
Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Today the wigs look at an important threshold question in the criminal justice system; what is the test or legal requirement for bringing a prosecution.
The issue has been highlighted recently in the ongoing ACT inquiry into the criminal justice system.
P.S
Listeners can access Shane Drumgolds witness statement and evidence in full on the ACT inquiry website which is online.
In short, Mr. Drumgold says that section 26 of the Magistrates Court Act creates a test of mere suspicion for police to file a criminal charge and that subsequent to that - the DPP applies a reasonable prospect of conviction test.
He makes no mention in his statement of the reasonable and probable cause test.
The wigs note that an absence of reasonable and probable cause is part of the test for malicious prosecution in the ACT.
See ANDREI VATARESCU v THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA and THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY [2012] ACTSC 96 (15 June 2012).
The Wigs view is that section 26 is to be read subject to the common law and that when invoked by a police officer — reasonable and probable cause is required to charge.
Because charging begins the prosecution process.
In any event, it seems baffling that the DPP himself is unaware of the threshold at which a prosecution in the ACT becomes malicious.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
5
11 ratings
Today the wigs look at an important threshold question in the criminal justice system; what is the test or legal requirement for bringing a prosecution.
The issue has been highlighted recently in the ongoing ACT inquiry into the criminal justice system.
P.S
Listeners can access Shane Drumgolds witness statement and evidence in full on the ACT inquiry website which is online.
In short, Mr. Drumgold says that section 26 of the Magistrates Court Act creates a test of mere suspicion for police to file a criminal charge and that subsequent to that - the DPP applies a reasonable prospect of conviction test.
He makes no mention in his statement of the reasonable and probable cause test.
The wigs note that an absence of reasonable and probable cause is part of the test for malicious prosecution in the ACT.
See ANDREI VATARESCU v THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA and THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY [2012] ACTSC 96 (15 June 2012).
The Wigs view is that section 26 is to be read subject to the common law and that when invoked by a police officer — reasonable and probable cause is required to charge.
Because charging begins the prosecution process.
In any event, it seems baffling that the DPP himself is unaware of the threshold at which a prosecution in the ACT becomes malicious.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
72 Listeners
19 Listeners
28 Listeners
270 Listeners
9 Listeners
93 Listeners
64 Listeners
38 Listeners
37 Listeners
80 Listeners
29 Listeners
144 Listeners
24 Listeners
4 Listeners
172 Listeners
1 Listeners
8 Listeners
558 Listeners
110 Listeners
9 Listeners
11 Listeners
4 Listeners
37 Listeners
2 Listeners
47 Listeners
6 Listeners
13 Listeners
6 Listeners
4 Listeners
12 Listeners
2 Listeners
123 Listeners
0 Listeners
0 Listeners
7 Listeners