I may not have the specific details exact but I recall a complaint into an affidavit sworn by OIC of Operation Tam in support of an Interception Warrant (phone tap, perhaps in fact a search warrant) being challenged on the basis that it wasn't factually correct.
An affidavit is in effect evidence which is sworn to be true, in much the same way that a witness gives evidence at trial on oath. If that evidence is false, known to be false by the witness he or she is likely to have perjured themselves or attempted to defeat the course of Justice. Justice stands on a foundation of truth. What you say or swear is what you own, and if you are not being truthful you could face up to 14 years imprisonment. Perjury or disrupting the course of Justice is about as serious as it gets.
As it prevails, after an extremely long delay, and an 'independent' inquiry if was held that Ex Deputy Commissioner Rob Pope's sworn affidavit wasn't true in all it's details. To divert for a second, anybody actioning a loan, signing a guarantee is bound by that, provided they were of sound mind, or not under duress, - the law is absolute on that. But apparently not senior police swearing affidavits that are not a fair appraisal of the facts, because the inquiry found that it was a 'acceptable' procedure that a busy police officer might simply swear an affidavit without satisfying himself that it was true, even having sworn that it was true - his word was not his bond.
Confused? Oh dear. Fast forward to recent events for the Directors of a failed finance company who were charged with issuing false prospectus details in order to raise funds. Their defence was that they, like Pope, were very busy (everybody is busy these days, busy busy busy,) and additionally that the details were provided by accountants and auditing staff 'responsible' for getting the figures right. On the Pope scale, all well and good. Sorry no. The Director's trial was by Judge alone and the Judge found them guilty saying that should have satisfied themselves as to the accuracy of the reports before signing them - sounds fair enough to me, the buck has got to stop somewhere.
One stark difference between Pope and the Company Directors was that at risk in Pope's decision and judgement was ultimately the freedom of Scott Watson. Not specifically on just Pope's decision to sign something that wasn't correct but his overall stewardship of the investigation and the public confidence that he was doing his job correctly and directing his staff in the same fashion. It's what the Public are entitled to, what the Justice system relies upon. Whereas, the Directors of the Finance company were entrusted to handle properly and fairly the funds of investors, if they mishandled that duty investors would lose money. If Pope mishandled his duties then there was the probability that the killers of the young couple might escape detection, or indeed an innocent man might go to prison. That is why I chose the title for this 'money or your life?' something we all know the answer to.
Time to enter in the relevant words, those that always fall when something has failed in the Justice system - 'Miscarriage of Justice' and the common denominator that perpetually links all break downs of Justice, the failure of Justice, is that when such things happen, whether they are white washed in any fashion (once discovered) they always fall in favour of the prosecuting authorities and never the falsely imprisoned. You can bet on it. Pope deliberately coloured the case against Scott in a prejudicial way according to many commentators, and even his apparent mistakes of swearing that something that was 'true' wasn't true, but that it was somebody else's fault still fell to Scott's detriment, everything fell to Scott's detriment and that is the way of Miscarriages of Justice and false imprisonment. That is their design, and once discovered those events are described as unfortunate, random, delayed by inquiries, given other names, white-washed but they always fall against their victim. Scott Watson is a victim of a Miscarriage of Justice.
No comments:
Post a Comment