NT rangers on the water
- Matt Flynn
- Site Administrator
- Posts: 16196
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 9:30 am
- Location: Somewhat Southerly
- Contact:
-
- Jedi Seadog
- Posts: 5766
- Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2009 10:29 pm
- Location: PALMERSTON
- Contact:
Re: NT rangers on the water
and they still have no authorisation powers! they will work on bluff until if and when they are given powers
-
- Jedi Seadog
- Posts: 3716
- Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 8:25 am
- Location: Darwin
Re: NT rangers on the water
All they need is a camera , the cops can do the rest .
-
- Jedi Seadog
- Posts: 5766
- Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2009 10:29 pm
- Location: PALMERSTON
- Contact:
Re: NT rangers on the water
having no powers means that they cant detain you for questioning, access your vessel etc etc
we have no means of id boats up here. no licences.
the pics will give no evidence that will stand up in court.
cops wont take on a job like that where there is no chance of a successful prosecution
(just a side story, we had 2 cars stolen and they found finger prints - but decided to not prosecute because they would have been defeated in court because the crook could/would say that he was just walking past and touched the car!)
we have no means of id boats up here. no licences.
the pics will give no evidence that will stand up in court.
cops wont take on a job like that where there is no chance of a successful prosecution
(just a side story, we had 2 cars stolen and they found finger prints - but decided to not prosecute because they would have been defeated in court because the crook could/would say that he was just walking past and touched the car!)
- dannett
- Jedi Seadog
- Posts: 1192
- Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 10:37 am
Re: NT rangers on the water
I disagree, photographic and video evidence collected by a ranger charged with patrolling an area are much more likely to be upheld as evidence. I am not saying it would not be challenged in a court case, but that surveillance would need to be deemed unlawful or irrelevant before it could be dismissed. That means that it first has to be scrutinised.
- Hemi
- Jedi Seadog
- Posts: 1003
- Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 11:31 am
Re: NT rangers on the water
nomad wrote:having no powers means that they cant detain you for questioning, access your vessel etc etc
we have no means of id boats up here. no licences.
the pics will give no evidence that will stand up in court.
cops wont take on a job like that where there is no chance of a successful prosecution
(just a side story, we had 2 cars stolen and they found finger prints - but decided to not prosecute because they would have been defeated in court because the crook could/would say that he was just walking past and touched the car!)
Best way to find out is give it a go..... lets us know how you went.!
"Bite off more than you can chew - Then chew like hell.." - PETER BROCK.
-
- Jedi Seadog
- Posts: 5766
- Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2009 10:29 pm
- Location: PALMERSTON
- Contact:
Re: NT rangers on the water
Of course its admissible BUT unless they can identify you, how are they going to bring it to court?dannett wrote:I disagree, photographic and video evidence collected by a ranger charged with patrolling an area are much more likely to be upheld as evidence. I am not saying it would not be challenged in a court case, but that surveillance would need to be deemed unlawful or irrelevant before it could be dismissed. That means that it first has to be scrutinised.
I’ve given evidence many times in photographic/video form - but we knew who they were and had i/d them.
These rangers have no way of identifying the person in the photo (unless they were known to them) because they have no authorised powers to ask questions and no way of identifying the vessel etc etc..
The best evidence they could give would be “I took the pic of a male person between xx-xy y/o in a white boat approx. 5 m long on xxx river”
Im not having a go at them, just saying that they have to be given the appropriate powers so they can do the job properly. Otherwise people will do the same as they did to us years ago.
I spent 15 years as a special investigator and we were given powers that people being investigated had to provide us with their i/d AND answer questions put to them. However, initially, many answered the name/address question with things like Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck etc etc. they answered the Q but nothing compelled them to give truthful answers. That reg was quickly changed.
Easy for us to prove id. Employee records, vehicle rego records, vehicle serial numbers etc etc. Then interview the employer, others etc etc
Until they are given appropriate powers, they are kidding themselves
[quote="Hemi
Best way to find out is give it a go..... lets us know how you went.! [/quote]
See above – they would first have to get the matter into a court room. Not going to happen under the current laws.
I would just like to say that it will never happen to me because I don’t breach the fishing regs.
-
- Bronze Member
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 10:54 pm
Re: NT rangers on the water
(just a side story, we had 2 cars stolen and they found finger prints - but decided to not prosecute because they would have been defeated in court because the crook could/would say that he was just walking past and touched the car!)[/quote]
and your point is
and your point is
-
- Jedi Seadog
- Posts: 5766
- Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2009 10:29 pm
- Location: PALMERSTON
- Contact:
Re: NT rangers on the water
fatkid wrote:(just a side story, we had 2 cars stolen and they found finger prints - but decided to not prosecute because they would have been defeated in court because the crook could/would say that he was just walking past and touched the car!)
and your point is[/quote]
well fatkid
Ok, I'll spell it out for you.
1) Several finger prints were found on the doors of the stolen car
2) The car was dumped in the bush a long way from any road
3) one set of prints were identified as those of a known car thief from Alice springs.
4) Now any thinking person would ask what the strapping young lad from Alice was doing in the bush. I.e., why was he in Darwin when he lives in Alice 1500 kms away.
Well he had just been released from prison the previous week
Coincidence? I think not!
On the balance of probabilities (civil) you would say that he stole the car.
But they have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt (criminal)
I don’t think a reasonable person (reasonableness level) would say that there is any doubt that he stole the car
But the cops had so much work on (ie so much crime here) that they subcontracted the matter out to a commercial lawyer (not their own police prosecutor) 6 mths later
now get this,
The commercial lawyer raised the unlikely defence that the crook could have just said ‘I didn’t steal it, really officer, oh I was just having a bush walk and leant up against the car and must have touched the door several times – so that’s how my prints came to be on the door/s. really officer, I didn’t take the car!.
So the case was dropped!
p..s poor actions
So do you still ask what the point was?
-
- Bronze Member
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 10:54 pm
Re: NT rangers on the water
it doesnt exactly support your arguement does it, if anything your story contradicts yourself
thanks for spellling out your point that even people with power cant do much
thanks for spellling out your point that even people with power cant do much
- dannett
- Jedi Seadog
- Posts: 1192
- Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 10:37 am
Re: NT rangers on the water
As a jury member, it is a requirement that you can only convict a person if it is beyond reasonable doubt that they are guilty. Otherwise. they are innocent. In Nomad's example, a jury member would likely have to accept the defence's argument, no matter how shady their past. There simply is not enough evidence to overturn the possibility of coincidence unless something substantial can link him to the crime.
I sat as a jury member on a case where we all agreed that the kid probably deserved what was coming but it took us a long time to all agree (myself included) that it was beyond any doubt that he was guilty of the crime for which he was charged because much of the evidence was circumstantial. It was only one small detail that tied it all together, which enabled us to agree on the guilty verdict.
I sat as a jury member on a case where we all agreed that the kid probably deserved what was coming but it took us a long time to all agree (myself included) that it was beyond any doubt that he was guilty of the crime for which he was charged because much of the evidence was circumstantial. It was only one small detail that tied it all together, which enabled us to agree on the guilty verdict.
-
- Jedi Seadog
- Posts: 5766
- Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2009 10:29 pm
- Location: PALMERSTON
- Contact:
Re: NT rangers on the water
I still don’t think it would even get to court – but we will never know
On a side issue, jurys are supposed to be ‘a jury of your peers’ so that means that the people on the jury should also be thieving scumbags
On a side issue, jurys are supposed to be ‘a jury of your peers’ so that means that the people on the jury should also be thieving scumbags
- Matt Flynn
- Site Administrator
- Posts: 16196
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 9:30 am
- Location: Somewhat Southerly
- Contact:
Re: NT rangers on the water
On a side issue, jurys are supposed to be ‘a jury of your peers’ so that means that the people on the jury should also be thieving scumbags
-
- Jedi Seadog
- Posts: 3716
- Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 8:25 am
- Location: Darwin
Re: NT rangers on the water
Rangers with photographic evidence of you doing bad shiit will win the case as they are trained correctly in how to gather the evidence , unlike the dicks that couldn't find a fingerprint inside the alegged stolen car.
-
- Jedi Seadog
- Posts: 5766
- Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2009 10:29 pm
- Location: PALMERSTON
- Contact:
Re: NT rangers on the water
You must have read it incorrectly. We had authorised powers and they were very useful. Locked up many crooks once we were given these very heavy powers. They were much better than the police powers - we were often used by the police on operations because we had more power than the police, they were there just to assist/protect us. They didn’t have the same powers of entry that we did, powers to answer questions etc etc.fatkid wrote:it doesnt exactly support your arguement does it, if anything your story contradicts yourself
thanks for spellling out your point that even people with power cant do much
Once these rangers get the authorisation, they should be sweet.
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
- 0 Replies
- 826 Views
-
Last post by Hemi
-
- 10 Replies
- 1153 Views
-
Last post by ghound
-
- 3 Replies
- 3551 Views
-
Last post by Yoop_ya
-
- 9 Replies
- 3011 Views
-
Last post by darwinguy
-
- 2 Replies
- 1009 Views
-
Last post by Matt Flynn