Letter to Editor
| DOI | 10.1177/000486588201500302 |
| Date | 01 September 1982 |
| Author | N R Newnham |
| Published date | 01 September 1982 |
AUST &NZ JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY (September 1982) 15 (131-132)
LETTER TO EDITOR
131
Dear
Sir,
May I
refer
to
the
second
part
of
the
March Editorial (1982) 15 ANZJ Crim 1,
and
comment
upon
the
issues it raises?
One
of
the
most
frustrating aspects for law-enforcement officers is
that
they
are
not
listened
to
when
laws are
being
framed, High-sounding principles
tend
to be
enshrined
in unworkable statutes,
and
we,
the
police, are
expected
to somehow make
them
function to
the
good of society.
There
is a doctrine in
the
USA
that
the
fruit of
the
poisonous
tree
is untouchable -
evidence
obtained in
contravention
of
even
a
minor
regulation
becomes
inadmissible.
If
the
1975 ALRC
Report
on Criminal
Investigation does
bear
fruit as you suggest, it will
indeed
be poisonous fruit unless
further
mutations
occur.
As to some of
the
specific
points:-
(a)
The
State
police would in fact have
been
deeply affected by
the
1977
Bill-
it was to apply to
their
Federal
jurisdiction.
Of
course, we
are
citizens
too-
perhaps
the
most informed
and
concerned
citizens in this area. So it
behoves
us to voice
our
disapproval
when
retrograde
changes
are
mooted.
(b)
If
the
1981 Bill is, as you suggest, in simpler language
but
substantially
unchanged,
then
that
should be
better,
shouldn't it? It should be
more
likely
to work
and
less likely to bog down
our
criminal
justice
procedures
with
a
search for
pernickety
regularity,
rather
than
the
truth.
Although space does
not
allow a
detailed
analysis of it
here,
the
1981 Bill is
better
-
but
still far
from satisfactory. -
(c)
If
the
Bill is a landmark
piece
of legislation Iwould
remind
readers
that
landmarks
are
erected
to
well-intended
follies and disasters, too. It is not
the
case
that
good intentions are
enough,
or
that
any change is
better
than
none
- no
matter
how frustrating so-called law-reformers
may
find this.
(d)
The
alleged
acceptance of
the
Bill by Sir Colin Woods
should
be
weighed
in
light
of-
(i)
the
attitudes
of
other
Australian police commissioners,
and
(ii)
the
relative
unimportance
on
the
national scene of his organization in
terms
of crime-fighting.
(e) Some of
the
seven aspects you list are not specially
contentious
or
even
novel, in Victoria at any rate.
But
readers
should
be
aware
that
-
(i)
the
rights of
the
lawyer
appear
to exceed those of
the
suspect,
and
can
amount
to an ability to block an investigation;
(ii) fingerprints only
ever
provide
evidence of identity.
What
the
Bill does
is
prevent
suspects
being
so identified;
(iii)
the
"safeguards" regarding identification parades
etc.,
deny
crime
victims any rights
and
force
the
prosecution to use
second
best
(therefore more easily challengeable) evidence;
To continue reading
Request your trial