https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/domestic-violence-victim-wins-case-against-queensland-police/?fbclid=IwAR1SOrAlRWheCSIgK1vsOj67cUVzUgA8ATjEAsjQb0jYIbu0NXv6mPbLzoY

Domestic Violence Victim Wins Case Against Queensland Police

 BY SONIA HICKEY & UGUR NEDIM
police officers uniform

A domestic violence victim who went into hiding with her children after a Queensland Police Officer unlawfully accessed the Police Service’s QPrime database to get her address, and then gave it to his friend, the woman’s abusive-partner, has won her case in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT).

It has been a ‘gruelling’ time for the woman, known as ‘Julie’ (not her real name), as endured years of fear before fighting for compensation from the Queensland Police Service (QPS).

The QCAT heard uncontested evidence that Officer Neil Punchard, a Senior Constable with the QPS at the time, illegally accessed the database on several occasions, leaked the woman’s address to his friend and then joked about it, saying via text message, “Just tell her you know where she lives and leave it at that. Lol. She will flip.”

It found the QPS legally responsible for the officer’s conduct.

QPS breached privacy principles

In her ruling, the QCAT’s Susan Gallagher found that the QPS was liable for breaching two of the State’s information privacy principles.

“The evidence before me is the QPS had no systemic auditing procedures of access to the QPRIME system – even for at risk groups such as domestic violence victims.

“It simply relied on a complaint or an incident to highlight a breach. The system of auditing after the fact allows for circumstances where catastrophic events involving (Julie) and the safety of her family could have occurred.”

Long battle for compensation

Julie launched her breach of privacy case last year in a bid to win compensation for the cost of relocating her family. While QPS did not dispute that the leak occurred, it argued that it was not responsible for the actions of a rogue officer, regardless of his conduct.

However, the QCAT found the Service was indeed responsible due to its failure to properly control access to the database and the use of information in it.

“In my view, said Ms Gallager, “… the QPS allowed the use of this information for a purpose other than the purpose for which it was obtained.”

Officer faces nine criminal charges

Neil Punchard has been charged with nine computer hacking offences, which are currently before the courts.

He refused to answer questions when he gave evidence at the QCAT, citing his privilege against self-incrimination.

However, a range of additional information came to light during the QCAT hearings, including evidence that a car belonging to Julie’s ex-partner had been transferred into Punchard’s name, which has raised suspicions about corruption.

He is now also under investigation by the Crime and Corruption Commission over those events.

Battle not over for victim

But while the tribunal has ruled in Julie’s favour, her battle is not over.

The amount of compensation is yet to be determined, and the tribunal is seeking submissions to help it make a decision on the amount to be awarded to Julie. The maximum award is $100,000.

Julie’s concern is that the QPS will appeal the decision. And while she has represented herself throughout the QCAT hearings, the QPS had the benefit of a legal team including a barrister.

The legal costs and any award will, as usual, be paid by the taxpayer.

http://corpau.blogspot.com/2019/03/cops-and-robbers-system-designed-to.html

Thursday, March 14, 2019


When the term 'cops and robbers' is used one would have the impression popularised by the US movie industry of the 'good guys' (apparently law enforcement)  versus the 'bad guys' , i.e. civilians gone bad, which is fine and dandy for the northern hemisphere.

You see in the southern hemisphere everything is downside up, and magnified when you're living in a real life colony, i.e. Australia.

The cops, i.e. humans part of the establishment and the robbers, in this case the hyenas in financial institutions are both the bad guys.

 

In a nutshell, the establishment protecting the people in businesses committing criminal offences.

Let's just put aside the farce the royal commission into banking was where at the end of the day, the customer / shareholder will be screwed over (financially) for any so called payments the banks may have to make.

What's worse (for the serf population) is that as a result of the commission there was a 'recommendation' that only two banks CBA and NAB face criminal charges with regards to over 13000 criminal breaches (only) in superannuation law, rather than actual charges being laid immediately as the police do against the serf population, when they have allegedly committed a criminal offence.

So let's looks at a couple of stories from today's mainstream media, where the first story focuses on the mentally retarded law of slowing down a driver's speed to 40km/h, pretty much immediately, even from a 110km/h stretch of highway.

Social media was alight with this story where a near miss occurred when a police officer was apparently nearly struck by a truck driver.


As a result of this there is a call (by police) to change the new road rule.

The intention (an important factor at law) of the new rule is to protect the lives of police officers and not the (serf) motorists.

In fact is seems that the law makers could not give a stuff about the safety of the general population, as this is reflected in their actions.

 

Please note that in Australia road offences are classified s criminal, where you are guilty until proven otherwise, which are called strict liability.

 

Hardly the fairy tail slogan of "innocent until proven guilty" touted somewhere else other than in Australia.

 

Australia's financial industry is one big criminal basket case which the so called 'authorities' allow to function and keep ripping off the good people, you know the 'mums and dads' investors.

Whereas conversely if a serf is accused (as opposed to being found guilty in a court) of withholding tax from the ATO, then the bank account is emptied, i.e. just another 'hint' that you live in a penal colony.

One of Australia's largest brokers, Halifax Investment Management, has screwed their clients out of almost $20m.

 

 

Will the people responsible see actual gaol time?

Will the screwed over investors recover 'their' cash?

The answers to those two questions are; most likely not.


Please note that one you give your cash to someone else, it's no longer in your possession, therefore no longer yours.

Posted by AuCorp at 8:15 AM 

Labels: ABC - Australia Backwards CountryAMI - Anglo Masonic InfluenceCF - Corporate FraudLaws for CriminalsMoney for MatesNanny State

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/police-are-slammed-for-performing-strip-searches-on-commuters-in-sydneys-busy-central-station-during-peak-hour-as-they-hunt-for-drugs/ar-BBUHQ6T?fbclid=IwAR0fOmM6vQgWPK_adVg2FyBqKGFQQCkNBctmu4KbaoK3CWUtzMiixAjJppE  

 

Brittany Chain For Daily Mail Australia

 

An active police operation was underway at Sydney's Central station during the peak hour rush - with commuters being subjected to strip searches behind screens on the platform as they search for illegal drugs.

Police were also seen performing strip searches behind temporary screens that have been set up

At least 15 police and their sniffer dogs were seen roaming the busy station on Wednesday, pulling up terrified commuters suspected of being in possession of drugs. 

Police were seen performing strip searches behind two privacy screens that were set up near the main entrance to Sydney's biggest station.

The moderator of Greens administered social media page Sniff Off  - informing the public of of police drug dog operations - told Daily Mail Australia there were at least 15 officers and their dogs roaming during rush hour.  

New South Wales Police told Daily Mail Australia the cubicles weren't strip searching tents.

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS 

Strip searches are constrained under the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002.

The act says strip searches occur where it is deemed 'necessary and urgent'.

Police don't need a warrant to do sniffer dog operations in parts of major cities or on the public transport network, such as Central Station.

Once the operation is set up, police 'use their own peculiar indicators to work out who they will search,' Greens MP David Shoebridge said.

Police need additional 'reasonable doubt' to search members of the public.

'The NSW Police Force regularly patrol our train station and it is common practice to erect privacy screens for the purpose of a search,' a spokesperson said.

'These operations are conducted on a regular basis and often utilise privacy screens,' another statement said.

An active police operation is currently underway at Central station, in Sydney's CBD

NSW Police couldn't confirm whether or not anyone had been searched at Central Station as it was dependent on whether the sniffer dogs had found anything suspicious. 

Police didn't elaborate on the outcome of the operation but said the operation is run regularly throughout the city.

Commuters took to social media to slam the police action - questioning why they should be subjected to invasive searches on the way home from work. 

'Strip search tents' at the railway station. Where am I living?,' one person wrote.

'Strip search tents, is this actually for real? People can't even go to work without the possibility that they may have to strip naked, squat and cough.'

'And at least two-thirds of those searched will be innocent,' another said. 

Greens NSW MP David Shoebridge called the operation 'sickening'. 

 

'Imagine being on your way home from work and being stop by police with their drug dogs and strip searched in a tent on a station platform,' Mr Shoebridge wrote.

'This isn't some dystopian future, this is happening right now in Sydney. This is sickening.' 

http://corpau.blogspot.com/2019/02/why-you-should-never-trust-police.html

Wednesday, February 27, 2019

 

Attention is drawn to the recent events that have made their way into the public domain, namely from Victoria and Queensland.

'Trust us' they said to Nicola Gobbo or the now publicly famous Lawyer X or Informer 3838, with regards to her confidentiality, and see how that has turned out for her.

In Queensland, (goodgreat, EXEMPLARY) cop Sgt. Rick Flori reported criminal activity within the 'force' and his career and most importantly his ability to earn an income in his profession, to support his family, has been destroyed.

His higher ups went 'full bore' on him to teach not only him a lesson he'll never forget but also as an example to others what will happen to them if they squeal like pigs against the brotherhood.

Other cops have also exposed the corruption within, some using their name, while others not.

See the following document of what's happening in the Queensland Police Service:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/17iLmIhKecy0nXuD4_Fv0_1HAVqIpZU3r/view