The outcome of a recent court case will have the public seething ! A magistrate dismissed a charge against a woman who punched a police officer in the face and threatened to " slit the throat " of another - on a technicality ! This woman's lawyer will now make an application for costs against the police and this is expected to be in excess of $15,000.
During a counter terrorism raid the police encountered a 24 year old burqua clad woman and a female police officer reached for the phone she was shielding under this garment. This woman is alleged to have said: " Don't touch my phone, you're a Christian, you will burn in hell. You will be the first one in uniform to have your throat slit. " She then punched another male police officer in the face when he tried to restrain her. She was arrested and charged with " religious vilification ", combined with a threat of violence, making it a serious offence.
When the matter went to court the magistrate found that the police " failed to make their case " because they " were not acting in the execution of their duty " - because this woman's name was not on the search warrant and therefore the police had no right to frisk her.
It seems that when the police raid a drug lab or have reason to think that an address is being used to plan a terrorist action they are legally prevented from searching those found on the property - unless they have somehow managed to include those names on the search warrant. They can legally search the property - but not the people, and if those people are carrying concealed arms or have explosives this presents an incredible danger.
The whole purpose of a police raid is to gather evidence - and to stop the further progression of a crime that may kill or injure innocent people. It seems a fine legal point to seize any phones found on the premises, but to exclude phones in the possession of a suspect simply because that person is not named on the search warrant. If that is the way this law is framed, then it urgently needs to be changed. The police need the right to search the premises - and any person found on those premises at the time of the raid.
It seems that the law contains many intricacies that can be exploited by clever lawyers. One man has had his speeding fine set aside because his legal counsel has claimed that the police LIDAR gun used to record his speed lacked a certificate of accuracy - and that it also required authentication that it was capable of measuring speed. It is possible that many others fined for speeding may launch an appeal on similar grounds.
Both the public and the civil liberties people usually applaud these fine points of the law to keep the police on their toes in adhering strictly to the letter of the law, but when it comes to both the drug trade and terrorism we are dealing with threats that seriously endanger lives. Arcane laws which dot the i's and cross the t's have no place hindering the life and death actions going on behind the scenes to search out and destroy terrorism cells who plan war on our country.
This act of insanity in our courts delivers a message. If we have a bad law on our books - then change that law !
No comments:
Post a Comment