• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Australian Policeman paralysed - culprit fined

lionking

In the Peanut Gallery
lionking
Joined
Jan 23, 2007
Messages
57,992
Location
Melbourne
Words fail me here. A West Australian policeman trying to subdue a few violent idiots was cowardly tackled from behind and seriously injured.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=747_1236920255

The District Court jury found Robert McLeod, 56, and his sons Barry McLeod, 29 and Scott McLeod, 35, not guilty of assaulting Constable Butcher.

Barry McLeod was alleged to have endangered the life of Constable Butcher by felling him with what prosecutors described as a ``flying headbutt''.

In the only conviction against the men, Scott McLeod was fined $4000 for making threats to kill a civilian who recorded the incident on his mobile phone.
Click to expand...

I often cite Australia as a place where the rule of law properly enforced. I will re-examine my position.
 
Jury nullification, on the grounds that the police started it by using too much force. The odds are that every so often you will get jury that comes to a stupid decision. There is a video tape of a part of the fight, and all I can say is that the cops seemed to be remarkably restrained, given that they were dealing with a family of what can only be described as violent, anti social, bullies.

I have been on jury duty twice, and I can't imagine either of those juries coming to the same decision.
 
I've been on a jury too. I can only hope that this sort of verdict would not happen in Victoria.
 
I really hope that the case in question is appealed.

Then again I'm from SA. This is a state where for some reason the courts have decided that it would be a good idea to let out on bail people who have breached their conditions of bail...
 
I am forced to assume bribery, threats or judicial malfeasance or some combination. Hopefully the police force will respond appropriately.
 
WildCat said:
Can an acquittal be appealed in Australia?
Click to expand...

Not to my knowledge. Double jeopardy etc.

But hopefully civil action will follow. I gather from reports that the jury accepted a self defence argument. Disgraceful.
 
I'd like to get the evidence of what happened through the entire incident before I get too outraged.
 
lionking said:
Not to my knowledge. Double jeopardy etc.

But hopefully civil action will follow.
Click to expand...

Police consider civil action on Matt Butcher verdict
March 13, 2009 08:00am

POLICE Commissioner Karl O'Callaghan has told his officers he is ``astounded'' at the acquittal of three men accused of assaulting policeman Matt Butcher.

He has acknowledged police will resign as a result but has asked his officers to stay focused as he promises to explore any avenue of appeal or civil action.

WA's top cop last night emailed the entire force calling on his officers to remain focused<snip/>

The Commissioner's comments came hours after a District Court jury found Robert McLeod, 56, and his two sons Barry McLeod, 29, and Scott James McLeod, 35, not guilty of eight charges laid after the fight at Joondalup’s Old Bailey Tavern in February last year.

<snip/>

I know this is difficult but I intend to fully explore with the DPP, the Attorney General and others whether there is any possibility of appeal or whether there are other mechanisms by which we may seek justice in this matter, including civil action.

<snip/>

Police are considering civil action against three men acquitted of an assault which left police officer Matt Butcher permanently paralysed down one side of his body.

Barry McLeod faced the most serious count, of doing an act with intent to cause harm, admitting to a ``flying head butt’’ in which he struck Constable Butcher, 33, to the head from behind after the policeman shot his father with a Taser gun.

Robert McLeod later collapsed from a heart attack – his third in three years.

Defence lawyers argued he and the other two members of his family acted in self defence when confronted by police, who they said acted with excessive force as they attempted to arrest them.

<snip/>

Source: www.news.com.au
Click to expand...
 
I find this entire thing quite disturbing. It sounds like the jury have treated it like any other assault.

But they shouldn't.

A Police Officer carries a Royal Warrant which gives them special powers, and you cannot simply interfere with those powers, even if they're being misused.

My understanding is that "self defense" cannot ever be used against a Police Officer, even if justified. That's why training Police properly is so important.

At the least this is interfering with an Officer of the Crown in their legal duty, which is a very, very serious offense.
 
gumboot said:
At the least this is interfering with an Officer of the Crown in their legal duty, which is a very, very serious offense.
Click to expand...

Apparently it's not... Perhaps we should get ol' what-his-name-who-hates-cops in here to comment.
 
gumboot said:
I find this entire thing quite disturbing. It sounds like the jury have treated it like any other assault.

But they shouldn't.

A Police Officer carries a Royal Warrant which gives them special powers, and you cannot simply interfere with those powers, even if they're being misused.

My understanding is that "self defense" cannot ever be used against a Police Officer, even if justified. That's why training Police properly is so important.

At the least this is interfering with an Officer of the Crown in their legal duty, which is a very, very serious offense.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is the same here, although there is a separate offence of Assaulting Police, which usually has more severe sentences.
 
Last edited:
I've watched all the available video and also a couple of journalists opinions and interviews of the policeman involved and witnesses.

My rational decision is that the Jury must have been sniffing paint thinner to come to thier verdict.......

un.farking.beeeeeelievable.
 
Having watched that video, I've got to say that I'm at a loss as to how the jury decided that they shouldn't convict that lot of anything.

Possibly paint thinner was responsible as The Fool suggested, but then again maybe it was petrol. Or glue.

EDIT: Having done some more reading, the headbutt/tackle was delivered to the police officer who was tasering the attacker's father, said father having a dicky heart.

I actually find that understandable. Given that the police officer was arguably killing the guy's father, who did have a heart attack as a result of the tasering, dropping the officer could thus be argued to fall under the heading of defending another's life.

Obviously it's Darwin-award level stupidity to start a fight with police when you have a dicky heart, and you could argue that this lot probably wouldn't be missed even if they all dropped dead, but neither of those considerations has much weight in a court of law. If the attacker had credible reason to believe that headbutting the officer was the only way to save his father's life then he's got a credible case.

They should still be convicted of all sorts of other things though, as far as I can see.
 
Last edited:
Yes it might be understandable assaulting someone who was attacking your father, bad heart or not. It doesn't make it less criminal. Still a bad decision by the jury.
 
lionking said:
Yes it might be understandable assaulting someone who was attacking your father, bad heart or not. It doesn't make it less criminal. Still a bad decision by the jury.
Click to expand...

Actually while I'm not a lawyer, I'm pretty sure defending another's life is a legitimate defence to an assault charge.
 
Depends. Police are allowed to use force, up to deadly force, if they fear for their life or safety. The behavior of the father, from the filmclip, seemed to justify the use of taser. I mean, the father was hardly a bystander. Anyone attacking a police officer exercising his duty or defending himself should not be able to make that claim.

Obviously the jury saw it differently, but this says more about Western Australia than anything else.
 
The thought of R's and empty spaces in the earth is going through my head on this one!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom