Would it be accurate to say that in oz the only govt employees who can demand your name and a form of ID are the police if you are standing next to a wrecked car?

I am not talking about fronting up to centrelink or anything to get money, more street encounters by council members or your name being demanded at a public meeting protesting govt action?

Skunkworks said:

Would it be accurate to say that in oz the only govt employees who can demand your name and a form of ID are the police if you are standing next to a wrecked car?

I am not talking about fronting up to centrelink or anything to get money, more street encounters by council members or your name being demanded at a public meeting protesting govt action?

I would suggest that anyone can demand you give them your details, but I would imagine it’s within your rights to refuse to provide that information to anyone – even a police officer.

diddly-squat said:

Skunkworks said:

Would it be accurate to say that in oz the only govt employees who can demand your name and a form of ID are the police if you are standing next to a wrecked car?

I am not talking about fronting up to centrelink or anything to get money, more street encounters by council members or your name being demanded at a public meeting protesting govt action?

I would suggest that anyone can demand you give them your details, but I would imagine it’s within your rights to refuse to provide that information to anyone – even a police officer.

That as well. Though I think if at a car wreck you don’t provide ID they can arrest you. If wandering down the street and they ask your name you can refuse and they can arrest you but sans wrecked car they need a probable cause?

diddly-squat said:

Skunkworks said:

Would it be accurate to say that in oz the only govt employees who can demand your name and a form of ID are the police if you are standing next to a wrecked car?

I am not talking about fronting up to centrelink or anything to get money, more street encounters by council members or your name being demanded at a public meeting protesting govt action?

I would suggest that anyone can demand you give them your details, but I would imagine it’s within your rights to refuse to provide that information to anyone – even a police officer.

I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that the information I provide may incriminate me.

but I would imagine it’s within your rights to refuse to provide that information to anyone – even a police officer.

i would say that this isn’t true. you can refuse and you’ll be charged with refusing. you don’t have a “right” to refuse.

public transport security would be another lot you have to give name and address to probably.

Skunkworks said:

diddly-squat said:

Skunkworks said:

Would it be accurate to say that in oz the only govt employees who can demand your name and a form of ID are the police if you are standing next to a wrecked car?

I am not talking about fronting up to centrelink or anything to get money, more street encounters by council members or your name being demanded at a public meeting protesting govt action?

I would suggest that anyone can demand you give them your details, but I would imagine it’s within your rights to refuse to provide that information to anyone – even a police officer.

That as well. Though I think if at a car wreck you don’t provide ID they can arrest you. If wandering down the street and they ask your name you can refuse and they can arrest you but sans wrecked car they need a probable cause?

I’m not saying they wouldn’t arrest you (I’m sure they would dream up something), just that it’s your right not to provide them with your details, in fact you don’t have to say anything to them.

Skunkworks said:

diddly-squat said:

Skunkworks said:

Would it be accurate to say that in oz the only govt employees who can demand your name and a form of ID are the police if you are standing next to a wrecked car?

I am not talking about fronting up to centrelink or anything to get money, more street encounters by council members or your name being demanded at a public meeting protesting govt action?

I would suggest that anyone can demand you give them your details, but I would imagine it’s within your rights to refuse to provide that information to anyone – even a police officer.

That as well. Though I think if at a car wreck you don’t provide ID they can arrest you. If wandering down the street and they ask your name you can refuse and they can arrest you but sans wrecked car they need a probable cause?

In the case of being the driver of a car involved in a traffic accident. You are required to be a licensed driver and as such are required to be carrying such said licence and to show it. Not doing both of the above are offences.

Giving your name and address

It is a criminal offence to refuse to give your name and address in certain circumstances, or to give false details to the police (or public transport officers). See Speaking to the police for what these circumstances are.

The police can demand your name and address without giving a reason if you are in a hotel or licensed premises (staff can also ask for your age).

http://www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/find-legal-answers/police-powers-and-your-rights/young-people-and-police

for young people but would apply to all.

http://www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/find-legal-answers/police-powers-and-your-rights/speaking-to-police

Giving your name and address

The police do not have the right to demand your name or address without a reason. Generally, a police officer can only ask you to give your name and address if they believe you:
have committed an offence
are about to commit an offence.

For example, a police officer can ask you for your name and address if they have believe you bought alcohol and you are under 18.

The police must tell you why they want your details. If they don’t give you a reason, you should ask for it.

Other times a police officer can ask for your name and address are:
if you are driving a vehicle or boat and a police officer signals for you to stop. You must stop and show the police officer your licence
on the tram, train, bus or on public transport property (public transport inspectors and protective services officers can also ask for your name and address)
if the police officer believes you have information that could help them investigate an indictable offence. The police officer must tell you what offence they think you can help them investigate.

You must give your name and address in all of these circumstances. It is an offence to give a false name and address.

The police must give you their name, rank and the name of the station where they are based. They must also write this information down for you if you ask them to.

Note. Minor traffic accidents do not require the police to be called and if the police do attend, the individuals involved do not have to give any details to the police though there is a process known as voluntary reporting of minor accidents.

I think people should have to right to refuse

you can stay quiet and not say anything

imagine some bully officer trying to get a name then

Im charging you for not speaking

CrazyNeutrino said:

I think people should have to right to refuse

you can stay quiet and not say anything

imagine some bully officer trying to get a name then

Im charging you for not speaking

You might be right, but we don’t have a Bill of Rights in Aus like they do in the US so you can’t.

rules in QLD…

seems it’s an offense not to provide your details (without a ‘reasonable’ cause – whatever that means)

http://www.qld.gov.au/law/crime-and-police/being-arrested-and-police-custody/being-stopped/

if a person has not done anything and they refuse to speak, then are charged and or arrested for not providing details, the process is unnecessary

Spiny Norman said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

I think people should have to right to refuse

you can stay quiet and not say anything

imagine some bully officer trying to get a name then

Im charging you for not speaking

You might be right, but we don’t have a Bill of Rights in Aus like they do in the US so you can’t.

why dont we have a proper bill of rights like the US?

• why dont we have a proper bill of rights like the US?

If they jumped off a cliff, would you jump off too?

In some cases, cases where you may have been accused of hurting someone in the distant past for example, it might be in your best interest to tell the chaps a lie. It won’t be the first time it has happened.

furious said:

• why dont we have a proper bill of rights like the US?

If they jumped off a cliff, would you jump off too?

I would let them jump off the cliff, and if I had to, I’ll use a parachute

what I mean is if there is something wrong with their bill of rights, we can improve on it and perhaps keep improving it

how would a bill of rights improve our lives in australia? do you even know what the american bill of rights contains?

how would a bill of rights improve our lives in australia? do you even know what the american bill of rights contains?

crikey where do I start

how would a bill of rights improve our lives in Australia?

by enforcing juxtaposition of rights

such things as religion / employers / organizations / gangs discriminating and/or being violent against women and homosexuals

such things as people interfering with people who want Euthanasia

such things as people interfering with other peoples personal drug use

===

do you even know what the american bill of rights contains?

No, I haven’t read it, and I have not read their Constitution, and I have not read their laws

Yes I could read it and I could list all the things I agree with and disagree with, and It would probably take me a long time to do so

we make lots of laws in Australia

How many Federal and State laws do we have?

but what are they?

whey doesn’t every home have an Australian Law book, we have telephone books that are published every year?

maybe if we did have an Australian Law book in every home, people might know what those laws are

so, all the stuff you’ve listed is covered in the US BoR? i don’t see it myself. really all that is needed is for laws to be changed or formed. i don’t think you actually know what a BoR is.

so, all the stuff you’ve listed is covered in the US BoR? i don’t see it myself. really all that is needed is for laws to be changed or formed. i don’t think you actually know what a BoR is.

so, all the stuff you’ve listed is covered in the US BoR?

no, I just made up that list

i don’t think you actually know what a BoR is.

a presumptuous question

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_rights

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights

from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_rights

A bill of rights is a list of the most important rights to the citizens of a country. The purpose of these bills is to protect those rights against infringement. The term “bill of rights” originates from England, where it refers to the Bill of Rights enacted by Parliament in 1689, following the Glorious Revolution, asserting the supremacy of Parliament over the monarch, and listing a number of fundamental rights and liberties.

linking to wiki pages doesn’t really say anything about your knowledge of the subject. personally i don’t have a clue as to whether a BoR would achieve anything that good laws wouldn’t.

https://www.humanrights.gov.au/how-are-human-rights-protected-australian-law

linking to wiki pages doesn’t really say anything about your knowledge of the subject.

a presumptuous statement, my knowledge of the subject can always and does change

the wiki pedia link gives a reasonable synopsis

personally i don’t have a clue as to whether a BoR would achieve anything that good laws wouldn’t.

so you dont have a clue as to whether a BoR would achieve anything, that good laws wouldn’t.

What Good Laws and what do you know about a BoR?

Boris said:

https://www.humanrights.gov.au/how-are-human-rights-protected-australian-law

and your linking to links now

but i’m not claiming anything. just putting up questions. i admit i don’t know. you are the one saying we need a BoR. not me.

you haven’t stated why a BoR would benefit us here in australia.

for instance. US has a BoR but same sex marriage is still not legal in all states. so how has a BoR helped there?

CrazyNeutrino said:

we make lots of laws in Australia

How many Federal and State laws do we have?

but what are they?

whey doesn’t every home have an Australian Law book, we have telephone books that are published every year?

maybe if we did have an Australian Law book in every home, people might know what those laws are

There are pocket guides to the law in each State.

so what i am saying is theat good laws seem to be a better option than a BoR.

yep morrie and you can buy a copy of the constitution. doubt if many would understand the language.

None of this seems to have answered the OP question.

i gave an answer, partial, waaaaaay back.

anyway there is no legal requirement for me to keep on topic. and i plead the 5th.

Boris said:

but i’m not claiming anything. just putting up questions. i admit i don’t know. you are the one saying we need a BoR. not me.

you are the one saying we need a BoR. not me.

correct, yes I am stating that

Boris said:

yep morrie and you can buy a copy of the constitution. doubt if many would understand the language.

There is a local bloke here who has a copy of the constitution. I am told that he is very conversant with it and had lots of page stickers all through it. He is an unusual guy though.

CrazyNeutrino, you need to clear up your quoting style, it can get quite confusing…

Well, Skunkworks was asking about govt officials other than police, and everybody seemed intent on talking about the police….or that’s how it looked to me.

Apologies if I misinterpreted.

Boris said:

you haven’t stated why a BoR would benefit us here in australia.

yes I have

how would a bill of rights improve our lives in Australia?

by enforcing juxtaposition of rights

such things as religion / employers / organizations / gangs discriminating and/or being violent against women and homosexuals

such things as people interfering with people who want Euthanasia

such things as people interfering with other peoples personal drug use

nah it is mainly about the cops. i did mention transit security. i will also guess that there are quite a few officials that can demand name and address just as there are quite a few officials that can enter your home without a warrant.

morrie said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

we make lots of laws in Australia

How many Federal and State laws do we have?

but what are they?

whey doesn’t every home have an Australian Law book, we have telephone books that are published every year?

maybe if we did have an Australian Law book in every home, people might know what those laws are

There are pocket guides to the law in each State.

thanks for that morrie

didn’t know that,

the government never never told about them

Boris said:

for instance. US has a BoR but same sex marriage is still not legal in all states. so how has a BoR helped there?

good question

by enforcing juxtaposition of rights

such things as religion / employers / organizations / gangs discriminating and/or being violent against women and homosexuals

such things as people interfering with people who want Euthanasia

such things as people interfering with other peoples personal drug use

i’ll say that the US has BoR and has done nothing to affect any of what you mention. so i’ll ask again how will a BoR help us that good laws wouldn’t?

Boris said:

so what i am saying is theat good laws seem to be a better option than a BoR.

you can have good laws

but they are fragmented across in common law

but how do people know what they are, and where they are?

my point is is people don’t have a law book provided to them by the government, how do they know that these laws are, which these other people are making?

Boris said:

yep morrie and you can buy a copy of the constitution. doubt if many would understand the language.

and if people cannot understand law-speak then it needs to be rewritten for the general public

you cannot expect everyone to be solicitors

morrie said:

Boris said:

yep morrie and you can buy a copy of the constitution. doubt if many would understand the language.

There is a local bloke here who has a copy of the constitution. I am told that he is very conversant with it and had lots of page stickers all through it. He is an unusual guy though.

I have a copy of it somewhere at home. Bought it as part of one of my uni law units. Haven’t looked at it since.

It was cheap at the time to buy a copy. I guess you can probably download it for free these days.

the government never never told about them

if you are interested you would find out. i would imagine that there are webpages full of aust law. even the constitution.

constitution

probably something here regarding laws

furious said:

CrazyNeutrino, you need to clear up your quoting style, it can get quite confusing…

yes, sorry about that, I will try to make it better

if there is so much civil disobedience, and the government making thousands of laws

and there is no law book in every home, then its clear to me, that that is a problem

the other issue with that is should people read it, by choice, by enforcement?

CrazyNeutrino said:

if there is so much civil disobedience, and the government making thousands of laws

and there is no law book in every home, then its clear to me, that that is a problem

the other issue with that is should people read it, by choice, by enforcement?

But, do I have to show ID to someone other than the cops?

Boris said:

by enforcing juxtaposition of rights

such things as religion / employers / organizations / gangs discriminating and/or being violent against women and homosexuals

such things as people interfering with people who want Euthanasia

such things as people interfering with other peoples personal drug use

i’ll say that the US has BoR and has done nothing to affect any of what you mention. so i’ll ask again how will a BoR help us that good laws wouldn’t?

if the US BoR has errors in it, then it needs reform

so i’ll ask again how will a BoR help us that good laws wouldn’t?

by placing everything in one document so its easily accessible and not fragmented across common law

• the other issue with that is should people read it, by choice, by enforcement?

Ignorance is no defence so the onus is on “people” to read it or know what is in it…

• But, do I have to show ID to someone other than the cops?

Depends on the situation…

Boris said:

the government never never told about them

if you are interested you would find out. i would imagine that there are webpages full of aust law. even the constitution.

constitution

probably something here regarding laws

yes I am interested, and yes I will find out more information

Authorised Officers on public transport have the following powers: • Ask to see your ticket, even after you have just left the vehicle or paid area of a station.
•Ask for your name and address if you do not show a valid ticket.
•Ask to see evidence which confirms your identity

poikilotherm said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

if there is so much civil disobedience, and the government making thousands of laws

and there is no law book in every home, then its clear to me, that that is a problem

the other issue with that is should people read it, by choice, by enforcement?

But, do I have to show ID to someone other than the cops?

sorry dont have a copy of the Australian law book easily at hand, I cannot help you

but it is a good question

there is a difference between common law and laws made by parliament. or so i believe.

>But, do I have to show ID to someone other than the cops?

Yes, in some circumstances you are obliged to show identification to Sheriffs or their officers:

Sheriffs

In recent years, the states and territories have returned the responsibility of recovering court ordered fines to their sheriffs. In practice, the police often carry out the functions of sheriffs and bailiffs in rural and more sparsely populated areas of Australia. The office of sheriff was first established in Australia in 1824. This was simultaneous with the appointment of the first Chief Justice of New South Wales. The role of the sheriff has not been static, nor is it identical in each Australian State. In the past his duties included: executing court judgements, acting as a coroner, the transportation of prisoners, managing the gaols, and carrying out executions (through the employment of an anonymous hangman). Currently, no Australian State provides for capital punishment. A government department (usually called the Department of Corrections or similar) now runs the prison system and the Coroner’s Office handles coronial matters. The sheriff is now largely responsible for enforcing the civil orders and fines of the court (seizing and selling the property of judgement debtors who do not satisfy the debt), providing court security, enforcing arrest warrants, evictions, taking juveniles into custody and running the jury system. Some State Sheriffs can also apply a wide range of sanctions ranging from suspending drivers licenses and car registration through to wheel clamping and arranging community service orders and finally as a last resort make arrests.

Can Australian Law be accessed over the Internet?

We all want justice but you got to have the money to buy it You’d have to be a fool to close your eyes and deny it There’s a lot of poor people who are walking the streets of my town Too blind to see that justice is used to do them right down

All life from beginning to end You pay your monthly installments Next to health is wealth And only wealth will buy you justice There’ll always be a fool who insists on taking his chances And that is the man who believes in true love romances He will trust and rely on the goodness in human nature Now a judge will tell you that’s a pathetic creature All life from beginning to end You pay your monthly installments Next to health is wealth And only wealth will buy you justice Money, justice Money and justice Money, justice

Alan Price

O’ Lucky Man

Boris said:

there is a difference between common law and laws made by parliament. or so i believe.

what are these differences

Bubblecar said:

>But, do I have to show ID to someone other than the cops?

Yes, in some circumstances you are obliged to show identification to Sheriffs or their officers:

Sheriffs

In recent years, the states and territories have returned the responsibility of recovering court ordered fines to their sheriffs. In practice, the police often carry out the functions of sheriffs and bailiffs in rural and more sparsely populated areas of Australia. The office of sheriff was first established in Australia in 1824. This was simultaneous with the appointment of the first Chief Justice of New South Wales. The role of the sheriff has not been static, nor is it identical in each Australian State. In the past his duties included: executing court judgements, acting as a coroner, the transportation of prisoners, managing the gaols, and carrying out executions (through the employment of an anonymous hangman). Currently, no Australian State provides for capital punishment. A government department (usually called the Department of Corrections or similar) now runs the prison system and the Coroner’s Office handles coronial matters. The sheriff is now largely responsible for enforcing the civil orders and fines of the court (seizing and selling the property of judgement debtors who do not satisfy the debt), providing court security, enforcing arrest warrants, evictions, taking juveniles into custody and running the jury system. Some State Sheriffs can also apply a wide range of sanctions ranging from suspending drivers licenses and car registration through to wheel clamping and arranging community service orders and finally as a last resort make arrests.

Ah yes, Sheriffs, forgotten all about them

Common law, also known as case law or precedent, is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals. By contrast, civil law (codified/continental law) is set on statutes adopted through the legislative/parliamentary process and/or regulations issued by the executive branch on base of the parliamentary statutes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

• what are these differences

I think it is that one is made by parliament and the other comes from precedents in court…

http://www.skwirk.com.au/p-c_s-58_u-496_t-1353_c-5205/qld/sose-economy-and-society/law-and-the-media-civics-and-citizenship/the-australian-legal-system/statute-and-common-law

More than you could possibly want to look up here:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/

Is there a legal definition of “Name”? Plenty of people get around in life not using the name on their birth certificate…

Here’s an example in relation to wheel-clamping. Refusing to produce ID can result in a fine:

Here’s an example, in relation to wheel-clamping:

How does wheel clamping work?
Any vehicle registered in your name can be wheel clamped wherever it is parked, including at your home, work, at a roadblock or public carpark. This can happen at any time, whether or not you have been given notice that this will occur.

To wheel clamp your vehicle, a sheriff’s officer may enter your vehicle or move your vehicle. A sheriff’s officer can also require you to give them the keys to your vehicle and can remove, dismantle or neutralise your vehicle’s locking device. A sheriff’s officer can demand identification from you if they suspect you are the person named in an infringement warrant. If you do not comply, or if you give false information, you can be fined.

http://online.fines.vic.gov.au/fines/content.aspx?page=50

Bump.

I’m just supplying facts, while steering well clear of political bickering :)

reads PWM the Riot Act.

>>Is there a legal definition of “Name”? Plenty of people get around in life not using the name on their birth certificate…<<

I asked about this when I was deciding whether to use Mr buffy’s surname after we were married. The advice I was given then (1981) was that you can go by whatever name you chose as long as there is no attempt to defraud. So if you are just making up a different name each time, I suspect that would be illegal. But if you wish to use a different name, you can just use that name for most things. You do have to be consistent though. Because the name you use for your driving licence, which is widely used as ID, would need to be the one you choose to use most of the time really.

I’m not sure how often Victorian sheriff’s officers feel the need to clamp people’s cars while they are parked in the owner’s home, but it does seem a rather strange right for a law enforcement officer to have.

Peak Warming Man said:

Bump.

Smack.

Have you read that Boris, or do we need to read it for ourselves?

i’ve read it. but just in my head.

Ah, I just found out about the sheriff clamping a couple of weeks ago. If there are warrants for many fines, usually amounting to thousands of dollars, they will clamp. At big events – the ones I know about are Sheepvention in Hamilton, big car swap meets in Ballarat – the sheriff’s car patrols the carparks and surrounding streets with a camera with licence plate recognition software and any cars that pop up flagged get clamped on the spot and apparently there is tape put around them and a notice on the windscreen that the car can be unclamped by paying the outstanding fines. You could get yourself seriously stranded. I didn’t know the sheriff did this work. I have sent in the sheriff a couple of times over the years for debt collection, but that is to seize TVs or stuff to cover unpaid debts. It’s not something you do lightly.

I don’t think there is 12 people here right now so we can smash the place up without being hassled…

I wonder if Tasmanian Sherriff’s officers have the right to clamp bicycles, if they suspect that the owner may be tempted to use the vehicle whilst not wearing a helmet.

• if they suspect that the owner may be tempted to use the vehicle whilst not wearing a helmet.

Or if the owner might have had a few wines…

I have sent in the sheriff a couple of times over the years for debt collection,

does he rustle up a posse…

furious said:

• if they suspect that the owner may be tempted to use the vehicle whilst not wearing a helmet.

Or if the owner might have had a few wines…

Is there a legal limit on blood alcohol whilst riding a bicycle?

clamps

The Rev Dodgson said:

I wonder if Tasmanian Sherriff’s officers have the right to clamp bicycles, if they suspect that the owner may be tempted to use the vehicle whilst not wearing a helmet.

I think the Car would go postal if he came back to his bike with a cooked chook and a leg of ham under one arm and a case of assorted beers and cheap but surprisingly tasty wines under the other to find his bike clamped.

same as cars, horses, lawnmower rev if on a public road.

There’s a supernumerary ‘bike’ in my last missive, you can delete either one, you choose.

• Is there a legal limit on blood alcohol whilst riding a bicycle?

I thought it was the same as for driving a car…

• same as cars, horses, lawnmower rev if on a public road.

Thats why I go across people’s front lawns instead…

CrazyNeutrino said:

Can Australian Law be accessed over the Internet?

.

Certainly Queensland law can. I imagine all other juristictions would be similar.

https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/Acts_SLs/Acts_SL.htm

Neophyte said:

Well, Skunkworks was asking about govt officials other than police, and everybody seemed intent on talking about the police….or that’s how it looked to me.

Apologies if I misinterpreted.

Aye I was. Especially council officials. I wanted to know more about their powers to demand identification. I can accept that police and transit police and people on private property can be asked to provide ID.

But what about at a peaceful community protest meeting?

furious said:

• Is there a legal limit on blood alcohol whilst riding a bicycle?

I thought it was the same as for driving a car…

There was a guy in my local paper last week whose BAC was 0.31. He was caught driving an unregistered car without a license.

furious said:

• what are these differences

I think it is that one is made by parliament and the other comes from precedents in court…

Parliament makes the laws, police enforce them, judges interpret them.

Boris said:

reads PWM the Riot Act.

Spaniards during their various conquests used to read aloud a document called an absolvo? (prepared to be corrected) which basically meant if you did not submit and worship the Spanish god then they were not responsible for any subsequent massacre.

Just a pity it was read in a language Indians couldn’t understand, included concepts that they were not familiar with and moreover was sometimes read at night and distant from the village so it couldn’t be heard anyway. More a case of dotting the i’s so at any subsequent trial they could say yeah we killed 300 me women and children, but we read them the absolvo.

Crimes Act 1914 Section 89

(2) Where a person is found upon prohibited Commonwealth land, a constable, a protective service officer or an authorized Commonwealth officer may request the person to furnish his or her name and address to the constable or officer and, if the person fails to comply with the request, he or she shall be guilty of an offence.

TRESPASS ON TERRITORY LAND ACT 1932 – SECT 9 (ACT Consolidated Acts)

Persons reasonably suspected to give name and address

(1) An inspector, or any forest overseer employed by the Territory or any person authorised in writing by the Minister, may require any person reasonably suspected of having committed, or of being about to commit an offence against this Act to give his or her name in full and place of abode. (2) Any person who, after being so required and on production of the necessary authority, fails to give his or her real name or place of abode, commits an offence.

Maximum penalty: 5 penalty units.

What’s 5 penalty units + inflation since 1930?

What’s 5 penalty units + inflation since 1930?

I thought I had seen something in the law of trespass that allowed you to ask for the ID of a trespasser.

Divine Angel said:

What’s 5 penalty units + inflation since 1930?

Penalty units stay the same for that reason and one statute only has to be changed to reflect the worth of a unit to keep pace with inflation.

Divine Angel said:

What’s 5 penalty units + inflation since 1930?

No idea. All the laws talk of penalty units.

morrie said:

I thought I had seen something in the law of trespass that allowed you to ask for the ID of a trespasser.

Damn straight, if someone is on your property you can ask for ID and if they don’t produce you can kick them off, even if they do produce you can generally kick them off.

But then you pray to the Lord to forgive your trespasses and you’re good to go.

Skunkworks said:

morrie said:

I thought I had seen something in the law of trespass that allowed you to ask for the ID of a trespasser.

Damn straight, if someone is on your property you can ask for ID and if they don’t produce you can kick them off, even if they do produce you can generally kick them off.

You can certainly kick them off. It is a surprisingly strong law. But I can’t find any reference to demanding ID.

morrie said:

Skunkworks said:

morrie said:

I thought I had seen something in the law of trespass that allowed you to ask for the ID of a trespasser.

Damn straight, if someone is on your property you can ask for ID and if they don’t produce you can kick them off, even if they do produce you can generally kick them off.

You can certainly kick them off. It is a surprisingly strong law. But I can’t find any reference to demanding ID.

Fairy nuff, I am going off all the community info that says if people come to your door, charity workers, electricity readers etc you can demand ID. That may not be codified.

You could probably refuse permission for the meter readers to read the meter if they don’t show ID. But it’s likely they do always carry ID.

morrie said:

I thought I had seen something in the law of trespass that allowed you to ask for the ID of a trespasser.

Asking and getting are two different things.

>Asking and getting are two different things.

Yes, I’d imagine you’re allowed to politely ask anyone for their ID, for no reason at all, but they’re free to ignore you. You could knock on the door of a complete stranger and ask them to show you ID, but if you did this often enough you might be arrested for causing a disturbance or suchlike.

Forcibly removing someone from your property could be very hazardous too. Best course of action is to call the police. However if you are a long way from the police, then the stronger on the day will win.

Boris said:

We all want justice but you got to have the money to buy it You’d have to be a fool to close your eyes and deny it There’s a lot of poor people who are walking the streets of my town Too blind to see that justice is used to do them right down

All life from beginning to end You pay your monthly installments Next to health is wealth And only wealth will buy you justice There’ll always be a fool who insists on taking his chances And that is the man who believes in true love romances He will trust and rely on the goodness in human nature Now a judge will tell you that’s a pathetic creature All life from beginning to end You pay your monthly installments Next to health is wealth And only wealth will buy you justice Money, justice Money and justice Money, justice

Alan Price

O’ Lucky Man

you forgot the politicians who make good and bad law, who recently gave themselves a fifty thousand dollar pay rise

Skunkworks said:

morrie said:

Skunkworks said:

Damn straight, if someone is on your property you can ask for ID and if they don’t produce you can kick them off, even if they do produce you can generally kick them off.

You can certainly kick them off. It is a surprisingly strong law. But I can’t find any reference to demanding ID.

Fairy nuff, I am going off all the community info that says if people come to your door, charity workers, electricity readers etc you can demand ID. That may not be codified.

I think it is likely that you can ask for ID, and if it is not produced then you may consider them to be tresspasses and enforce any remedies allowed under the law. Of course just producing ID does not mean that the person is not tresspassing either.

Boris said:

We all want justice but you got to have the money to buy it You’d have to be a fool to close your eyes and deny it There’s a lot of poor people who are walking the streets of my town Too blind to see that justice is used to do them right down

All life from beginning to end You pay your monthly installments Next to health is wealth And only wealth will buy you justice There’ll always be a fool who insists on taking his chances And that is the man who believes in true love romances He will trust and rely on the goodness in human nature Now a judge will tell you that’s a pathetic creature All life from beginning to end You pay your monthly installments Next to health is wealth And only wealth will buy you justice Money, justice Money and justice Money, justice

Alan Price

O’ Lucky Man

What do I I think about our justice system

It allows for serious discrepancies in sentencing for the same crime!

These are all murder cases and all of this information is available on the Internet in fact all but one I got from the ABC

My question is why is there such a large discrepancy in Murder sentences for Murder?

These are all murder cases but have different sentence lengths

Steven Hunter sentenced to life

Matthew Milat, his 43-year jail sentence

Ernest Bayley has received a life sentence

Rohan Tait Johnston sentenced to a minimum 18 years

Mathew Aquilina sentenced to a 28 year jail term

Kevin Gall, Man jail sentenced to 18 years

Candaneace Lea Metius sentenced to life

Bruce Burrell sentenced to 28 years

Dante Wyndham Arthurs sentenced to life

Yiwen Pan sentenced to 20 years

Robert Farquharson jailed for life

Some of these people were on parole when they reoffended, and the Victorian Parole Board is under fire,

What do I think about Our Rights

they are fragmented all over legislation and common law, hard to find, hard to access

What do I think about our justice system

It’s in a state of disorder!

What Do I think about these discrepancies on Murder

All Murderers should get a life sentence with No Parole

No judge in a murder trial should be able to give an arbitrary sentence duration, It should be a life sentence with no parole!

unless one reads the court transcripts then one has little idea on why sentences vary for what appears to be the same crime. judges have been railing against the populist notions that ACA and TT bang on about re “justice”. it is not as simple as people think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment_in_Australia

Boris said:

unless one reads the court transcripts then one has little idea on why sentences vary for what appears to be the same crime. judges have been railing against the populist notions that ACA and TT bang on about re “justice”. it is not as simple as people think.

I sometimes go to Ausdil to find out the real deal in some cases.

I sometimes go to Ausdil to find out the real deal in some cases.

all sorts of things are taken into consideration. judges aren’t there because they are stupid.

Bread’s now in the oven. Yes, that’s how quick it is with a food processor.

My misplaced post was an example of civil disobedience in action.

Boris said:

I sometimes go to Ausdil to find out the real deal in some cases.

all sorts of things are taken into consideration. judges aren’t there because they are stupid.

Something I have said before. But then again, I usually credit people with intelligence, and just because someone doesn’t know something which you might consider basic knowledge, or dresses different, has different societal norms or believes in a god I don’t automatically assign them to the stupid file.

Something I have said before. But then again, I usually credit people with intelligence, and just because someone doesn’t know something which you might consider basic knowledge, or dresses different, has different societal norms or believes in a god I don’t automatically assign them to the stupid file.

me neither. pointing out that judges are in a position to make the best appraisal of the crime and the accused. people want “justice”, or what they think is “justice” but only have the newspaper of current affairs programs to form an opinion from. it usually amount to more a case of retribution than justice.

here are those links, all in the public domain, all public knowledge

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-21/cafferkey-murderer-steven-hunter-sentenced/4901180

http://www.dailyliberal.com.au/story/1616441/milat-appeals-severity-of-axe-murder-sentence/

http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au/article/2013/06/19/367447_news.html

http://video.cairns.com.au/v/29496/Nine-News-Murder-sentence

http://www.tenterfieldstar.com.au/story/1516987/long-sentence-for-murder/

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-23/man-jailed-for-18-years-for-bikie27s-murder/4388342

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2007-11-28/mum-gets-life-for-careful-cold-murder-of-son/971390?section=justin

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2007-11-07/perth-man-jailed-for-8yos-murder/718992

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2007-12-10/computer-geek-jailed-for-co-workers-stabbing-murder/983136

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-02-08/cold-blooded-burrell-gets-28-years-for-2nd-murder/1036670

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-23/man-jailed-for-18-years-for-bikie27s-murder/4388342

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2007-11-16/farquharson-jailed-for-life-over-sons-murders/727688

Did any of those people murder because someone demanded their name and a form of ID ?

what is your point?

life doesn’t always mean for the term of their natural life. in fact it rarely does. and as i have said you need to read the court transcripts and the judges deliberations regarding the sentence.

Boris said:

what is your point?

life doesn’t always mean for the term of their natural life. in fact it rarely does. and as i have said you need to read the court transcripts and the judges deliberations regarding the sentence.

Judges are fallible and human and sometimes they just plain get it wrong.

Other the other hand we have no reasonable alternative.

Boris said:

I sometimes go to Ausdil to find out the real deal in some cases.

all sorts of things are taken into consideration. judges aren’t there because they are stupid.

.

Yes.

I was reading the other day that South African courts don’t use a jury, only a judge.

Judges are fallible and human and sometimes they just plain get it wrong.

Other the other hand we have no reasonable alternative.

correct. so there is no one size fits all remedy. we have really no idea what goes on in a court case.

there are quite a few countries like that DA. France, Indonesia i think come to mind.

We used to have proper trials before political correctness buggered up the system, proper fair trials.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xjen5i_s1e5-the-black-adder-the-witchsmeller-pursuivant_creation

Boris said:

Judges are fallible and human and sometimes they just plain get it wrong.

Other the other hand we have no reasonable alternative.

correct. so there is no one size fits all remedy. we have really no idea what goes on in a court case.

The system is also fraught with issues in regards to self correction and self regulation and can be improved in this respect.

Judges may not be “stupid” but many are plainly out of touch

Judges may not be “stupid” but many are plainly out of touch

i think this goes back to my comment on populist ideas of justice. we have no idea as to what deliberation went into a sentence.

i would say some rather than many judges may be out of touch. and that some to be a very small number.

Boris said:

Judges may not be “stupid” but many are plainly out of touch

i think this goes back to my comment on populist ideas of justice. we have no idea as to what deliberation went into a sentence.

i would say some rather than many judges may be out of touch. and that some to be a very small number.

Half of the people can be part right all of the time,
Some of the people can be all right part of the time,
But all of the people can’t be all right all of the time.

Dropbear said:

The system is also fraught with issues in regards to self correction and self regulation and can be improved in this respect.

Judges may not be “stupid” but many are plainly out of touch

That is true and to get past that I think community expectations should be clear in the criteria and reviewed frequently. But I don’t agree with politicalization of the courts, ie pollies campaigning on three strikes legislation and look at the mess that created taking discretion from the judges.

Boris said:

there are quite a few countries like that DA. France, Indonesia i think come to mind.

Indonesia uses a panel of judges. Inherited the system from the Dutch who got it from the French (investigating magistrate dealio).

Skunkworks said:

Dropbear said:

The system is also fraught with issues in regards to self correction and self regulation and can be improved in this respect.

Judges may not be “stupid” but many are plainly out of touch

That is true and to get past that I think community expectations should be clear in the criteria and reviewed frequently. But I don’t agree with politicalization of the courts, ie pollies campaigning on three strikes legislation and look at the mess that created taking discretion from the judges.

Don’t disagree with that

there was talk of having cameras in courts and televising proceedings on a dedicated channel to inform the public as to what went on.

Dropbear said:

Skunkworks said:

Dropbear said:

The system is also fraught with issues in regards to self correction and self regulation and can be improved in this respect.

Judges may not be “stupid” but many are plainly out of touch

That is true and to get past that I think community expectations should be clear in the criteria and reviewed frequently. But I don’t agree with politicalization of the courts, ie pollies campaigning on three strikes legislation and look at the mess that created taking discretion from the judges.

Don’t disagree with that

Why not?

Stealth said:

Dropbear said:

Skunkworks said:

That is true and to get past that I think community expectations should be clear in the criteria and reviewed frequently. But I don’t agree with politicalization of the courts, ie pollies campaigning on three strikes legislation and look at the mess that created taking discretion from the judges.

Don’t disagree with that

Why not?

Wait what?

Dropbear said:

Stealth said:

Dropbear said:

Don’t disagree with that

Why not?

Wait what?

Gutless are you? Oh wait….

Skunkworks said:

Would it be accurate to say that in oz the only govt employees who can demand your name and a form of ID are the police if you are standing next to a wrecked car?

I am not talking about fronting up to centrelink or anything to get money, more street encounters by council members or your name being demanded at a public meeting protesting govt action?

I haven’t read the whole thread, but no.

In my position, if I have reason to believe that your property is infested, or you are transporting materials I have reason to believe may be infested with a number of pest species, I have the powers to ask for your details and identification. I can also without a warrant, enter a property at any time to inspect, take photographs, seize items and instruct the police to help me carry out these operations if you are proving obstreperous.

Various government employees have these sorts of powers under a range of acts. It all depends on circumstances though and they are usually limited to a very narrow field of operations. So in the case of your public meeting or protest, unless you are acting illegally, no one has the power to demand you name or ID.

Skunkworks said:

Would it be accurate to say that in oz the only govt employees who can demand your name and a form of ID are the police if you are standing next to a wrecked car?

I am not talking about fronting up to centrelink or anything to get money, more street encounters by council members or your name being demanded at a public meeting protesting govt action?

I dare say that regardless of the official you have the right to remain silent – you don’t have to tell any official of your details (until later with your legal rep)

they can demand – they can arrest you and still demand

Skunkworks said:

Would it be accurate to say that in oz the only govt employees who can demand your name and a form of ID are the police if you are standing next to a wrecked car?

I am not talking about fronting up to centrelink or anything to get money, more street encounters by council members or your name being demanded at a public meeting protesting govt action?

I dare say that regardless of the official you have the right to remain silent – you don’t have to tell any official of your details (until later with your legal rep)

they can demand – they can arrest you and still demand

really wookie, your stuff isn’t worth posting twice.

Boris said:

really wookie, your stuff isn’t worth posting twice.

you haven’t done so well against me recently

hahahahahahahahahaha. you are your own worse enemy.

Boris said:

hahahahahahahahahaha. you are your own worse enemy.

i’ll take my chances

you don’t have a real lot of credibility wookie. best not to delude yourself.

divil cisobediance

In the right era here, Hendrix.

Boris said:

you don’t have a real lot of credibility wookie. best not to delude yourself.

I’ve never really understood your anger directed towards me Boris – either way I don’t buy into it

I’m researching more murder cases!

but you do buy into it by responding. if you didn’t post crap all the time i wouldn’t have to pull you up.

:-)

Boris said:

but you do buy into it by responding. if you didn’t post crap all the time i wouldn’t have to pull you up.

:-)

Do you consider yourself a friendly person Boris?

CrazyNeutrino said:

Boris said:

but you do buy into it by responding. if you didn’t post crap all the time i wouldn’t have to pull you up.

:-)

Do you consider yourself a friendly person Boris?

He’s very friendly.. Like me, he has a low tolerance for bullshit

yep. though to be honest my friends are sensible. never got on with deliberate idiots.

Boris said:

but you do buy into it by responding. if you didn’t post crap all the time i wouldn’t have to pull you up.

:-)

boris

you might have noticed that I do respond and I also don’t buy into it

i’m very happy to pick over the brains over various personalities regardless of their attitudes towards me, generally I don’t take it personally (but I am human after all). I use these experiences to learn from and hone my understanding about how people work.

if I had to work with you it would be annoying and I always find myself thrown together with unreasonable people because no one else will work with them. in such instances I give them enough rope to hang themselves.

you may have noticed that i respond the same to anyone who spouts crap, you just happen to be the most prolific. also you are making lots of assumptions about me. and once again you show your ignorance.

Boris said:

really wookie, your stuff isn’t worth posting twice.

really wookie, your stuff isn’t worth posting once.

fixed

and people reckon I’M not a nice guy!

;-)

Boris said:

you may have noticed that i respond the same to anyone who spouts crap, you just happen to be the most prolific. also you are making lots of assumptions about me. and once again you show your ignorance.

often I’ve found that clever people, knowledgeable on a few topics are completely blind in other respects

I’ve had a debate with a maths lecturer about some figures he had been working on and was also telling me about how he had been given reassurance about something by one particular person.

I then pointed out that the data he was working on changed rapidly for no apparent reason, the same data might lose anywhere between 50 – 170 million in 6 months for no reason he could provide (silence). the person that had reassured him was also someone proven to say one thing and do another in the blink of an eye. I’ve let him brew on that.

people don’t like to be wrong , especially if its a matter of professional pride

you’re main problem wookie is that you always have a story where you show how much smarter you are then other people. you know better than all these poor other fools. it get boring.

Boris said:

you’re main problem wookie is that you always have a story where you show how much smarter you are then other people. you know better than all these poor other fools. it get boring.

well i’m sorry if it comes over that way