Lawyer wins $145,000 for 'spiteful' arrest (1 Viewer)

[Not-That-Bright]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national...spiteful-arrest/2005/10/25/1130006097096.html

 

[zahid]

yeah but hes like fully sikk bro.

 

[loquasagacious]

Still at least he fought and won for the princuple of the matter....

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Sticking it to the man! Good on him, that'll teach that oaf of a cop.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Anarchist.

Totalitarian.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

More insight into what was happening...

He was in the court room looking after some other client, when a junior female police officer started questioning one of his other clients that had some mental difficulty. He went over and explained to the female cop that she couldn't question him, and she was fine with it. But then apparently this guy cop sees him and jogs over yelling "fuck off leb". Proceeding to push him against the wall like a bit of a madman...

In court the cop got all the other police officers to sign an affidavit basically saying the same story as what he gave. However, one of the cops felt a little self conscious and let out that they'd lied.

Another interesting point is that if we have police doing this sort of thing now... imagine what sort of weird and wonderful things are going to happen under the new anti-terror laws.

 

[santaslayer]

It isn't very intelligent to mess with a lawyer who know's his fucking rights.


stupid cop.

omg to police verbals.

 

[loquasagacious]

Well the coercion/perversion of justice by the police officer in question is concerning.....

 

[sly fly]

Another interesting point is that if we have police doing this sort of thing now... imagine what sort of weird and wonderful things are going to happen under the new anti-terror laws.

Good point

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Another interesting point is that if we have police doing this sort of thing now... imagine what sort of weird and wonderful things are going to happen under the new anti-terror laws.

I haven't read the leaked legislation but do we know if normal police have these extended powers or is it only federal police/ASIO officers? If it is normal police (consisting of such honourable members as the said police officer) then there is room for concern!

 

[loquasagacious]

I believe the draft laws only cover AFP and ASIO. Though in the ACT the AFP are the normal police....

Furthermore it would extablish a clear precendent for the extending of the powers in a 'state of emergency'....

 

[Not-That-Bright]

oh p.s. he is a uws grad.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

I know! I'm concerned about them removing the shoot-to-kill clause, they should have left it. There sure as hell wouldn't have been any $145,000 pay out to some scum bag then by the police!

Yes well I hardly think you'd be so defensive of the police if it was you they were pushing around without cause

 

[sly fly]

I know! I'm concerned about them removing the shoot-to-kill clause, they should have left it. There sure as hell wouldn't have been any $145,000 pay out to some scum bag then by the police!

Why is he a scumbag?

 

[MoonlightSonata]

I don't get in the way of the police, so it would never happen.

Neither did the lawyer.

Do people really deserve mechanisms to protect themselves from such police 'abuse'?

Evidently, as this article demonstrates, yes.

You can't say that the lawyer didn't deserve it, and the wanton of the police officer does look damning, however what is the police officers perspective? Do we ponder his side of the case, or do we immediately jump up and down thinking that there has been some tremendous abuse by the police, and that it's "typical" this, "typical" that, police bashing minority... etc &c. &c.? Or perhaps the media has exagerated? Or perhaps we aren't getting the whole truth.

Read the article. It was the police officer's fault. One of his own officers who he tried to get an affidavit supporting him felt guilty and told the real story.

Or maybe it really was a police officer going to far... In a court house.. With.. many people watching.. and.. a fellow police officer.. and he just happened to .. yes.. attack a lawyer who knows his rights etc..

Yes, it was. Additionally, "in a courthouse" does not literally mean in the court. It can be in a main room outside.

Not many police would go as far as that without reason i don't think.

You'd hope so, but this one did.

 

[frog12986]

The officer mentioned is the reason why police officers gain a negative stereotype...of all the people to act in such a way against...a lawyer...complete and utter stupidity..

 

[MoonlightSonata]

And you saw it? Would you be able to testify in court, and submit this evidence, or would it be hearsay?

Ah, the evidence was proven in court.

Ok. So, when the media criticises an individual "they are lieing, they are manipulating the truth. etc" but when the media critcizes a police officer.. "It's the truth. yeh.. The media doesn't get it wrong. They don't exagerate. This whole story couldn't have been taken out of context or something".
Why is it that people wave the "media-big-bad-guy" wand, questioning the credability of the media and portraying them as being scoundrals and scum bags, when they say something that credits john howard, or those fighting terrorists or something.. But in instances where the government is portrayed as being bad.. you conveniently forget about the media being big bad bastards?

What? Then media reported that it was proven in court. How is that an exaggeration?

 

[sly fly]

Or maybe it really was a police officer going to far... In a court house.. With.. many people watching.. and.. a fellow police officer.. and he just happened to .. yes.. attack a lawyer who knows his rights etc..

Not many police would go as far as that without reason i don't think.

Logic doesn’t seem to kick in when people get into their little fits of racism……..which you're ironically proving to be true

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Perhaps Lozacious should actually read the judgment: Houda v State of New South Wales [2005] NSWSC 1053 (25 October 2005).

After going through all the evidence in much detail (including highlighting the fact that numerous independent bystanders gave evidence that supported Mr Houda's version of events and were at odds with the police officer's) his honour Cooper AJ states at Para 289 -

Having regard to all of the evidence and bearing in mind the submissions of the parties and the difficulties of determining where the truth lies in evidence given five years after the event, I am comfortably satisfied on the probabilities that the version of facts given by the plaintiff is in fact the correct description of what occurred at Burwood Courthouse on 25 August 2000.

 

[Comrade nathan]

Did Lozacious just remove all his posts? Because i can't see any of his posts.