COPS - what did they do wrong?

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

I would be very cautious with this advice. A few weeks ago someone pointed out that I was towing a trailer with a plain metal shackle and they are not permitted 'anymore'.. Well, I was a cop for 14 years (15 years ago) and I had never heard of this. And being an ex cop I wanted to see the legislation. But I couldn't find any. For the sake of an extra dollar I just decided to buy a rated shackle and put it on.
………....

And would this someone really know?

FWIW, my trailer has the original chain and unmarked shackle that was provided by the manufacturer along with a compliance plate etc. That was 15+ years ago.

Two years back, it was inspected for a rego change to Tassie. The only thing found in the inspection was that he VIN had to be stamped onto drawbar (previously it was only on the compliance plate). The inspector said this was a new requirement and I believe him however, nothing was said about the shackle so I reckon it must be OK to have an unmarked shackle - here at least.

Unless it has changed in the last two years

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Wotname

And would this someone really know?

FWIW, my trailer has the original chain and unmarked shackle that was provided by the manufacturer along with a compliance plate etc. That was 15+ years ago.

Two years back, it was inspected for a rego change to Tassie. The only thing found in the inspection was that he VIN had to be stamped onto drawbar (previously it was only on the compliance plate). The inspector said this was a new requirement and I believe him however, nothing was said about the shackle so I reckon it must be OK to have an unmarked shackle - here at least.

Unless it has changed in the last two years

I wouldnt mind betting they started getting particular here after that trailer came off the buss on the Bass highway into that car. That was about a year ago.

But, in any case, its now required. I doubt youd get booked here. Probably yellow sticker car or at worst red sticker it for immediate rectifying.

[Wotname]

^^, could be right there!

[Factor]

Don't misunderstand me. I am not saying to not use a rated shackle,

To be clear - Use a rated shackle and proofed chain etc.

I am saying that in QLD there appears to be no legislation requiring any specific shackle. There is a "Guide" but even it doesn't require a rated shackle. The Federal stuff is interesting and nice and all that, but for it to be law in QLD it needs to be "picked up" by QLD state law (small matter of Section 51 of the constitution). The same way that the Marine Pollution Act in Qld picks up the MARPOL.

If there was legislation requiring the use of a shackle marked with a specific marking, no of course the police officer only requires to inspect and give evidence of that lack of marking, if however the legislation simply requires a shackle to have a SWL of X, then markings do not prove that only testing will.

My advice stands, hell it stands on any issue, never pay a ticket till you check the legislation.

Its not about being picky - its your right. The prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you committed an offence.

As an aside some years ago in the ACT I got a speeding ticket on Limestone Avenue for the henious crime of 68 in a 60 (I was on my motorbike just tootling along at 7 am). The guy was using a LASER device which was the first time I had seen one. Went home and checked the ACT Motor Vehicle Ordinance (as it was then called). I noted that there was a evidentiary provision for proving Radar and amphometer to be accurate but not LASER, seems they had just bought the device without worrying about policy and law! I drew that to the attention of the fine people in the AFP and Short story - that notice was withdrawn, and a few days later over 200 TINS/TONS that had been issued in the first days of using the LASER were also withdrawn.

Similarly I recall a person being intercepted for using a dinghy a long way from his yacht, well beyond the tender allowed range, and given that vessels with a motor of more than 4hp must be registered except in the case of tenders operated near the ship, and given he was a long way from the ship, and given his motor had a sticker on it saying 6, he was duly written up for unregistered vessel. Again long story short, off to court, cross examined said officer as to how he was able to ascertain the HP output (actually the KW output) of the motor and he (officer) said - cause it had a 6 on it. There was no evidence as to what Hp the motor produced, only what the sticker said. And the legislation says that vessels fitted with a motor producing more than x.x KW need to be registered, not that vessels with a motor with a sticker on the side saying x.x need to be registered. Accordingly the matter was tossed. Costs awarded.

Got lots more examples, but the fundamental point is ALWAYS check the legislation, and never ever rely on what the government tells you in web sites etc.

And of course this discussion only started cause someone above reckoned that you could get written up in QLD for not using a rated shackle, I see no evidence of any legislation that supports that position.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Factor

Don't misunderstand me. I am not saying to not use a rated shackle,

To be clear - Use a rated shackle and proofed chain etc.

I am saying that in QLD there appears to be no legislation requiring any specific shackle. There is a "Guide" but even it doesn't require a rated shackle. The Federal stuff is interesting and nice and all that, but for it to be law in QLD it needs to be "picked up" by QLD state law (small matter of Section 51 of the constitution). The same way that the Marine Pollution Act in Qld picks up the MARPOL.

If there was legislation requiring the use of a shackle marked with a specific marking, no of course the police officer only requires to inspect and give evidence of that lack of marking, if however the legislation simply requires a shackle to have a SWL of X, then markings do not prove that only testing will.

My advice stands, hell it stands on any issue, never pay a ticket till you check the legislation.

Its not about being picky - its your right. The prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you committed an offence.

As an aside some years ago in the ACT I got a speeding ticket on Limestone Avenue for the henious crime of 68 in a 60 (I was on my motorbike just tootling along at 7 am). The guy was using a LASER device which was the first time I had seen one. Went home and checked the ACT Motor Vehicle Ordinance (as it was then called). I noted that there was a evidentiary provision for proving Radar and amphometer to be accurate but not LASER, seems they had just bought the device without worrying about policy and law! I drew that to the attention of the fine people in the AFP and Short story - that notice was withdrawn, and a few days later over 200 TINS/TONS that had been issued in the first days of using the LASER were also withdrawn.

Similarly I recall a person being intercepted for using a dinghy a long way from his yacht, well beyond the tender allowed range, and given that vessels with a motor of more than 4hp must be registered except in the case of tenders operated near the ship, and given he was a long way from the ship, and given his motor had a sticker on it saying 6, he was duly written up for unregistered vessel. Again long story short, off to court, cross examined said officer as to how he was able to ascertain the HP output (actually the KW output) of the motor and he (officer) said - cause it had a 6 on it. There was no evidence as to what Hp the motor produced, only what the sticker said. And the legislation says that vessels fitted with a motor producing more than x.x KW need to be registered, not that vessels with a motor with a sticker on the side saying x.x need to be registered. Accordingly the matter was tossed. Costs awarded.

Got lots more examples, but the fundamental point is ALWAYS check the legislation, and never ever rely on what the government tells you in web sites etc.

And of course this discussion only started cause someone above reckoned that you could get written up in QLD for not using a rated shackle, I see no evidence of any legislation that supports that position.

Did you not read my post previously? Not everything has to be in legislation, just the authority has to be. It might be like it is in tasmania, where they just have to gazette the change. Its a bit like your speed detector example. You wont find what you described in legislation. Instead the manafacturers determine the way the devices have to be certified and checked and the courts require it be carried out as an evidentary requirement.

And these matters are not proved 'beyond reasonable doubt'. The stanadrd of proof to prove is 'on the balance of probabilities' for these things.

[Factor]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

Did you not read my post previously? Not everything has to be in legislation, just the authority has to be. It might be like it is in tasmania, where they just have to gazette the change. Its a bit like your speed detector example. You wont find what you described in legislation. Instead the manafacturers determine the way the devices have to be certified and checked and the courts require it be carried out as an evidentary requirement.

And these matters are not proved 'beyond reasonable doubt'. The stanadrd of proof to prove is 'on the balance of probabilities' for these things.

Yes read it, and yes understand, but nowhere in the QLD legislation does it provide for picking up the ADR or the Vehicle standard etc or anything else, and even in the case of the QLD guide it still doesn't require the item to be rated. So again, the earlier poster suggesting that you can be ticketed for the non rated shackle is incorrect.

I will have to agree to disagree on the the standard of proof required in criminal matters, including traffic offences. See for example Sect 141 (1) of the tasmanian evidence act

(1) In a criminal proceeding, the court is not to find the case of the prosecution proved unless satisfied that it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

criminal proceeding means a prosecution for an offence

offence means an offence against or arising under an Australian law;

[Ribbit]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

Well, yes, but that's pretty subjective isn't it.

There are people who say the same thing here about the police. Not many, usually older people, ex cops, and of course older people who say 'in my day the local copper would give the young guy a clip under the ear and take him home to his parents' etc.

People said it about nursing when it went professional and required university trained nurses. Older nurses will still say university nurses are better.

University simply means to be further educated. can having more education really be so bad, or is it more to do with an objection to change and new ideas?

Look, by 1965, things had already become so bad, the quality of University leavers had become so poor, that they were no longer capable of passing the essential Royal Navy exams. Instead of fixing it, what did they do?

Yeah, dumbed down the essential exams.

You need to consider the comments Buckminster Fuller made in the late 1920's (in one of his books), where he was railing against the already noticeable drop in education standards, and poor quality of graduates, since the end of WW1. It has been made MUCH worse since! Especially since WW2.

Well IF you were paying any sort of attention, it would have become apparent that this is the case, in pretty much every walk of life now (and far worse than 1965).

Why do you think, the British Government, is HAVING TO (there is no choice in this, it must be done) restore fundamentals, starting with infants and junior Schools learning such as the 12 times table? Unfortunately, unless those beyond junior and infant level buckle down and get to grips with the basics for themselves asap, then they are pretty much writing themselves off for the future.

Why do you think, the US Navy is HAVING TO restore the Astro Navigation requirement? It isn't just the fallibility and vulnerabilities of GPS systems. It is telling the Education 'Industry' to stop faffing around, and actually start doing what they are paid to do, which is provide youngsters with a real Education and grasp of basics that will serve them for life.

I recently went back to Uni as a mature student, and I tell you this, I found the level of incompetence that has been cultivated in our youngsters, to be absolutely inexcusable.

A simple, basic maths test for example (Test 1 of the 10 x 2 hour tests as introduction for Java programming - it's the same bought in junk Course used all over the World), had most of them still scribbling away at the end of 2 hours! There were three people my age group in that exam room, and all three of us, including double checking all the questions and answers (none of us had less than 100/100), took less than 3 Minutes! to complete.

What has been done, and is being done, to our youngsters, is worse than criminal (there's a lot of people need to go to jail for what they have done).

As for Nursing, up until the removal of Matrons (who had the power to fire anybody incompetent, including Specialists, which was why they were disposed of), things like dirty wards, patients left in dirty bedding, patients not observed whether they are eating their food or drinking enough fluids, and MRSA, would never have been able to happen.

The biggest mistake we ever made, was getting rid of Matrons (why they are being reintroduced, but unfortunately they don't have their previous powers - YET!).

The reality of our predicament is obviously lost on you, but the following apt comment may find its way through:

"One could not be a successful scientist without realizing that, in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers and mothers of scientists, a goodly number of scientists are not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid."
James D. Watson

Tell me this. How do such a large number of stupid 'scientists' make it out of our Universities, with paper qualifications? It doesn't say much for the value of the bit of paper, does it?

If the 'scientists' among them are that bad (and they are), what does it say for the rest of them?

"I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know no way of judging the future but by the past." Patrick Henry

"Subjective", my arse. It isn't me that's protesting and opposed to real Education.

As confirmed on the news over here very recently, that would be those who are called 'Teachers' (something they are very far from actually being, and any that protest against restoring real Education, should be sacked with immediate effect).

Latin universitas 'the whole' - they have been failing in that job specification, for a very long time now.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Factor

Yes read it, and yes understand, but nowhere in the QLD legislation does it provide for picking up the ADR or the Vehicle standard etc or anything else, and even in the case of the QLD guide it still doesn't require the item to be rated. So again, the earlier poster suggesting that you can be ticketed for the non rated shackle is incorrect.

I will have to agree to disagree on the the standard of proof required in criminal matters, including traffic offences. See for example Sect 141 (1) of the tasmanian evidence act

Well, i dont have time to go looking for you about the queensland situation. But the rest of the quotes tell me you really dont have any legal background and a bare minimal of understanding. 'Traffic offences' are not crimes, period. And the standard of proof known for indictable 'offences' ( crimes) and for 'summary offences' is known by any high school student doing basic law. Quoting the Evidance Act means zip when you dont have a basic understanding of the legal system. You my friend have been watching too much TV.

[Ribbit]

Originally Posted by Factor

My advice stands, hell it stands on any issue, never pay a ticket till you check the legislation.

Legislation is not the Law (making Law is the exercising of power, and Legislators are denied power, because nobody can be trusted with it - that's why it is called the "Rule of Law"). Legislation must comply with the Law to be 'lawful', otherwise it is illegal, and void.

By 'ticket' I interpret that to mean an on the spot fine?

Bill of Rights 1688 (confirming Common Law which applies to Australia):

"That all Grants and Promises of Fines and Forfeitures of particular persons before Conviction are illegall and void. "

That's the Law. Anybody that's paid an on the spot fine (or been subjected to an illegal forfeiture such as being wheel clamped, for example), should claim it back as illegally demanded.

So check the Law, and then check to see if the legislation complies with it (an amazing amount of it doesn't).

[Factor]

Originally Posted by Ribbit

Legislation is not the Law (making Law is the exercising of power, and Legislators are denied power, because nobody can be trusted with it - that's why it is called the "Rule of Law"). Legislation must comply with the Law to be 'lawful', otherwise it is illegal, and void.

By 'ticket' I interpret that to mean an on the spot fine?

Bill of Rights 1688 (confirming Common Law which applies to Australia):

"That all Grants and Promises of Fines and Forfeitures of particular persons before Conviction are illegall and void. "

That's the Law. Anybody that's paid an on the spot fine (or been subjected to an illegal forfeiture such as being wheel clamped, for example), should claim it back as illegally demanded.

So check the Law, and then check to see if the legislation complies with it (an amazing amount of it doesn't).

Oh Dear.

The common law of England has NO impact on the criminal law of Australia, none nada zero zip zilch bugger all.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Factor

Oh Dear.

The common law of England has NO impact on the criminal law of Australia, none nada zero zip zilch bugger all.

But dont encourage him Factor or he will go on and on as he has elsewhere.

[Factor]

[QUOTE=Rustic Charm;2018548]

'Traffic offences' are not crimes, period

. Didn't say they were, they are however Criminal Offences.

We will use my states legislation for this lesson - but given your expertise you would no doubt know that the Tasmanian Criminal Code was based heavily on the Qld Criminal Code, way back when, when Sir Samual griffith wrote it:

What is an offence
22. An act or omission that makes the person who does the act liable to
punishment is called an offence.
̇Types of offences
23.(1) An offence is either a criminal offence or a regulatory offence.4
(2) A criminal offence is an offence that is either a crime or a simple offence.

So you see Criminal Offences can be simple offences (i.e. traffic matters and the like) and are not necessarilly Crimes.

And the standard of proof known for indictable 'offences' ( crimes) and for 'summary offences' is known by any high school student doing basic law. Quoting the Evidance Act means zip when you dont have a basic understanding of the legal system. You my friend have been watching too much TV.

Yes and the standard is the same - beyond reasonable doubt. - Balance of Probabilities relates to civil matters only. You my friend clearly didn't pay attention to the some of your lectures at Rokeby. I did give some lectures there in the past. You clearly do not understand the difference between CRIME ( a type of criminal offence) and Criminal Offence.

You may find some of the information in the Tas DPP publications helpful. eg Definitions like

Criminal
 - Of or pertaining to crime; pertaining to criminal as opposed to civil law;

and the definition of summary offence

Summary offence
 A minor criminal offence triable before a magistrate without a jury. In contrast to indictable offence.

Maybe the publication of the Magistrates Court in Tasmania will also assist when it says

The start of a criminal action

A criminal action begins with the police charging a person with an offence. Offences are contained within Acts of Parliament and can be divided into two general categories:
simple or "summary" offences; and
crimes or "indictable" offences.

So you can see a Crimnal Offence is a very different thing to a Crime.


I did not get my understanding of the law from TV. I am not sure where you got yours, it certainly wasn't from the Academy

before you respond, call one of your former colleagues in the Prosecution section and pose the question to them, Traffic Matter - does it require proof beyond reasonable doubt.

[Ribbit]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

But the rest of the quotes tell me you really dont have any legal background and a bare minimal of understanding.

In line with your previous assertions and assumptions about Education, you really don't have a clue about the incompetence and ignorance of Law that is being cultivated in so called "Law Schools" do you?

The Uni I went back to also had a Law faculty, and I tried to make use of the Library for cross checking my old source material for updates, but essential reference material wasn't present. Thinking it may be out on loan, I asked the librarian, and she checked and said it wasn't out on loan, they didn't have it. Shocked by this, I asked how could a Law faculty NOT have the basic essentials, and I explained what they were. With their importance being obvious to her, she checked to see if she could get them via the National database, and not a single institution teaching Law in the Country, had any of them.

So still confident about the background and understanding that there is in the legal profession?

I have even had to put Barristers right on fundamental basic Law and Constitutional matters (I am not a Barrister, there is nowhere in the World available for me to become properly 'paper' qualified in my field, as it doesn't exist as a subject any more, but knowledge is knowledge, RIGHT?), but I fed them the information via a friend that was an old school properly educated Barrister, who confirmed everything before passing it along, and even she was shocked at the information. RIP Clarissa. We all still desperately need the skills and experience she provided, but she has gone to a better place. Some may have known her as one of the Two Fat Lady Chefs, but in her youth, she was quite a famous Barrister. We have lost a truly wonderful person.

The bottom line is this, reality about Law, simply ISN'T TAUGHT any more! Over here anyway.

I have had to stand up in Court and put the Court right, quoting chapter and verse of the reality of the Law, with each point confirmed to be true by the Clerk of the Court (and as I was actually defending the role of the Bench, boy did they become supportive, and an absolute credit to their position once it was grasped).

This is not a political point (I don't know the man and can't comment on him as a person, I am not an American and have no axe to grind, especially perhaps as I am not a political person, I am a Constitutional person - there's a big difference), but how can you have the leader of the Free world, who apparently has even been a lecturer of the Law, that is so ignorant of the fundamentals of Laws and Constitutions?

Apart from everything else (and there's a lot of 'everything else'), doesn't that confirm all I am saying?

[Ribbit]

Originally Posted by Factor

Oh Dear.

The common law of England has NO impact on the criminal law of Australia, none nada zero zip zilch bugger all.

"The organized system of law and government now in force in Australia is historically dependent for its legal validity on a series of British statutes, notably including the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900. The authority of the United Kingdom Parliament to enact those statutes depended on the acquisition of the Australian continent as a territorial possession of the British Crown. Although the laws of the Australian colonies differed from the UK in many respects from the beginnings of settlement, the underlying patterns of thought reflect the common law tradition as received from Britain."

Australia is a Common Law Country, and Australians are able to benefit from that reality.

If they are prepared to look.

[Ribbit]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

But dont encourage him Factor or he will go on and on as he has elsewhere.

Just because what I say disturbs your complacent arrogance, doesn't discourage me from attempting to wake you TF UP!

PS Thinking about it, Eff That. Your blatant ignorance and bias really has earned you a place on my ignore list.