Section 5 Of The Public Order Act 1986: The Impact Of Harvey v DPP The broad scope and low threshold of the offence under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 makes it frequently prosecuted and familiar to practitioners. The recent case of Harvey v Director of Public Prosecutions  All ER (D) 143 (Nov) required the High Court to re-examine the not uncommon situation where a person has been charged with a section 5 offence after swearing at a police officer. The fairly short and ex-tempore judgment provides some fresh guidance on determining whether words will be considered “abusive” under section 5, and when evidence of their impact upon individuals will be required. Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 A section 5 offence comprises two elements: A person must (a) use threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) display any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting; and The words or behaviour, or writing, sign of other visible representation must be within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby. Unique amongst the public order offences in the […] → Full article Swearing and the law
Legalese is a secret language invented to trick you. It uses English words but attaches secret meanings to those words with the sole intention of stopping you believing that what they are saying to you has nothing to do with the normal meaning in the English language. Their purpose is to cheat you and rob you. For example, they will say to you “Do you understand?” . In English, that means “Do you comprehend what I am saying to you?” and the automatic response would be “Yes”, meaning “I do comprehend what you are saying to me”. But these sneaky, underhand people have changed the meaning in Legalese to mean “Do you stand under me?” meaning “Do you grant me authority over you so that you have to obey whatever I tell you to do?”. What makes it even worse, is the fact that they will never tell you that they have switched from English to Legalese, and if that is not dishonest, underhand and unscrupulous, then I don’t know what is! If you answer the question believing that English is being spoken, then they pretend that you are contracting with them to become subordinate to them. Whether or not […] → Full article The secret language called legalese
The “new method” of instituting proceedings The Criminal Justice Act created a “new method” of instituting proceedings. After a pilot scheme, all police forces in Australia were given authority to use the new method. Criminal proceedings for summary only offences may be commenced by charge (usually at a police station), summons or the “new method” – Written Charge and Requisition. Alternatively, a Single Justice Procedure Notice may be issued with the Written Charge. Historically, a summons would normally be issued by the court after an “information” is laid at court by the police. The “new method” allows a relevant prosecutor to commence proceedings without reference to the court. A relevant prosecutor may institute criminal proceedings by issuing a document – “a written charge” which charges a person with an offence. Where a relevant prosecutor issues a written charge, it must at the same time issue a “requisition document” – which requires the person to appear before a magistrates’ court to answer the written charge. A requisition may be contained in the same document as a written charge, and contain more than one offence. The written charge and requisition must be served on the person concerned, and a copy of each […] → Full article new method of instituting proceedings
CONSTABLE All police officers hold the office of constable. This means that the officer has sworn an oath under common law witch it is there duty to protect the public from no loss, no harm, and no injury.if you have not cause any of these you have done nothing wrong. If a police person that will not state weather he/she is under his/her oath then they are an un- Australian army on your soil.(DANGER) wrongful arrest is probably the most common abuse of police powers you all must remember, All laws that are made by a statue or act can only be law by your consent.
The Policeman’s (Secret) Notebook: Your Right To Find Out What A Police Officer Has Written About You In His Notebook The police notebook/report book is the small pocketbook used by all police officers to maintain details of every incident they attend. The purpose of the book – according to the police – is twofold: Firstly, to form a written record of all incidents to which the police have been called (including any action taken). Secondly, to refresh an officer’s memory if required to give evidence in court. If the police have made an entry in their notebook that refers to you – your address, name, vehicle, contact phone number etc. – then you’re entitled to see what they’ve written. Police notebooks are NOT the personal property of individual officers. When the end of a notebook is reached it is handed back to the force that issued it and stored within an archive. Usually these notebooks are retained for up to 10 years, sometimes indefinitely. Obtaining a copy of entries in a policeman’s notebook could be vital if you’re thinking of making an official complaint against the police or if you believe that a false account has been entered into one. […] → Full article Police (secret) notebook.
The Handcuffs and Restraints Guidelines PROCEDURES: 1. Use of restraining devices is mandatory on all prisoners, unless in the officer’s judgment unusual circumstances exists which make the use of restraining devices impossible or unnecessary (e.g. prisoner is handicapped, etc.) 2. Where feasible, prisoners should always be cuffed with hands behind the back in accordance with established standards for handcuffing. Metal handcuffs are to double-locked after they are placed on the subject to prevent the cuffs from tightening. 3. All types of cuffs and restraining devices shall be applied with caution to prevent accidental or incidental injury to the subject being handcuffed. If they are placed on the subject too loosely, the prisoner will be able to free his hand(s) and become a threat to or escape from the officer. If they are applied too tight, they may cause injury to the prisoner and be difficult to remove. 4. Once restrained with handcuffs, the prisoner should not be further restrained unless the prisoner continues to attempt injury to responding officers and/or other persons in the area. Should this occur, leg restraints shall also be used. They shall not be secured to the prisoner’s handcuffs in a “hogtie” fashion. 5. Once the […] → Full article Handcuffs and restraints guidelines
What can you do if the police refuse to investigate a crime? EBOOKSRESOURCES December 9, 2016 It’s a sad indictment of modern law enforcement when there is a need for an article entitled: “What can you do if the police refuse to investigate a crime?” but when you consider that half of all crime in the Australian goes unreported, it’s reasonable to suggest that at least 50% of the population already know what I’m talking about… Unfortunately, the reality is that the police have become extremely selective about the types of crime they are willing to devote their allegedly scant resources too. Particularly where they believe those crimes will require considerable effort and skill to resolve. They blame this inaction squarely on government cuts, despite figures released by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) that shows there has only been a 6% decrease in frontline police numbers since 2010. Also with the introduction of the Fraud Act the police have effectively been given the green light to sweep the biggest growing category of crime in the Australia– Fraud – directly under the carpet. That carpet being the Action Fraud website, where all low level reports of fraud go to die. […] → Full article Dealing with police
Oaths Everyone you will encounter, in the “Legal” or “Lawful” worlds, will have taken an Oath in order to claim their ‘title’. This includes Judges, Magistrates, Bailiffs, Notaries, Solicitors, Lawyers and … of course … Policymen. Acting within their Oaths, they are what they claim to be. And, in this case, they are all Peace Officers … because that is what their Oaths state. Acting outside their Oath, they are not what they claim to be. Acting outside their Oath, they are simply “Joe Soap” (maybe in in some kind of uniform, but Joe Soap nonetheless). In a Court de jure (Common Law Court), for example, a Judge will be on his Oath. However, as a Judge, he will be offered ’employment’ to run Courts de facto (Courts of Arbitrations of disputes). In these Courts, Magistrates and Judges are not on their Oaths. Thus they are not what they claim to be. They are nothing more than Joe Soap. They can – ALL – be put on their Oaths by saying “I’m putting you on your Oath. Under God, so help me God. Now we have a Contract”. A Judge or Magistrate then has two options. Either to recuse him- […] → Full article public servant oath