Launceston prosecution – what has happened?
Under the TSI Act, CVR's are routinely accessed and listened to during investigations. Not sure where the one surviving crew member bit come into it.
My Bad
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: International
Posts: 327
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keg. I agree - I don't think Dick explained his intentions at all clearly.
I simply think he was questioning why it is alleged by the media that CASA and others have spent allegedly huge public funds prosecuting an alleged offense, based on what he believes may be subjective evidence.
Seeing the matter in that perspective, I support his quest.
Comment from others who should know tends to confirm that he may have a very valid point!!
I simply think he was questioning why it is alleged by the media that CASA and others have spent allegedly huge public funds prosecuting an alleged offense, based on what he believes may be subjective evidence.
Seeing the matter in that perspective, I support his quest.
Comment from others who should know tends to confirm that he may have a very valid point!!
Thread Starter
The Voice, you state:
I agree wholeheartedly. That is why my Board at CASA introduced the administrative fines system. That is, a system based on the system we have for surface transport – i.e. driving on the roads throughout Australia. Not that many people object to it.
In this particular case, why weren’t the pilots simply given an administrative fine of, say, $500? They could have either paid it if they were guilty, or refused – and CASA would have had to look again thoroughly at their claim and see if it was worthwhile to take it to court.
If I am right and over $500,000 has been spent, and the pilots have not yet had their day in court, this is a similar miscarriage of justice to what is happening to David Hicks.
Keg, you state:
No, I was not alleging this in any way. I can’t see how CASA and QF can be involved in a cover up because it is in the hands of the Federal DPP.
You also state:
You probably have this erroneous view because you have never actually met or had a discussion with me. Why didn’t you come to the meeting organised by Richard Higgins? You would find that I have a consistent plan to reduce unnecessary costs and regulations, and to encourage more people to fly. I find that if I have a conversation with my claimed adversaries, they normally say, “What you are saying is just commonsense. We did not understand it before.”
Of course, answering claims on a forum is quite different to having a reasonable discussion. I find it amazing that not one of my adversaries on PPRuNe will actually phone me or allow a meeting. What is going on? How can people understand my true beliefs unless they are prepared to talk to me, see my body language, and then make a reasoned evaluation? I’ve never seen anything so pathetic in all my life. That is, people I can actually assist attack me because they are not prepared to talk to me.
I can understand what is going on in Iraq now. People are killing each other so democracy can’t work, when both sides would actually benefit from democracy. I know – I’ve just done a trip to the Middle East for the Australian Government and wandered through the streets of Dubai and Cairo, where Sunnis and Shiites get on really well together in a friendly way. Could it be because they actually meet and talk to each other? I think so.
Air Ace, you are absolutely right. I am questioning what is alleged by the media and CASA. I want to know if there is any truth in it, and I want to know why huge amounts of money have been spent, why the action has not been withdrawn, or why the pilots have not been given a chance to give their side of the story in front of an independent judge or jury.
Something very strange is going on. I do not know of any other claimed air safety legal action that has taken five years and has not yet had a hearing. I would have thought if it was a genuine safety matter there would be a push to resolve the matter quickly. As stated previously, I believe it is a terrible situation for the pilots involved. It is all totally unfair and unnecessary.
Happy Christmas to everybody. By the way, my phone numbers are 02 9450 0600 and 0408 640 221. I would be delighted to talk to anyone about these important aviation issues over the holidays.
It is an expensive business litigation
In this particular case, why weren’t the pilots simply given an administrative fine of, say, $500? They could have either paid it if they were guilty, or refused – and CASA would have had to look again thoroughly at their claim and see if it was worthwhile to take it to court.
If I am right and over $500,000 has been spent, and the pilots have not yet had their day in court, this is a similar miscarriage of justice to what is happening to David Hicks.
Keg, you state:
Initially I believed that you were alleging a cover up between CASA and QF and that both parties had made the issue 'go away'.
You also state:
what you state you wish to happen actually looks to make the wider aviation environment less safe and more regulated and more costly.
Of course, answering claims on a forum is quite different to having a reasonable discussion. I find it amazing that not one of my adversaries on PPRuNe will actually phone me or allow a meeting. What is going on? How can people understand my true beliefs unless they are prepared to talk to me, see my body language, and then make a reasoned evaluation? I’ve never seen anything so pathetic in all my life. That is, people I can actually assist attack me because they are not prepared to talk to me.
I can understand what is going on in Iraq now. People are killing each other so democracy can’t work, when both sides would actually benefit from democracy. I know – I’ve just done a trip to the Middle East for the Australian Government and wandered through the streets of Dubai and Cairo, where Sunnis and Shiites get on really well together in a friendly way. Could it be because they actually meet and talk to each other? I think so.
Air Ace, you are absolutely right. I am questioning what is alleged by the media and CASA. I want to know if there is any truth in it, and I want to know why huge amounts of money have been spent, why the action has not been withdrawn, or why the pilots have not been given a chance to give their side of the story in front of an independent judge or jury.
Something very strange is going on. I do not know of any other claimed air safety legal action that has taken five years and has not yet had a hearing. I would have thought if it was a genuine safety matter there would be a push to resolve the matter quickly. As stated previously, I believe it is a terrible situation for the pilots involved. It is all totally unfair and unnecessary.
Happy Christmas to everybody. By the way, my phone numbers are 02 9450 0600 and 0408 640 221. I would be delighted to talk to anyone about these important aviation issues over the holidays.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Smith
Your last post is just plain patronising horsefeathers.
really, I think most PPRuNeRs would be of the view that anonymous forum discussion is often the only way that views contrary to recieved wisdom is the only real opportunity there is for a reasonable discussion. Your use of PPRuNe to ask the thread question seems to support that view.
And another thing; there a very large number of aviation advocacy organisations and indeed Government Departments including CASA and Airservices working faithfully together to reduce unecessary costs as far as it is possible within Government policy, the law and regulations. Including continuing reform and redefining roles and reassesing work methods. Your personal efforts are to be applauded but they are not the final word. Your high public profile in my view brings with it a high level of responsibility. If you are going to support the QF pilots rights then please for their sake do it responsibly.
David Hicks, Sunni's v Shiiite, Dubai, Cairo and Iraq, linked with QF pilots allegedly continuing a takeoff with no runway lights and unsupported suggestions of Government/regulatory/DPP skullduggery, gimme a break.
If you really believe that
I can assure you that the answer will not be found here.
and;
Why don't you try your usual method of public outcry or a much simpler and direct method might be to simply enquire of the DPP or the pilots union of the status of the case.
My instinct tells me it is being well and truly looked after by their lawyers and they are hoping that outsiders with other agendas will leave well enough alone.
Your last post is just plain patronising horsefeathers.
Of course, answering claims on a forum is quite different to having a reasonable discussion.
And another thing; there a very large number of aviation advocacy organisations and indeed Government Departments including CASA and Airservices working faithfully together to reduce unecessary costs as far as it is possible within Government policy, the law and regulations. Including continuing reform and redefining roles and reassesing work methods. Your personal efforts are to be applauded but they are not the final word. Your high public profile in my view brings with it a high level of responsibility. If you are going to support the QF pilots rights then please for their sake do it responsibly.
David Hicks, Sunni's v Shiiite, Dubai, Cairo and Iraq, linked with QF pilots allegedly continuing a takeoff with no runway lights and unsupported suggestions of Government/regulatory/DPP skullduggery, gimme a break.
If you really believe that
Something very strange is going on.
and;
Why don't you try your usual method of public outcry or a much simpler and direct method might be to simply enquire of the DPP or the pilots union of the status of the case.
My instinct tells me it is being well and truly looked after by their lawyers and they are hoping that outsiders with other agendas will leave well enough alone.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wombat35 and Enema Bandit’s Dad, I agree wholeheartedly with your comments. My main interest is to get more pilots in jobs and more pilots flying. That is why I concentrate so much on necessary reform and having a viable aviation industry.
I have helped people with money to gain their pilot’s licence, but that is for others to comment on. Donating money to something like this is easy. Working many hours to try to achieve reform is a lot harder. My satisfaction will come when we have a booming general aviation industry – including flying training and recreational aviation – and the industry is as successful as the three businesses I have been involved in.
I fly regularly in the USA and I can see from that how fantastic our own aviation industry could be – as long as we can remove all unnecessary costs and regulations. That is what I am aiming for, and that is what I consistently work for.
I have helped people with money to gain their pilot’s licence, but that is for others to comment on. Donating money to something like this is easy. Working many hours to try to achieve reform is a lot harder. My satisfaction will come when we have a booming general aviation industry – including flying training and recreational aviation – and the industry is as successful as the three businesses I have been involved in.
I fly regularly in the USA and I can see from that how fantastic our own aviation industry could be – as long as we can remove all unnecessary costs and regulations. That is what I am aiming for, and that is what I consistently work for.
What you should concentrate on is letting the public know that driving the price of flying down is reducing the conditions of the industry and in the future could raise some safety issues.
The public seem to trust you, so rather than meddling in garbage that is meaningless and will do nothing for our industry, use your name for the good of all! inspire joe bloggs to gain a PPL on the w/e so a junier grade 3 can get some hours in the log!
If you want my name and contact number PM me, dont spend 30,000 dollars to track me down when that money could be granted to a CPL scholarship
4S
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Think of a happy place. Think of a happy place. Think of a happy place
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C'mon Dick, comparing David Hicks to the pilots of a QF 737 who may or may not have made a mistake is just plain silly. David Hicks took up arms against the US and others in the cause of terrorism. He was not in Afghanistan on a peace keeping mission fer gawd sake. He was caught trying to break other Taliban soldiers out of prison.
I don't agree that he should have to wait as long as he did, however technically he is a prisoner of war isn't he. US declared war on Terrorism in the same way it would declare war on a country.
Big Leap Dick...Big Leap.
TBT
I don't agree that he should have to wait as long as he did, however technically he is a prisoner of war isn't he. US declared war on Terrorism in the same way it would declare war on a country.
Big Leap Dick...Big Leap.
TBT
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Auckland
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well Dick,
I'm not sure that you are going to get anywhere, however good luck to you. I support your quest about the DPP, however surly there is more important issues.
Case in point, the comments about Bankstown from an important player when asked about moving the tower...... Well if they can't see we'll just shut the runway! What about the maintenance organisations that are being forced to close due to lease and rent issues....?
I for one would like to appreciate what you have done that is positive for Aviation in the last year. I'm sure there will be a list and that you will have a positive plan for next year. Why not use PPrune to drum up some support for some common objectives?
As a suggestion why not use some of your media clout to sort out Bankstown and expose the crap that's going on there after having a good future direction debate on here?
Cheers
Wombat
P.S I think we have all read the sticky... time to move on?
I'm not sure that you are going to get anywhere, however good luck to you. I support your quest about the DPP, however surly there is more important issues.
Case in point, the comments about Bankstown from an important player when asked about moving the tower...... Well if they can't see we'll just shut the runway! What about the maintenance organisations that are being forced to close due to lease and rent issues....?
I for one would like to appreciate what you have done that is positive for Aviation in the last year. I'm sure there will be a list and that you will have a positive plan for next year. Why not use PPrune to drum up some support for some common objectives?
As a suggestion why not use some of your media clout to sort out Bankstown and expose the crap that's going on there after having a good future direction debate on here?
Cheers
Wombat
P.S I think we have all read the sticky... time to move on?
Thread Starter
Time Bob Ted
You have pre-judged David Hicks just as it looks as if the people in CASA have pre-judged the Qantas pilots.
I can assure you that David Hicks was not caught “trying to break other Taliban soldiers out of prison”. The US claim is that he was caught on a taxi rank in tears.
The evidence is that David Hicks has never fired at any person in his life. He currently has no charges against him. If he had, surely he is innocent until proven guilty, the same as Qantas pilots.
I don’t think there is any difference. I believe in the last few years Australia has gone down a road, which has allowed the terrorists to win, i.e. they are taking away the basics of the judicial system that our forefathers fought for.
You have pre-judged David Hicks just as it looks as if the people in CASA have pre-judged the Qantas pilots.
I can assure you that David Hicks was not caught “trying to break other Taliban soldiers out of prison”. The US claim is that he was caught on a taxi rank in tears.
The evidence is that David Hicks has never fired at any person in his life. He currently has no charges against him. If he had, surely he is innocent until proven guilty, the same as Qantas pilots.
I don’t think there is any difference. I believe in the last few years Australia has gone down a road, which has allowed the terrorists to win, i.e. they are taking away the basics of the judicial system that our forefathers fought for.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Time Bob Ted
You have pre-judged David Hicks just as it looks as if the people in CASA have pre-judged the Qantas pilots.
I can assure you that David Hicks was not caught “trying to break other Taliban soldiers out of prison”. The US claim is that he was caught on a taxi rank in tears.
The evidence is that David Hicks has never fired at any person in his life. He currently has no charges against him. If he had, surely he is innocent until proven guilty, the same as Qantas pilots.
I don’t think there is any difference. I believe in the last few years Australia has gone down a road, which has allowed the terrorists to win, i.e. they are taking away the basics of the judicial system that our forefathers fought for.
You have pre-judged David Hicks just as it looks as if the people in CASA have pre-judged the Qantas pilots.
I can assure you that David Hicks was not caught “trying to break other Taliban soldiers out of prison”. The US claim is that he was caught on a taxi rank in tears.
The evidence is that David Hicks has never fired at any person in his life. He currently has no charges against him. If he had, surely he is innocent until proven guilty, the same as Qantas pilots.
I don’t think there is any difference. I believe in the last few years Australia has gone down a road, which has allowed the terrorists to win, i.e. they are taking away the basics of the judicial system that our forefathers fought for.
If the aircraft in question was a PA31 with pax in the same situation would you even care?
How bout flying instructors in flying schools hired as contractors working all week for a few flying hours when you cant legally be a contractor if you spend more than a certain % of your time in the one organisation and are expected to be at work on a certain roster.
How about the charter pilot up north sitting under a tree all day on a hot airfield getting paid per hour of flying and blowing 10 hours duty for a 45 minute flight?
maybe you should focus some energy in this direction, spend some money helping operators promote tourism, flight training and maybe even help out with modernising fleets with low interest loans or something! DICKS FINANCE, maybe even cheap affordable finance for pilots to get some cash for a MECIR or ATPL exams. Its a big leap for a pilot to take a month of work unpaid to get the MECIR out the way, without even thinking about the 3-6 months of ATPLS......
Affordable accomodation in the citys while doing exams, places to rent up north, did you know its almost $500 per week to rent a house in Broome, Kununurra? and most of the time Pilots are black listed so you wont get a house even if you chip in with a group of other pilots? maybe something at ground level rather than worrying about what the boys with the big salarys are up too!!
Few ideas for you anyway mate!
Now about that loan for the MECIR
Thread Starter
4SPOOLED, you just don’t get it do you. You state:
Yes, I would. That is why I see the situation of David Hicks and the Qantas pilots to be the same. If the pilot of a PA31 had been taken to court, an alleged half a million dollars had been spent on the court action, and after five years the pilot had still not been able to have a trial, I would be just as concerned – possibly more so, because Qantas pilots seem to have a little more power than PA31 pilots.
I think everyone should be aware about what has happened to aviation and to Australia. This action in Launceston is the first action of this nature that I have heard of. As I stated at the start, why wasn’t a simple administrative fine used if CASA genuinely believed that there was a case to answer?
4SPOOLED, I would suggest you put yourself in the position of the Qantas pilots. I wonder how they sleep at night knowing that this ongoing action is continuing.
Yes, I am concerned about the other issues you have raised, however I see those issues only being solved when we gain a viable general aviation industry again. I believe we can only gain a viable industry by removing every unnecessary cost, and having a Government which is not hostile to general aviation. That is what I have continually been working for. At the same time, I believe that our prosecution and enforcement system in aviation should be fair.
Happy Christmas.
If the aircraft in question was a PA31 with pax in the same situation would you even care?
I think everyone should be aware about what has happened to aviation and to Australia. This action in Launceston is the first action of this nature that I have heard of. As I stated at the start, why wasn’t a simple administrative fine used if CASA genuinely believed that there was a case to answer?
4SPOOLED, I would suggest you put yourself in the position of the Qantas pilots. I wonder how they sleep at night knowing that this ongoing action is continuing.
Yes, I am concerned about the other issues you have raised, however I see those issues only being solved when we gain a viable general aviation industry again. I believe we can only gain a viable industry by removing every unnecessary cost, and having a Government which is not hostile to general aviation. That is what I have continually been working for. At the same time, I believe that our prosecution and enforcement system in aviation should be fair.
Happy Christmas.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Straya
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
Not that it has anything to do with Aviation, but I absolutely support your position on David Hicks, and agree with you that the Australian Government have allowed the terrorists to win by winding back our civil rights.
I only wish a few more Australians would start to open their eyes (51% of the electorates would be a good start).
It started with the Tampa, and they have not looked back - assisted by the right wing nut jobs of talk back radio, and dare I say it, Internet forums.
Fortunately, I sense the tide is turning on this lunacy.
On your stand on this, I doff my hat to you.
Not that it has anything to do with Aviation, but I absolutely support your position on David Hicks, and agree with you that the Australian Government have allowed the terrorists to win by winding back our civil rights.
I only wish a few more Australians would start to open their eyes (51% of the electorates would be a good start).
It started with the Tampa, and they have not looked back - assisted by the right wing nut jobs of talk back radio, and dare I say it, Internet forums.
Fortunately, I sense the tide is turning on this lunacy.
On your stand on this, I doff my hat to you.
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: International
Posts: 327
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
justapplhere
The original media articles:
Tues "The Australian"
Qantas pilots charged over 'reckless' takeoff
By Steve Creedy, Aviation writer
June 08, 2004
A QANTAS captain and first officer are facing charges of reckless operation of a Boeing 737 with 77 people on board after a late night takeoff.
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority alleges the pilots took off from Launceston, Tasmania, for Melbourne about 11pm on October 23, 2001, without activating the airport runway, taxiway and obstacle lights.
The lights can be activated from within the aircraft cabin and provide a vital reference point if the aircraft hits trouble and has to turn back.
Charges laid by the commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions under the Civil Aviation Act are due for a first mention today in the Launceston Court of Petty Sessions.
The two sections relate to reckless operations that could endanger the life, property or person of another individual.
The fact that CASA opted for the unusual course of prosecuting a major airline, rather than issuing an infringement notice or taking other regulatory action, indicates the seriousness with which it views the alleged incident.
CASA's enforcement manual says officers should refer to the commonwealth DPP for prosecution any matters that are deliberate and serious or that demonstrate a reckless disregard of the safety rules; are part of a pattern of similar contraventions; that involve knowing or reckless breaches of the act; or that seriously endanger the safety of people other than those committing the offence.
The act provides for a variety of penalties ranging from licence suspension to fines and demerit points.
A Qantas spokeswoman said it was inappropriate for the airline to comment. However, it is understood the airline is defending the matter.
==========================================
abc.net.au/news
Pilots breached safety laws says CASA
Two Qantas pilots charged with recklessly operating an aircraft have had their case adjourned in the Launceston Magistrates Court this morning.
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx of Eltham in Victoria and Xxxxxxxxxxx of Essendon in Victoria are charged with two counts of reckless operation of an aircraft.
Around 77 people were on board on the Qantas Boeing 737-400 which flew from Launceston to Melbourne in October 2001.
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority alleges Qantas pilots Xxxxxxx and Xxxxxxxx failed to activate the Launceston Airport's runway, taxiway and obstacle lighting system before take off, around 11 pm.
CASA says the flight arrived in Melbourne without incident but it believes the alleged actions breached the Civil Aviation Act.
The men were not required to enter a plea or be present for their first appearance.
The court heard the men's defence lawyers are yet to receive a detailed brief from the Commonwealth Department of Public Prosecution.
The matter was adjourned until the middle of next month.
==========================================
I guess Dick has his own source of information regardling the various party's "investment" in the legal fraternity, but considering the time factor and CASA modus operandi the alleged cost may not be unreasonable?
Would you care to comment on whether you feel almost six years - and still running - is a reasonable time for a prosecution to be heard in Australia?
The original media articles:
Tues "The Australian"
Qantas pilots charged over 'reckless' takeoff
By Steve Creedy, Aviation writer
June 08, 2004
A QANTAS captain and first officer are facing charges of reckless operation of a Boeing 737 with 77 people on board after a late night takeoff.
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority alleges the pilots took off from Launceston, Tasmania, for Melbourne about 11pm on October 23, 2001, without activating the airport runway, taxiway and obstacle lights.
The lights can be activated from within the aircraft cabin and provide a vital reference point if the aircraft hits trouble and has to turn back.
Charges laid by the commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions under the Civil Aviation Act are due for a first mention today in the Launceston Court of Petty Sessions.
The two sections relate to reckless operations that could endanger the life, property or person of another individual.
The fact that CASA opted for the unusual course of prosecuting a major airline, rather than issuing an infringement notice or taking other regulatory action, indicates the seriousness with which it views the alleged incident.
CASA's enforcement manual says officers should refer to the commonwealth DPP for prosecution any matters that are deliberate and serious or that demonstrate a reckless disregard of the safety rules; are part of a pattern of similar contraventions; that involve knowing or reckless breaches of the act; or that seriously endanger the safety of people other than those committing the offence.
The act provides for a variety of penalties ranging from licence suspension to fines and demerit points.
A Qantas spokeswoman said it was inappropriate for the airline to comment. However, it is understood the airline is defending the matter.
==========================================
abc.net.au/news
Pilots breached safety laws says CASA
Two Qantas pilots charged with recklessly operating an aircraft have had their case adjourned in the Launceston Magistrates Court this morning.
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx of Eltham in Victoria and Xxxxxxxxxxx of Essendon in Victoria are charged with two counts of reckless operation of an aircraft.
Around 77 people were on board on the Qantas Boeing 737-400 which flew from Launceston to Melbourne in October 2001.
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority alleges Qantas pilots Xxxxxxx and Xxxxxxxx failed to activate the Launceston Airport's runway, taxiway and obstacle lighting system before take off, around 11 pm.
CASA says the flight arrived in Melbourne without incident but it believes the alleged actions breached the Civil Aviation Act.
The men were not required to enter a plea or be present for their first appearance.
The court heard the men's defence lawyers are yet to receive a detailed brief from the Commonwealth Department of Public Prosecution.
The matter was adjourned until the middle of next month.
==========================================
I guess Dick has his own source of information regardling the various party's "investment" in the legal fraternity, but considering the time factor and CASA modus operandi the alleged cost may not be unreasonable?
Would you care to comment on whether you feel almost six years - and still running - is a reasonable time for a prosecution to be heard in Australia?
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the conspiracy and chemtrail theorists amongst us.
Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth
Contents
Introduction
The decision to prosecute
The institution and conduct of Commonwealth prosecutions
Control of prosecutions for a Commonwealth offence
Some other decisions in the prosecution process
Conclusion
Note on prosecutions for the bribery of foreign public officials under Division 70 of the Criminal Code
Open as an Adobe Acrobat PDF document
The Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth is a public document which sets out guidelines for the making of decisions in the prosecution process. It applies to all Commonwealth prosecutions whether or not conducted by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). The Prosecution Policy has been tabled in Parliament, and is publicly available. A copy is available on this web-site.
The main purpose of the Prosecution Policy is to promote consistency in the making of the various decisions which arise in the institution and conduct of prosecutions. The Prosecution Policy outlines the relevant factors and considerations which are taken into account when a prosecutor is exercising the discretions relevant to his or her role and functions. The Policy also serves to inform the public and practitioners of the principles which guide the decisions made by the DPP.
The decision to institute (or continue) criminal proceedings is an important one, and careful consideration is given to each matter. The Prosecution Policy sets out the relevant guidelines for determining whether it is appropriate to institute a prosecution (or continue that prosecution). All State and Territory Directors of Public Prosecutions have a prosecution policy which takes a consistent approach to the decision to prosecute.
Under the Prosecution Policy there is a two-stage test that must be satisfied:
there must be sufficient evidence to prosecute the case; and
it must be evident from the facts of the case, and all the surrounding circumstances, that the prosecution would be in the public interest.
In determining whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute a case, the DPP must be satisfied that there is prima facie evidence of the elements of the offence, and a reasonable prospect of obtaining a conviction. The existence of a prima facie case is not sufficient.
In making this decision, the prosecutor must evaluate how strong the case is likely to be when presented in Court. The evaluation must take into account such matters as the availability, competence and credibility of witnesses and their likely effect on the arbiter of fact, and the admissibility of any alleged confession or other evidence. The prosecutor should also have regard to any lines of defence open to the alleged offender and any other factors that could affect the likelihood or otherwise of a conviction.
Having been satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to justify the initiation or continuation of a prosecution, the prosecutor must then consider whether the public interest requires a prosecution to be pursued. In determining whether this is the case, the prosecutor will consider all of the provable facts and the whole surrounding circumstances. The factors to be considered will vary from case to case, but may include:
Whether the offence is serious or trivial;
Any mitigating or aggravating circumstances;
The age, intelligence, health or any special infirmity of the alleged offender, any witness or victim;
The alleged offender’s antecedents;
The staleness of the offence;
The availability and efficacy of any alternatives to prosecution;
The attitude of the victim;
The likely outcome in the event of a finding of guilt; and
The need for deterrence.
These are not the only factors that can be considered, and a full list of the relevant factors is contained in the Prosecution Policy.
Generally, the more serious the alleged offence is, the more likely it will be that the public interest will require that a prosecution be pursued.
The decision to prosecute must be made impartially, and must not be influenced by any inappropriate reference to race, religion, sex, national origin or political association. The decision to prosecute must not be influenced by any political advantage or disadvantage to the Government.
Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth
Contents
Introduction
The decision to prosecute
The institution and conduct of Commonwealth prosecutions
Control of prosecutions for a Commonwealth offence
Some other decisions in the prosecution process
Conclusion
Note on prosecutions for the bribery of foreign public officials under Division 70 of the Criminal Code
Open as an Adobe Acrobat PDF document
http://www.cdpp.gov.au/Prosecutions/...tionPolicy.pdf
but wait there's more.
Statement on Prosecution Disclosure
Contents
Introduction
Disclosure of the Prosecution's case
Disclosure affecting credibility or reliability of a prosecution witness
Disclosure of unused material
Disclosure to CDPP by investigation agencies
Open as an Adobe Acrobat PDF document
http://www.cdpp.gov.au/Prosecutions/...Disclosure.pdf
It is an important part of the criminal justice system that prosecutions be conducted fairly, transparently, and according to the highest ethical standards. It is a long standing tenet of the Australian criminal justice system that an accused person is entitled to know the case that is to be made against him or her, so that the accused person is able to properly defend the charges. An accused person is entitled to know the evidence that is to be brought in support of the charges as part of the Crown case, and also whether there is any other material which may be relevant to the defence of the charges.
In November 1998, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) issued a Statement on Prosecution Disclosure with the support of the Heads of Commonwealth Law Enforcement Agencies. The Statement has been recently reissued and is publicly available. A copy is available on this web-site.
The purpose of the Statement is to provide a framework for investigators and prosecutors who need to address the question of disclosure in each prosecution.
The Statement sets out the DPP's disclosure obligations in the cases it prosecutes. It covers the disclosure of material which the prosecution intends to use to prove its case, disclosure affecting the credibility or reliability of a prosecution witness, and disclosure of unused materials including exceptions to the requirement to disclosure unused material. The Disclosure Statement deals with the obligations of the prosecution to make advance disclosure of the prosecution case as well as to disclose to the defence any other material gathered in the course of the investigation which may be of assistance to the defence.
The Disclosure Statement does not provide for separate disclosure by the investigating agency to the accused. Rather, the obligation on the prosecution to disclose material extends beyond the DPP to the investigating agency and to other relevant Commonwealth agencies. Compliance requires that the investigating agency inform the DPP of the existence of any material which may be required to be disclosed in accordance with the Statement. It is the practice of the DPP to discuss disclosure obligations with investigating agencies, and to consider material which is brought to the DPP’s attention.
Enjoy.
Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth
Contents
Introduction
The decision to prosecute
The institution and conduct of Commonwealth prosecutions
Control of prosecutions for a Commonwealth offence
Some other decisions in the prosecution process
Conclusion
Note on prosecutions for the bribery of foreign public officials under Division 70 of the Criminal Code
Open as an Adobe Acrobat PDF document
The Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth is a public document which sets out guidelines for the making of decisions in the prosecution process. It applies to all Commonwealth prosecutions whether or not conducted by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). The Prosecution Policy has been tabled in Parliament, and is publicly available. A copy is available on this web-site.
The main purpose of the Prosecution Policy is to promote consistency in the making of the various decisions which arise in the institution and conduct of prosecutions. The Prosecution Policy outlines the relevant factors and considerations which are taken into account when a prosecutor is exercising the discretions relevant to his or her role and functions. The Policy also serves to inform the public and practitioners of the principles which guide the decisions made by the DPP.
The decision to institute (or continue) criminal proceedings is an important one, and careful consideration is given to each matter. The Prosecution Policy sets out the relevant guidelines for determining whether it is appropriate to institute a prosecution (or continue that prosecution). All State and Territory Directors of Public Prosecutions have a prosecution policy which takes a consistent approach to the decision to prosecute.
Under the Prosecution Policy there is a two-stage test that must be satisfied:
there must be sufficient evidence to prosecute the case; and
it must be evident from the facts of the case, and all the surrounding circumstances, that the prosecution would be in the public interest.
In determining whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute a case, the DPP must be satisfied that there is prima facie evidence of the elements of the offence, and a reasonable prospect of obtaining a conviction. The existence of a prima facie case is not sufficient.
In making this decision, the prosecutor must evaluate how strong the case is likely to be when presented in Court. The evaluation must take into account such matters as the availability, competence and credibility of witnesses and their likely effect on the arbiter of fact, and the admissibility of any alleged confession or other evidence. The prosecutor should also have regard to any lines of defence open to the alleged offender and any other factors that could affect the likelihood or otherwise of a conviction.
Having been satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to justify the initiation or continuation of a prosecution, the prosecutor must then consider whether the public interest requires a prosecution to be pursued. In determining whether this is the case, the prosecutor will consider all of the provable facts and the whole surrounding circumstances. The factors to be considered will vary from case to case, but may include:
Whether the offence is serious or trivial;
Any mitigating or aggravating circumstances;
The age, intelligence, health or any special infirmity of the alleged offender, any witness or victim;
The alleged offender’s antecedents;
The staleness of the offence;
The availability and efficacy of any alternatives to prosecution;
The attitude of the victim;
The likely outcome in the event of a finding of guilt; and
The need for deterrence.
These are not the only factors that can be considered, and a full list of the relevant factors is contained in the Prosecution Policy.
Generally, the more serious the alleged offence is, the more likely it will be that the public interest will require that a prosecution be pursued.
The decision to prosecute must be made impartially, and must not be influenced by any inappropriate reference to race, religion, sex, national origin or political association. The decision to prosecute must not be influenced by any political advantage or disadvantage to the Government.
Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth
Contents
Introduction
The decision to prosecute
The institution and conduct of Commonwealth prosecutions
Control of prosecutions for a Commonwealth offence
Some other decisions in the prosecution process
Conclusion
Note on prosecutions for the bribery of foreign public officials under Division 70 of the Criminal Code
Open as an Adobe Acrobat PDF document
http://www.cdpp.gov.au/Prosecutions/...tionPolicy.pdf
but wait there's more.
Statement on Prosecution Disclosure
Contents
Introduction
Disclosure of the Prosecution's case
Disclosure affecting credibility or reliability of a prosecution witness
Disclosure of unused material
Disclosure to CDPP by investigation agencies
Open as an Adobe Acrobat PDF document
http://www.cdpp.gov.au/Prosecutions/...Disclosure.pdf
It is an important part of the criminal justice system that prosecutions be conducted fairly, transparently, and according to the highest ethical standards. It is a long standing tenet of the Australian criminal justice system that an accused person is entitled to know the case that is to be made against him or her, so that the accused person is able to properly defend the charges. An accused person is entitled to know the evidence that is to be brought in support of the charges as part of the Crown case, and also whether there is any other material which may be relevant to the defence of the charges.
In November 1998, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) issued a Statement on Prosecution Disclosure with the support of the Heads of Commonwealth Law Enforcement Agencies. The Statement has been recently reissued and is publicly available. A copy is available on this web-site.
The purpose of the Statement is to provide a framework for investigators and prosecutors who need to address the question of disclosure in each prosecution.
The Statement sets out the DPP's disclosure obligations in the cases it prosecutes. It covers the disclosure of material which the prosecution intends to use to prove its case, disclosure affecting the credibility or reliability of a prosecution witness, and disclosure of unused materials including exceptions to the requirement to disclosure unused material. The Disclosure Statement deals with the obligations of the prosecution to make advance disclosure of the prosecution case as well as to disclose to the defence any other material gathered in the course of the investigation which may be of assistance to the defence.
The Disclosure Statement does not provide for separate disclosure by the investigating agency to the accused. Rather, the obligation on the prosecution to disclose material extends beyond the DPP to the investigating agency and to other relevant Commonwealth agencies. Compliance requires that the investigating agency inform the DPP of the existence of any material which may be required to be disclosed in accordance with the Statement. It is the practice of the DPP to discuss disclosure obligations with investigating agencies, and to consider material which is brought to the DPP’s attention.
Enjoy.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gaunty, your very detailed outline of criminal prosecution and defense is the very reason that Dick Smith sees this as a miscarriage of justice and a waste of taxpayers money. If they had simply paid a fine, been subjected to a brief suspension and been able to take advantage of an appeals process like any other form of transportation, we wouldn't still be discussing it...and it would have saved a fortune.
If the reasoning had come from anyone other than Dick Smith, I'm sure you would all be agreeing with him!
If the reasoning had come from anyone other than Dick Smith, I'm sure you would all be agreeing with him!
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Usually Oz
Posts: 732
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And, Chris, should they be innocent, then they're also entitled to defend themselves in Court!!
I hasten to add that I'm not against the admin fine system if appropriate.
What does stagger me is that this thread has gone on for quite a while and nobody has answered the original question??
G'day & a Happy New Year
I hasten to add that I'm not against the admin fine system if appropriate.
What does stagger me is that this thread has gone on for quite a while and nobody has answered the original question??
G'day & a Happy New Year
I don't think it matters if Dick is right or wrong. At least he brings about discussion.
I like the fact Dick posts here, under his own name, regardless of the flack he cops.
I admire that he is willing to give out his phone number to discuss aviation issues. Thanks Dick and Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year .
I like the fact Dick posts here, under his own name, regardless of the flack he cops.
I admire that he is willing to give out his phone number to discuss aviation issues. Thanks Dick and Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: WA
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think it matters if Dick is right or wrong. At least he brings about discussion.
I like the fact Dick posts here, under his own name, regardless of the flack he cops.
I admire that he is willing to give out his phone number to discuss aviation issues. Thanks Dick and Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year .
I like the fact Dick posts here, under his own name, regardless of the flack he cops.
I admire that he is willing to give out his phone number to discuss aviation issues. Thanks Dick and Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Feather #3
Quite so.?
The answer was given in the second post on the thread. As The Cutest of Borg avers.
All the rest is then usual specious grandstanding (David Hicks, Sunni's v Shiiite, Dubai, Cairo and Iraq, linked with QF pilots allegedly continuing a takeoff with no runway lights and unsupported suggestions of Government/regulatory/DPP skullduggery, gimme a break.) and applause from the usual sycophants.
And what this has got to do with Mr Smiths idea that General Aviation is not viable because he says so, escapes me for the moment. It has never been more so and is getting better almost by the day the further we get away from the shiboleths, received wisdom and meddling of the past, but hey why spoil a good soapbox.
Come on Mr tailwheel do your job and lock this thread.
What does stagger me is that this thread has gone on for quite a while and nobody has answered the original question??
The answer was given in the second post on the thread. As The Cutest of Borg avers.
Why Dick? If it is still subjudice, what possible benefit to the two pilots will be brought by ill-informed speculation on an anonymous aviation forum?
And what this has got to do with Mr Smiths idea that General Aviation is not viable because he says so, escapes me for the moment. It has never been more so and is getting better almost by the day the further we get away from the shiboleths, received wisdom and meddling of the past, but hey why spoil a good soapbox.
Come on Mr tailwheel do your job and lock this thread.
Moderator
et continue ainsi l'équilibre de quille contre le mêlée collectif de chaos
“and continues thus the balance of skittle against the fray collective of chaos”
Vous m'avez perdu là, Scurvey?
Media reports tend to confirm this matter is still before the Courts and unresolved. Five years and three months since the alleged offense would appear to be a grossly excessive period of time to resolve what should be a simple issue.
“Justice delayed is justice denied”. William Gladstone British Statesman and Prime Minister.
There is merit in the question being asked in this forum.