Fighting corruption in Australia

[Bruce Tuncks]

Thanks OME. I gotta say I like the idea of swapping money before a buy... but don't forget, you are using the druggie to shop his supplier.  He could justify it in many ways, going straight is just one, getting in first is another, moving interstate with enough money to start over ( clean or not) is another.   And while I agree about the sellers having good informers, I reckon that this does not have to be permanent. Right now, the Commonwealth cops are tight enough that they can keep imported drugs under surveillance for months without the perps finding out. What could be worth more money than knowing about this?

I didn't know about even the cops having to get a court order before being " allowed" to buy illegal drugs, but this could be changed by legislation too. It seems unreasonable and certainly cuts off the possibility of any spontaneous buying, even by the cops. Yes, I am aware that certain corrupt cops may just be drug buyers in real life, they surely need culling out, there can't be many of them.

AND I say again, most of my men's exercise group would be off trying to buy drugs if they got a grand or so for succeeding. But nobody is interested in this deal. SO your arguments have won the day.

[old man emu]

5 hours ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

the cops having to get a court order before being " allowed" to buy illegal drugs

I appear to be incorrect in making that statement. Since Police can obtain Court approval for such things as phone call interception, listening devices and so on in order to gather evidence, I thought that the Courts in Australia would countenance entrapment. In that, I am wrong.

 

The Australian case of Ridgeway v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 19, is one of the leading cases in relation to entrapment as a defence. In that case, the offender was charged with the importation of 140.4 grams of heroin. The charge was as a result of a ‘controlled’ operation between the Australian Federal Police (AFP) and Malaysian Federal Police (MFP). The offender had contacted an old friend, Lee, whom he had met whilst serving a jail term for drug related offences. Upon release, Lee was deported to Malaysia and subsequently became an informant for the MFP. Once the offender was released, he contacted Lee to arrange to purchase heroin to import into Australia. Lee and a Malaysian police officer, acting with the knowledge and co-operation of the AFP, were given visas by the Australian High Commission in Malaysia, and imported a quantity of heroin into Australia. The heroin was cleared through Customs as arranged by the AFP and Australian Customs Service and upon delivery of the heroin the offender was apprehended.

 

The High Court of Australia held that they must exercise discretion to exclude any evidence of an offence that was brought about by unlawful conduct of law enforcement officers. The purposes of this discretion is to discourage such unlawful conduct and to preserve the integrity of the administration of criminal justice.

 

 The High Court ultimately held that the evidence which proved that the heroin supplied to the appellant had been illegally imported and should be rejected. Their Honours drew attention to the ‘calculated’ and ‘grave’ actions of the AFP, especially that:

• their actions constituted an offence in that the AFP allowed the drugs to be imported
• the police officers involved had not been prosecuted though they, too, had committed an offence
• there was no evidence of any official disapproval or retribution, and
• the objective of the AFP’s criminal conduct would have been achieved if the evidence were admitted.

The court determined that the public interest could be satisfied in this case by the availability of a variety of offences (conspiracy to import) that could be applied against the offender which did not involve illegally importing heroin. Criminal justice requires that the person be held accountable for their actions unless there truly was no other option available to them. To treat entrapment as a full substantive defence would suggest that the offender was lacking in free will as a direct result of the inducement. In the American case of Sherman v United States, the Court highlighted the need to draw a line between trapping an innocent person and trapping a criminal.

 

 

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Thanks OME. Personally, I like the idea of entrapment as used against illegal drug sellers. Just as I like the idea of booby-traps as used against criminals... for example, secretly photographing a criminal doing his thing is a great idea methinks, also connecting a desirable object to the mains power, to catch a burglar. My guess is that the photo bit would be legal but the electrocution stuff would not be.

But I accede to your knowledge on the subject...

I would limit the requirement to be that entrapment which CAUSES a crime when no crime would have taken place should be illegal. An example would be getting a girl to ask a big guy to help with a heavy suitcase and then arresting him for carrying drugs.

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Surely it's not true that if a cop parks illegally to catch a perp, then this whole thing gets thrown out as " the fruit of a poisoned tree?"

[Bruce Tuncks]

While I agree that the cops need to act within the law , surely the wrongdoing of the cops has to be weighed against the wrongdoing of the perp. In the case of the illegal parking, there is no comparison at all if the perp is, say, a drugseller.

[old man emu]

21 hours ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

also connecting a desirable object to the mains power, to catch a burglar.

That would be included in the offence of "Set mantrap" for which the penalty is about 5 years in clink.

 

20 hours ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

surely the wrongdoing of the cops has to be weighed against the wrongdoing of the perp

The beauty of the system of law we have is that those in power, ie The State, can do nothing that would lead to the loss of liberty of it citizens. In our system, the State must prove each element of a charge with evidence that confirms each of those elements. Fail on one element and the whole lot fails. Well might the State say that we know that the bugger did it, but if any element of the offence cannot be proven, then the whole lot is out the door. Often we hear that a person got off "on a technicality". That means that the prosecution has failed to prove some element of the definition of the offence.

 

Here's the law relating to man traps from the NSW Crimes Act

49 Setting trap etc

(1) Any person who--

(a) places or sets, or causes to be placed or set, any trap, device or thing (whether its nature be electronic, electric, mechanical, chemical or otherwise) capable of destroying human life or inflicting grievous bodily harm on any person, or

(b) knowingly permits any such trap, device or thing to continue to be placed or set,

with intent to inflict grievous bodily harm shall be liable to imprisonment for five years.

 

Manys the incarcerated prisoner who has been charged with this offence because they hooked up a wire from their cell's light fitting to the metal cell door in order to shock a warder who was opening he door.

 

[nomadpete]

Back to topic, Fighting Corruption ? ......

 

Not much chance of that getting much traction in Aus.

 

Just think, we have a nice new anticorruption  commission without transparency, and after reading #Markdun's comments about SFM's possibly serious constitutional transgressions, in my opinion we seem to be racing to catch up with US of A standards. There doesn't  seem to be any moves to look closely at recent politicians, does there?

[Jerry_Atrick]

I recall the Robodebt report was broken into two parts - one for the general public and one referred to the AFP, those accused of criminal conduct and ministers. The latter was kept from the public so as not to prejudice criminal proceedings. Given a Royal Commission has the power to compel testimony, one would have thought the lion's share of the evidence was uncovered, and all the authorities would have to do is assemble the case to prove mes rea (guilty mind), as the actus reus (guilty act) has already been discovered.

 

Anyone heard of anyone being charged yet or even if there are any investigations?

Edited November 20, 2023 by Jerry_Atrick

[old man emu]

2 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

Anyone heard of anyone being charged yet or even if there are any investigations?

Wake up to yourself, Jerry. That report was last week's news. We can't waste time dealing with ancient history. This week we are working to circle around the High Court's ruling on the detention of criminal non-citizens. 

[facthunter]

The  High Court decision was implemented immediately. The REASONS for the decisions will come Later?  Surely that hampers your ability to deal with it?   Nev

Edited November 20, 2023 by facthunter

[nomadpete]

51 minutes ago, facthunter said:

The  High Court decision was implemented immediately. The REASONS for the decisions will come Later?  Surely that hampers your ability to deal with it?   Nev

Do we call that the new world view of transparency?

[facthunter]

I doubt it's wise to comment further.  Nev

[old man emu]

The reasons for a judgement can provide material for an appeal to a higher court. An immediate appeal against this judgement would cause a stay in the enforcement of the judgement which would mean that the detainees would be subjected to what the Court said was illegal treatment. Perhaps it was somewhat politically expedient for the Government to obey the Court immediately and come back to fight another day. Laws were passed to keep an eye on the detainees released. If the judgement was overturned, then the detainees would soon be rounded up.

 

I believe that the individuals involved had committed really serious crimes which precluded them from becoming citizens, which is the aim of the immigration laws. Also they appear to be refugees and are currently stateless under international law. No other country wants this type of person. We are stuck with them. Is keeping an eye on them any different to what occurs with an Australian-born, Anglo-Irish person who has served a sentence for an abominable crime and is there after released into the community?

[facthunter]

All very logical but it's being politicised massively by the opposition. By "Forcing " these changes they now OWN them to some  considerable extent.. The changes could easily be challenged in court also, adding more confusion to this fiasco. Only a relatively small number of them are involved in very serious issues but that has been sensationalised for political gain. aided by the MSM.  Nev

[spacesailor]

Like buying components from the USofA . Not many years ago their postal cost was reasonable,  but , now it's it's about  110 % of the  commodities price . ( $100 item $110 postage  ) .

Who ate ' the goose that lays golden eggs ' .

spacesailor

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

I notice the chinese are not so silly....  the postage rarely puts me off.

 

[old man emu]

20 hours ago, spacesailor said:

Who ate ' the goose that lays golden eggs ' .

The Universal Postal Union is a United Nations specialized agency and the postal sector's primary forum for international cooperation. Established in 1874, the Universal Postal Union (UPU), with its headquarters in the Swiss capital Berne, is the second oldest international organization worldwide.

 

With its 192 member countries, the UPU is the primary forum for cooperation between postal sector players. It helps to ensure a truly universal network of up-to-date products and services. It sets the rules for international mail exchanges and makes recommendations to stimulate growth in mail, parcel and financial services volumes and improve quality of service for customers.

 

In other words, it's a cartel that sets the price for international mail prices.

[facthunter]

UPS (United Parcel Service) is the main operator in the USA and always was totally american owned and shares went public in later years' I find their charges outrageous and a big factor to not buy US made stuff..  Nev

[onetrack]

The United States Postal Service has been the major cheap provider of international parcels for many years - up until the late "teens".

However, the USPS was bleeding red from every pore, losing hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars annually, as their parcel charges never even looked like covering their operating costs.

 

There was a major problem within USPS, whereby the postal union that organised the USPS employees arranged pay deals whereby employees had to be paid according to their skills and education levels - not according to the actual job they were doing.

 

So, the result was, people with PhD's who couldn't get jobs in universities were getting jobs as mail sorters - and being paid to the same level as they would've been, teaching in a Uni with a PhD.

 

Multiple U.S. politicians have tried to rein in USPS's outrageous wages setup, with only limited success. They did succeed in reducing some wages, but they simply increased USPS parcel charges to try and cover their losses.

This made the other parcel handling companies step in and grab a share of the international parcel market, to make fat profits.

 

The Chinese parcel charges are fully subsidised by the CCP, because the CCP sees subsidised deliveries from their factories as merely Chinese industry assistance, all designed to keep China competitive.

[Bruce Tuncks]

Well the chinese system works for me. I always add the postage to the price when comparing deals.

[facthunter]

OT are we talking about the same thing?   "States" is NOT in the title of what I looked up.  Nev

[red750]

UPS = United Parcel Service

 

USPS = United States Postal Service, also known as the Post Office, U.S. Mail, or Postal Service, is an independent agency of the executive branch of the United States federal government responsible for providing postal service in the U.S., its insular areas, and its associated states. 

[old man emu]

USPS = United States Postal Service is the American member of the Universal Postal Union. I think that if you compare its postal rates for international mail with those of Britain or an EU country you will find that the rates are pretty close for all of them. That's because the UPU is determining the rates.

[onetrack]

Facthunter, UPS is United Parcel Service, an American corporation that carries out parcel and freight distribution services globally ("Global shipping and Logistics").

 

USPS is the United States Postal Service, a Federal agency owned by the U.S. Govt, and it's responsible for mail and parcel delivery in the U.S. and globally.

The employees of the USPS are officially public servants.

 

However, to add to the level of confusion, UPS will sometimes send parcels using USPS as a carrier.

 

Edited November 25, 2023 by onetrack

[spacesailor]

Whichever is the " thief " that charges % 110 of the goods value .

Is making more money than the seller is making .

spacesailor