• January 21, 2018, 08:41:33 AM
  • Welcome, Guest
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search

News:

Forum/Membership Maintenance: last completed on Monday 9th November 2015

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
 91 
 on: April 08, 2017, 07:34:55 PM 
Started by Prickle - Last post by Prickle
A COP accused of setting up his brother-in-law to take the fall for him in a minor traffic accident has been committed to stand trial over attempting to pervert the course of justice.

Sen-Constable Jamie MacKenzie faces up to 25 years in jail if a jury finds him guilty of the offence.

His committal came just hours after his brother-in-law Stephen Paterson pleaded guilty to the same charge.

Court documents reveal the off-duty policeman reversed his car into a woman’s vehicle at a Greensborough supermarket and drove off on Boxing Day, 2015.

The victim noted the car’s numberplate and police checks later identified Sen-Constable MacKenzie as the car’s owner.

Police allege when the Mill Park officer was contacted by a colleague, he falsely claimed Mr Paterson was the wheelman.

Mr Paterson backed up the story, handing over his licence and contact details.

Police became suspicious when a description given by the victim of the driver matched that of Sen-Constable MacKenzie.

CCTV footage captured of the incident later confirmed those suspicions.

When Professional Standards police placed Mr Paterson under arrest, he cracked and dobbed his brother-in-law in.

Sen-Constable MacKenzie later admitted to police he was indeed the driver and was fully aware Mr Paterson had falsely admitted to it.

But he denied ever telling police Mr Paterson was the driver, stating it was his decision alone to volunteer the information to police.

Mr Paterson told police the blame was his alone.

“I just believed I was helping somebody out — a brother, a family member,” he told police.

But Sgt Jacki Dixon told the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court she was adamant the officer had blamed Mr Paterson.

“He told me the driver was his brother-in-law,” she said.

Sen-Constable MacKenzie has pleaded not guilty to the charge and other related offences and will front the County Court tomorrow.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/victorian-cop-to-stand-trial-over-attempt-to-pervert-course-of-justice/news-story/5c97c5d781399a95a50d14e7b666c406

 92 
 on: March 17, 2017, 09:02:31 AM 
Started by Prickle - Last post by Prickle
Gold Coast police under examination after the death of a man in a suspected drug death have denied colluding

A TEAM of elite Gold Coast cops have been accused of colluding with each other to fabricate a story after the death of a man at a Miami unit in 2015, a court has heard.

The suggestion made by barrister Philip Beale during a coronial inquiry into the death of Charlie Robertson yesterday was vehemently denied by Senior Constable Grant Watkins.

The senior constable was one of seven Rapid Action Patrol Group officers involved in an early-morning raid on a suspected Miami drug den on June 13, 2015 who discovered Mr Robertson on a bed in the unit.

“You’ve told the court that you thought he was in a really deep sleep at this time,” Mr Beale said.

“I suggest to you it was decided … he was ‘just pissed’.

“That’s what you all agreed to and you all put in your fabricated statements that you all did together.”

Senior Constable Watkins replied: “There was no discussion into that.”

Robertson allegedly died from a drug overdose hours after police were unable to rouse him early on the morning of the raid.

Officers claimed they thought the man was in a deep sleep and left him in the unit with three 16-year-old girls.

In cross examination at Southport Court yesterday, Mr Beale questioned the officer’s claims that Robertson had opened his eyes during the 2015 raid.

“It became part of the concoction that it should be suggested that he’d actually woken up,” Mr Beale said.

“No,” replied Senior Constable Watkins.

During a search under the bed Robertson was laying on, Senior Constable Watkins said he lifted the mattress high in the air to look underneath while another officer held Robertson so he did not fall.

Senior Constable Watkins said while his legs came off the bed, at no point did Robertson end up on the floor.

The court also heard from Senior Constable Ian Taylor who was the highest ranking officer in the 2015 raid and was demoted from the rank of Sergeant for a period of six months as a result of disciplinary inquiries made into Robertson’s death.

Senior Constable Taylor said that in the process of Watkins searching the bed, Robertson ended up on the ground.

The officer said he then instructed two officers to put Robertson back on the bed and leave him in a recovery position.

When asked by Mr Beale yesterday if they saw any blood on the inside of Robertson’s ear, both Senior Constable Taylor and Senior Constable Watkins said they did not.

The inquest continues today.

http://www.goldcoastbulletin.com.au/news/crime-court/gold-coast-police-under-examination-after-the-death-of-a-man-in-a-suspected-drug-death-have-denied-colluding/news-story/13787e9d26e489797376672d47000f8e

 93 
 on: March 14, 2017, 10:55:39 AM 
Started by Prickle - Last post by Daemon
Seems pretty common amongst the filth nowadays.
Fucken hang the cunt up by the balls till he slowly rots.

 94 
 on: March 13, 2017, 06:55:50 PM 
Started by Prickle - Last post by Prickle
Police officer charged with possession of child exploitation material

A Tasmanian police officer has been charged by summons over the alleged possession of child exploitation material.

In a statement, Tasmania Police said a "senior constable from the southern region" had been suspended on full pay "while the matter [was] before the courts".

Police said the charge related to "three images".

In Tasmania, the law states child exploitation material is anything that a reasonable person would find offensive, that depicts a person under 18 engaged in sexual activity or as "the subject of torture, cruelty or abuse [whether or not in a sexual context]".

The definition of material "includes any film, printed matter, electronic data and any other thing of any kind [including any computer image or other depiction]".

The male officer will appear in the Hobart Magistrates Court on May 12.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-11/child-exploitation-material-charge-tasmania-police-officer/8345608

 95 
 on: March 01, 2017, 11:37:20 AM 
Started by Prickle - Last post by ΩmegaMan
too much of this shit these days "bikies made me do it"...

yeah fuck off...

 96 
 on: March 01, 2017, 09:31:21 AM 
Started by Prickle - Last post by Daemon
Fucken hell. Think all the filth need a shrink test after they become a pig. To many are fucken nut jobs.

 97 
 on: March 01, 2017, 07:48:05 AM 
Started by Prickle - Last post by Prickle
Rare legal defence clears NSW policeman who stomped on driver

A NSW policeman who was filmed kicking, stomping and punching a Newcastle man has been found not guilty because he had no memory of the attack.

Senior Constable Christopher Charles Fullick had no memory of the ten minutes that surpassed after a speeding car "nearly killed" him, the Newcastle Herald reports.

That included the arrest of the car's 29-year-old driver, Anthony Kirk, who was kicked and punched by Fullick in an attack captured on police dashcam in Newcastle on January 27 last year.

Kirk was being restrained by several other officers at the time.

Kirk's car had crashed into Fullick's cruiser at 85km/h after running a red-light during a police chase.

Though Fullick was unharmed in the collision, the court heard he was suffering from post-traumatic amnesia as a result.

Fullick successfully used "automatism" as a defence, with a neurosurgeon, neurologist and psychologist all arguing the officer had no control over his actions at the time.

Yesterday Magistrate Andrew Eckhold dismissed the charges because the prosecution had failed to prove otherwise.

Automatism is a rarely used criminal defence that says a person cannot be guilty if they were not conscious of their actions.

Typical examples include a crime committed while sleepwalking or after suffering a serious head injury.

Fullick has been on paid suspension since being charged over the violent arrest.

http://www.9news.com.au/national/2017/02/25/11/30/rare-legal-defence-clears-nsw-policeman-who-stomped-on-driver#VqeOPua7J8I86Woz.99

 98 
 on: March 01, 2017, 07:44:46 AM 
Started by Prickle - Last post by Prickle
Officer ‘bashed by bikie’ before station rampage

A police officer who kicked down a door at the Port Hedland station and pointed a gun at his colleagues says he was assaulted by a bikie before the drunken rampage.

Const. Kyle Stephen Bedford was “highly intoxicated” when he went to the police station after leaving the Pier Hotel late on a Saturday night last year.

After setting off an alarm and kicking open a door, Bedford took an AR-15 assault rifle from the armoury and loaded his pistol. When South Hedland officers turned up, Bedford pointed his gun at them and said he would shoot if they were armed or were with other people.

There were questions in Perth Magistrate’s Court yesterday about what happened between Bedford leaving the pub and arriving at the police station. He told the author of a psychiatric report he had a disagreement with a bikie and was assaulted before he got to the station.

Chief Magistrate Steven Heath ordered a trial of the issues, saying the alleged assault was an important factor in sentencing.

Bedford pleaded guilty to damaging property, carrying a firearm while affected by alcohol and pointing a firearm at a person.

https://thewest.com.au/news/wa/bash-claim-by-officer-ng-b88399381z

 99 
 on: February 23, 2017, 09:15:53 PM 
Started by angry - Last post by greenkma.
Michael Katsidis v Josh King 11.03.17



World renown Lightweight boxer and former two time WBO Interim title holder Michael Katsidis returns to Boxing Australia on March 11 headlining TGW Smithy’s Promotion in Brisbane, Australia. Teamed up with long time trainer Brendan Smith has proved great success for Katsidis boxing career, always ready to take on the best earned them the grand opportunity of fighting Juan Manuel Marquez for the WBO and WBA Super Lightweight titles at the MGM Grand Las Vegas USA, November 2010.

Katsidis has been busted up, locked up and left broken hearted chasing world titles, one fight from eight-division world champion Manny Pacquiao, Katsidis was rocked by the sudden death of his brother Brisbane jockey Stathi Katsidis, one month before the biggest fight of his boxing career choosing to box on he dropped boxing icon Marquez in round three delivering the Mexican champion a shock knockdown. Not one to back down from a challenge Katsidis once again gave the fans a fight worth watching, trading heavy handed blows over nine rounds Marquez winning by a technical knockout retaining the WBO WBA titles and the right to a second bout against Manny Pacquiao in 2011.

Katsidis The Great’ 31.7.0 is a great representation of boxing in Australia, a tough pressure fighter he’s been in many bloodied world title battles, fighting his way through the lightweight division winning the Interim WBO World Lightweight title at the Wembley Arena London in Feb 2007 going on to defend the title in Nevada USA against Czar Amonsot. The fight critiqued for fight of the year, Katsidis winning a unanimous decision over twelve explosive rounds, two warriors testing their strength and skills in a jaw dropping battle with heavy fisted blows bringing the history of hard knocks back to boxing.

After a two year absence from the ring and speculation surrounding his health our title tooting world boomerang returns to Toowoomba, Queensland proudly representing TGW Smithy’s Promotions in a fight close to home honouring brother Brayd  ‘The Great White’ Smith and offering fellow state challenger Josh King 20.4.0 the opportunity to fight at top of the Australia Super Lightweight division. King returns after a fifteen month layoff, his last fight against Katsidis UK foe Ricky Burns in Nov 2015 suffering his second knockout loss in round eleven gaining risky boxing experience needed when chasing the world titles.


Read More...


http://www.kmaboxing.org/

 100 
 on: February 16, 2017, 11:53:36 AM 
Started by Prickle - Last post by Prickle


In just under 3 weeks the 2nd stage of the Serious and Organised Amendment Bill will be enforceable by the police on the the 9th March not only the Consorting Laws but also laws called the Public Safety Protection Orders will come into action. An extract of those laws are below.....Public Safety Orders....Restricted Premises Orders.....Fortification Removal Orders

Peace and Good Behaviour Act 1982
-
Creation of new objects for the Peace and Good Behaviour Act

The Bill significantly amends the Peace and Good Behaviour Act to create a scheme of three new
public safety protection orders: public safety orders; restricted premises orders and fortification
removal orders. These orders will provide a multi-level strike to pre-emptively disrupt criminal
and anti-social behaviour and protect public safety. The scheme provides for orders and notices to
be issued by commissioned police officers and the Magistrates Court.

The Bill amends the Peace and Good Behaviour Act to set out new objects for the Act to make it
clear that its main object is to protect the safety, welfare, and peace and good order of the
community from risks presented by people engaging in anti-social, disorderly or criminal conduct.
Importantly, the objects clarify that it is not Parliament’s intention that the powers under the
Peace and Good Behaviour Act should be exercised in a way that diminishes the freedom of persons in
the State to participate in advocacy, protest, dissent or industrial action.

For each of the new orders created by the Bill, the decision maker (whether it be a police officer
or a judicial officer) must take into account whether the making of the order will assist
in achieving the objects of the Act before deciding whether an order should be made.

For each of the new orders created by the Bill, the decision maker (whether it be a police
officer or a judicial officer) must take into account whether the making of the order will assist
in achieving the objects of the Act before deciding whether an order should be made.

The public safety protection order scheme created by the Bill is a civil scheme and therefore all
questions of fact in proceedings brought under the scheme (other than proceedings for a criminal
offence) will be decided on the balance of probabilities.

- Public Safety Orders

The Bill reflects the recommendation of the COA review to transfer the public safety orders from
the COA to the Peace and Good Behaviour Act (Part 9.3 of the COA Review Report), through the
establishment of Public Safety Orders in Part 2 of the Act.

The Bill provides that a public safety order can prohibit a person or group of people from
entering, attending, remaining or doing certain things on a premises, at an event or in a stated
area. To breach a public safety order is a misdemeanour (i.e. an indictable offence)
punishable by a maximum penalty of three years imprisonment or 300 penalty units.

A variation from the existing public safety orders under the COA is that the Bill enables a
Commissioned police officer (i.e. rank of Inspector or above) to make a public safety order of up
to seven days duration if satisfied that: the presence of a person or group of persons at an event,
or within an area poses a serious risk to public safety; and the making of the order is appropriate
in the circumstances.

Information provided to the QPS in relation to planned events or activities is often received at
short notice. Where QPS need to protect public safety and security on an immediate basis, applying
to the court would not be practical or effective. It is likely that by the time the officer had
prepared the application, served it on the relevant person or group and appeared before a court to
obtain the order, the public safety or security risk would be over. Police-
issued public safety orders for a period of 7 days will address this issue.

The well-known ‘Ballroom Blitz’ at Carrara on the Gold Coast in March 2006 provides a
good example of how the scheme could have been applied. The Ballroom Blitz involved a fight
between members of the Finks and Hells Angels OMCGs at a boxing match at the Royal Pines Resort,
during which three people were shot, two stabbed and $40,000.00 in damage was caused. The incident
developed over a short period of time. A police issued public safety order may have assisted the
police to separate and remove persons from the location once they became aware of the situation
developing, and may have prevented the incident from occurring or reducing its severity. It would
not have been possible for the officers to prepare, appear before a court and obtain a public
safety order in time to allow the powers to be exercised to respond to the situation that was
developing.

A police-issued public safety order that is 72 hours or longer can be appealed to
the
Magistrates Court. If police require an order that is longer than seven days in duration they
must make an application to the Magistrates Court.

The Bill gives the PIM an oversight function with respect to police-issued public safety
orders (see further in the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act below).

The Bill provides police with additional enforcement powers for the public safety orders both in
the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act (see below) and the Peace and Good Behaviour Act. In
the Peace and Good Behaviour Act police are empowered to: stop persons from entering places the
subject of public safety orders (a public safety place); stop, search and detain vehicles
approaching or leaving a public safety order place; and remove persons from a public safety place.
-
Restricted Premises Orders
The majority of the Taskforce found that a scheme based on the Restricted Premises Act 1943
(NSW) would be more effective, fairer and have better safeguards than the clubhouse offence at
section 60B of the Criminal Code (see page 200 of the Taskforce Report). The Bill reflects the
Taskforce recommendation (recommendation 19) by creating restricted premises orders in the Peace
and Good Behaviour Act.

The scheme in the Bill provides that a senior police officer (i.e. Sergeant or above) may make an
application to the Magistrates Court for a restricted premises order. The Magistrates Court may
make a restricted premises order if it is satisfied that: the senior police officer reasonably
suspects that one or more disorderly activities have taken place on the premises and are likely
to take place again on the premises; and that making the order is appropriate in the circumstances.
‘Disorderly activity’ is defined to include behaviour that is both anti-social and criminal. Further, a ‘recognised offender’ for the purpose of the consorting offence (see above) or a person who has been given an official warning under the consorting offence powers (an ‘associate of recognised offender’) being at premises is a ‘disorderly activity’ for the purpose of the restricted premises orders.
The Bill also provides that the premises already declared to be ‘prescribed premises’ under the Criminal Code (Criminal Organisations) Regulation 2013 are declared to be subject to a restricted premises order upon commencement of the new scheme; a declaration that will last for two years and with an option for a police officer to apply to the Magistrates Court to further extend the order for another two years. The Magistrate must make the order to extend if taking into account activity that occurred on the premises both before and after commencement of the Bill it is considered that disorderly activities are likely to take place on the premises again and that making the order is appropriate in the circumstances.

It is an offence for disorderly activity to take place on the premises after a restricted premises order has been made. The owner and/or occupier of the premises is liable to: for a first offence, a maximum penalty of 18 months imprisonment or 150 penalty units, and for a second or subsequent offence, a maximum penalty of three years imprisonment or 300 penalty units.
Police officers are empowered under a restricted premises order to search premises, subject to such declaration, without warrant on an unlimited number of occasions for the duration of the order.
The Bill also provides that the police are empowered under the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act to apply to a Magistrate to obtain a search warrant for any premises (i.e. including premises that are not yet subject to a restricted premises order) if they reasonably believe that disorderly activities are taking place on the premises and are likely to take place again on the premises.

Police officers searching premises under a search warrant or subject to a restricted premises order may seize any item defined as a ‘prohibited item’ under the scheme. Prohibited items include: alcohol, drugs, firearms, explosives and anything that is capable of being used inside premises to contribute to or enhance the ambience of the premises in support of the sale or consumption of liquor or drugs or entertainment of demoralising character e.g. a bar fit out, an entertainment system, a pool or billiard table or a stripper’s pole.

The Bill further provides that items that are seized during the exercise of search powers (either under the Peace and Good Behaviour Act or the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act) can be forfeited to the State by the Commissioner of Police. An application to the Magistrates Court for the return of the prohibited item can be made within 21 days. A Magistrate can order the return of the item only if the applicant can prove that: they are the lawful owner of the item, the item was seized on an unlawful basis and it is appropriate for the item to be returned.
-
Fortification Removal Orders

The COA Review provided the Government with three options with respect to fortification removal orders: 1) relocate the court-ordered model under the COA to another legislative instrument; 2) initiate a police-issue model; or 3) expand police search powers (see 9.4 of the COA Review Report). The scheme provided for in the Bill consists of two parts: stop and desist notices that are issued by a Commissioned police officer (a variant of a police-issued model) and fortification removal orders which are issued by the Magistrates Court (a court-ordered model).
The Bill creates a ‘stop and desist notice’ scheme that empowers a Commissioned police officer (i.e. rank of Inspector or above) to issue a notice if they observe excessive fortifications being erected on premises that are being used for criminal activity, or are habitually occupied by recognised offenders and associates of recognised offenders, or participants in a criminal organisation. This is not a feature of the COA fortification removal order provisions. The stop and desist notice will provide the police officer with 14 days to make an application for a fortification removal order. If an application for the order is not lodged in 14 days the stop and desist notice will lapse. If a person breaches the stop and desist notice it will be evidence of the grounds required for the police to obtain a fortification removal order unless the respondent can prove otherwise.

A senior police officer (rank of Sergeant of above) may apply to the Magistrate Court for a fortification removal order which will require an owner or occupier of a premises to remove fortifications from a premises within a certain period of time. If the fortifications are not removed police are empowered to remove the fortifications by whatever force is necessary. The Magistrates Court will be able to make a fortification removal order if they are satisfied that: the premises may be connected to serious criminal activity; or are habitually occupied by recognised offenders, associates of recognised offenders or participants in criminal organisations; and the extent of the fortification is excessive for the lawful use of the premise; and making the order is appropriate in the circumstances.
The Bill empowers police to enter premises and remove fortifications. The Commissioner of Police has the power to forfeit fortifications that are removed by police.
A person who intentionally hinders the removal or modification of a fortification or the taking of any enforcement action under the Act commits a misdemeanour (i.e. an indictable offence). The offence is punishable by a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment.


Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]