Australian Politics Forum | |
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl
Member Run Boards >> Relationships >> Legal Relations http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1399786354 Message started by Sir Bobby on May 11th, 2014 at 3:32pm |
Title: Legal Relations Post by Sir Bobby on May 11th, 2014 at 3:32pm
I have stared this new thread so that people can ask a lawyer
about any legal questions. There are many lawyers & ex lawyers who post on Ozpolitic & perhaps they can give out some free legal advice? Of course - no one should rely on legal advice from a forum - if in doubt they should pay for legal advice from a registered solicitor. |
Title: Re: Legal Relations Post by Sir Bobby on May 11th, 2014 at 3:39pm
First legal problem:
If someone owns a CCTV system where the camera is pointed on their property but also has a view of a public road - do they have to allow the police to the view the video & take copies of it? ( assuming the police want to view the information because they need possible information about a crime. ) Is there a charge called " withholding information from the police" which could be used against them? Could they charge the police a fee for the information? After all - such systems could cost many 1000s of dollars to buy & maintain & it should therefore be fair to charge money for the information. Also - as the video is yours - surely you own all the rights to it? |
Title: Re: Legal Relations Post by Aussie on May 11th, 2014 at 3:47pm Bobby. wrote on May 11th, 2014 at 3:39pm:
Ha. There is a charge of obstructing Police.......but I doubt that would work depending on circumstances. But.....you cannot escape a subpoena or search warrant, and if you get either, you are stuffed. And no....no payment for the images. All you'll get will be the usual pissy witness expenses. |
Title: Re: Legal Relations Post by Sir Bobby on May 11th, 2014 at 3:49pm Aussie wrote on May 11th, 2014 at 3:47pm:
Wow - thanks Aussie - so you don't own the rights to your own video recordings. Makes you wonder if you really own anything? cheers Bobby |
Title: Re: Legal Relations Post by Aussie on May 11th, 2014 at 3:57pm
Just to bring that to current relevance.
If the Cops chose to charge Packer or Gyngel over that blue they had, no amount of Newscorp watermark would protect Newscorp from a subpoena duces tecum. (Google it.) |
Title: Re: Legal Relations Post by Schu on May 11th, 2014 at 3:57pm Aussie wrote on May 11th, 2014 at 3:47pm:
Just thinking "out loud" here: I wonder if you could challenge based on Privacy? Would that work if the one camera dually showed your private property and the road (as opposed to one camera showing the road and one showing private property)? (Note that I didn't bother to look up Privacy legislation.) |
Title: Re: Legal Relations Post by Mx Horse on May 11th, 2014 at 3:57pm Bobby. wrote on May 11th, 2014 at 3:32pm:
Hmmn, an Andrei free zone: very clever ;) |
Title: Re: Legal Relations Post by Mx Horse on May 11th, 2014 at 3:59pm Aussie wrote on May 11th, 2014 at 3:57pm:
huh, i like this thread 8-) |
Title: Re: Legal Relations Post by Sir Bobby on May 11th, 2014 at 4:00pm
OK - next one -
What about attorney client privilege? ( Dealt with on another thread I believe ) Hypothetical - you are a lawyer with a client who has a case against the Government. The police turn up & want to see all your notes & files relating to the case before it goes to court so that they can more easily win the case? Can you claim "attorney client privilege" & refuse to hand over any documents or refuse to reveal the password of any encrypted files on your premises? |
Title: Re: Legal Relations Post by Aussie on May 11th, 2014 at 4:03pm Schu wrote on May 11th, 2014 at 3:57pm:
Neither have I.....but a subpoena will always win the day, even over privacy. |
Title: Re: Legal Relations Post by Schu on May 11th, 2014 at 4:12pm Aussie wrote on May 11th, 2014 at 4:03pm:
I wondered if it would provide grounds for objection to the subpoena (I am not sure of that; would probably depend on the particular circumstances) or if it would prevent the subpoena from being granted in the first place (again would probably depend on the particular circumstances). |
Title: Re: Legal Relations Post by Aussie on May 11th, 2014 at 4:19pm Bobby. wrote on May 11th, 2014 at 4:00pm:
I'm surprised that very question never became (publicly) relevant when the Federal Cops raided the Office of that Canberra Lawyer who was representing Timor in The Hague, concerning that spying allegation levelled against Keating's Curly, Alexander Downer. This was an issue dealt with by various State Law Societies some time ago. The last position I was aware of is this: If the Cops execute a search warrant on my professional premises (or even private for that matter) concerning documentary material I may have about a client's matter (search warrants have to be very specific - they cannot just be used as a fishing expedition......i.e. ~ take all pieces of paper found no matter who those papers are about ~ it would have to state documents relating to "Sir Bobby') then what is supposed to happen is that they are all boxed, sealed and removed to a secure place. Then, there is an application made to the Supreme Court to determine whether they must be returned unopened or accessed. I have a vague recollection of that process being relevant when Gillard was under investigation ~ the Cops were after the files held by Slater & Gordon. The general principle is that Courts will always enforce the concept of solicitor/client confidentiality. I can never be forced to reveal anything said to me by a client, and I would be struck off, if I did. The most recent example of that was Corby's Lawyer, Tamboe (sp.) |
Title: Re: Legal Relations Post by Sir Bobby on May 11th, 2014 at 4:26pm Aussie wrote on May 11th, 2014 at 4:19pm:
Yes the Federal Cops raided the Office of that Canberra Lawyer & further news just seemed to disappear even though there was a whole 4 Corners show on it. I wonder what happened? At least solicitor/client confidentiality has some force behind it but in that case above I doubt it was worried about too much. There is always "national security" that can override everything - yes? |
Title: Re: Legal Relations Post by Aussie on May 11th, 2014 at 4:33pm Quote:
Schu...the Cops would cosy up to their favourite JP and ask for the warrant on the basis that a search was needed to obtain evidence of the commission of an offence. Of course, they are meant to establish to that JP that there are reasonable grounds for suspicion that the subject premises held said evidence within said premises. That would be an end of it. He will issue the Warrant. That JP.......could be Joe Blow your next door neighbour is not going to concern himself with technical niceties about what might be in legislation about privacy...........which.....in the absence of seeing it, seems to be just speculative conjecture. If there is substance to that conjecture on your part..............when the matter is at Trial, Defence can and would argue the inadmissibility of evidence unlawfully obtained. |
Title: Re: Legal Relations Post by Aussie on May 11th, 2014 at 4:39pm Quote:
Not solicitor/client confidentiality. The only other relationship which has the same protection is priest/sinner. Many mistakenly believe there is medical practitioner/patient protection. Nah. Not even psychiatrist (et al) /client as was recently confirmed in the Queensland Supreme Court with that real estate bloke charged with murdering his spouse. |
Title: Re: Legal Relations Post by Sir Bobby on May 11th, 2014 at 4:40pm Aussie wrote on May 11th, 2014 at 3:47pm:
A further response - it seems a pity because people living next to busy road intersections would have an other wise good business model operating private video cameras & recording accidents & selling the information to police & insurance companies. Video of serious accidents would be worth a fortune in a court case if you could charge money for it. |
Title: Re: Legal Relations Post by Schu on May 11th, 2014 at 4:44pm Aussie wrote on May 11th, 2014 at 4:33pm:
Yeah, I get all that about the practicalities. I was just enjoying the opportunity to apply a bit of creative thinking to the issue. |
Title: Re: Legal Relations Post by Sir Bobby on May 11th, 2014 at 4:44pm Aussie wrote on May 11th, 2014 at 4:39pm:
But in that East Timor case the solicitor has been snookered on the grounds of national security. Isn't he afraid to come back to Australia? |
Title: Re: Legal Relations Post by Aussie on May 11th, 2014 at 4:49pm Schu wrote on May 11th, 2014 at 4:44pm:
Yeas... it is fun to do that, I agree. But, when you get down to the basic realities of real life Court Room argy bargy about the admissibility of evidence unlawfully obtained, those areshole Judges demand real substance. |
Australian Politics Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2! YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2025. All Rights Reserved. |