the original poster failed to describe, I wrongly assumed that yours was the same, sorry.

The short answer to your question is "evidence" the police require evidence to bring on a prosecution, they also require evidence to start an investigation.

Merely stating that X killed Y probably does on cut it (I don't know, I'm not a police officer) but certainly saying I saw X covered with blood running from the location where Y was found dead, certainly would seem to justify that investigation.

That said, there certainly seems to have been a police coverup revealed by the Royal Commission, where some police forces failed to investigate the clergy when a complaint was made by a victim. I guess some of that will come out in subsequent court cases.


Edit to fix TYPO

Edited by citizen-joe - 22/December/2017 at 02:03

justiceforall View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 19/December/2017
Location: Australia
Posts: 9
  Quote justiceforall Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21/December/2017 at 11:35

The short answer to your question is "evidence" the police require evidence to bring on a prostitution, they also require evidence to start an investigation.

Absolutely true, again, without giving detail of where the attempt is, in the where, which will be heard as a separate action by a magistrate, it is the police who will give evidence for the defense against the person making the false allegations, so the proof of attempt to pervert justice beyond reasonable doubt will come from police witnesses who may I add are backing up the defense position and this, a sergeant has already stated is a unique case.

The only sticking point is getting an investigation started, once started, the attempt will be discovered in all it's glory.

citizen181 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 02/February/2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 678
  Quote citizen181 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21/December/2017 at 14:12
In looking into these issues one must be careful in determining where or rather at what stage the alleged "perversion" took place. There are two distinct areas of law that cover the broad area of police conduct and possible corruption in the pursuit of justice.

An attempt to pervert the course of justice would typically relate to actions of the police during an investigative stage of a matter. A allegation that they, for example, knowingly didn't investigate certain matters beneficial to the defendant, that they planted evidence, that they corrupted or attempted to corrupt witnesses and so on.

If it is being alleged that the police brought charges that weren't supported by sufficient tangible evidence to warranted the charges and they then pursued those charges in court knowing that there was insufficient evidence it is more likely this falls under the provisions for malicious prosecution and not perversion.

It should be noted that one, pervert the course of justice, is a criminal matter and would entails a criminal investigation the other is primarily a civil matter.

It should also be noted that it is prosecution not prostitution, though if it is alleged the police were corruptly selling their favors perhaps I'm mistaken.

Edited by citizen181 - 21/December/2017 at 14:15

justiceforall View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 19/December/2017
Location: Australia
Posts: 9
  Quote justiceforall Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21/December/2017 at 14:48
Yes, in this case you are mistaken, police are NOT involved in any ATTEMPT, the attempt stems from primarily a civil matter that is intertwined with a criminal matter each one being independent of the other.

Fact is the police members involved are performing their job in accordance with the rules and I commend them on that, the problem of getting an investigation started is the misconception of what is required by police and prosecution.

In this case police on advice by prosecution say that the alleged false allegations must be proven beyond reasonable doubt where in fact they do NOT need to be proven to that standard all that needs to be proven beyond reasonable doubt is that the truth of the allegations are sufficiently altered to pervert justice.

This is covered by;

e)     Denying the court or competent judicial authority knowledge of the true circumstances and facts of the case; or

Only an investigation can determine if the truth has been sufficiently altered by obtaining all material facts and questioning of the accuser substantiating the allegation with documentary evidence to satisfy a genuine allegation of wrong doing.

For example, if an allegation claims that calls were made over a period of time, documentary evidence in the form of phone records would satisfy the allegation, the absence of documentary evidence here would suggest that the allegations are false.

If the accuser cannot produce the evidence to substantiate the allegation and the police CAN produce evidence that contradicts the allegation of the accuser then, the allegation is substantially false and satisfies element 1 a.)     Engage in conduct that had the tendency to pervert the course of justice.

Do not try to read more into the issue than what it actually is, an investigation into attempt to pervert justice by the proper authorities, the police.

whatplanetisthis View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 19/August/2013
Location: Australia
Posts: 184
  Quote whatplanetisthis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02/January/2018 at 12:57
Hey justiceforall~ I for one hope for your success & wish you results that mesh with your screenname.
I'm through personal frustrations guessing this involves an ill gotten Intervention Order & you being innocent quite rightly expect justice to be served, clearing unjust blemishes to your person & historical records as well as accountability shown & any offences dealt with.
It's been my biggest pet peeve with all the " just accept without admission" crowd that the logic of "if you've done nothing wrong what have you got to be worried about", seems to miss the point that last time "you weren't worried" about someone corrupting the law, you got blind sided with a controlling, manipulative,antagonistic credibility and character spotlght cast upon you and a yellow card towards a jail term(red card).
Yeah sure don't fight it, it don't mean nothing is accepting that it's OK for someone to corruptly, immorally and illegally demand the limited time and resources of the police and the courts. This is obviously to the detriment of a "real" victim to the scourge of family violence who's life may just get saved by police involvement at her(or his) domestic incident, instead of cops wasting time on someone merely guilty of ever becoming involved with someone willing to cunningly make use of a very favourable gaping hole that exists in the whole FV problem.
I have been told directly its not police duty to investigate when a person attends seeking to make application through them by providing an affidavit/statement of a court issued Intervention Order.
Which to me seems to contradict the very foundation of policing , after civil order assurance.
You dont have to engage if you dont want to, I understand but would love to discuss privately perhaps if I'm guessing correctly, maybe compare notes etc.
Either way, good luck on your noble quest. I mean that !
cheers
wpit

justiceforall View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 19/December/2017
Location: Australia
Posts: 9
  Quote justiceforall Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12/January/2018 at 10:00
An update on this issue.

After a lengthy meeting with police an investigation has started which is all that I was after, the results of that will determine the outcome but I am confident that charge(s) will be forthcoming.

I will also like to give the police a thumbs up for the support they are showing and their determination to show that justice will prevail, in this matter anyway.


 Post Reply Post Reply

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Want to save money?

Check out our list of do-it-yourself legal kits.

Need formal advice?

Let us help you find a lawyer who specializes in your particular area of law.

Need further information?

Visit our legal forum where you can ask questions and search for similar topics.