• 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.

Gable Tostee

cullennz said:
You might want to read the actual law I posted

The grounds for retrial must be pretty much extreme injustice.

And the only ones who can do that with any grunt are the pm and government

The rest are Facebook petitions
Click to expand...

I didn't see where it said anything about the Prime Minister. What leads you to that conclusion? Can you name an occasion when either the NZ or AU PM made a ruling on a court decision?
 
Shiner said:
I didn't see where it said anything about the Prime Minister. What leads you to that conclusion? Can you name an occasion when either the NZ or AU PM made a ruling on a court decision?
Click to expand...
Nope.

Which is why the the prick will get off
 
Last edited:
cullennz said:
You might want to read the actual law I posted

The grounds for retrial must be pretty much extreme injustice.

And the only ones who can do that with any grunt are the pm and government

The rest are Facebook petitions
Click to expand...

Stop. Just stop. The Prime Minister fans no involvement in Queensland law. Unlike NZ, Australia has states. When in a hole, stop digging.
 
lionking said:
What? Are you telling me acquittals can't be appealed in Australia????
Click to expand...

No, they can't. Certainly not in Queensland.

How does the Crown appeal?

The Queensland Attorney-General may appeal against sentence only. The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions can also appeal in Commonwealth criminal matters. The Crown cannot appeal a not guilty verdict.http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/courts/court-of-appeal/common-questions
Click to expand...

What happens in the Court of Appeal in criminal cases?

In criminal cases, there can’t be an appeal unless the defendant was found guilty. If the jury finds the defendant not guilty, the verdict is final.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
cullennz said:
Nope.

Which is why the prick is screwed
Click to expand...

I can't ask if you are trolling as it would be against the MA. But can I ask if you are serious when evidence has demonstrated that what you have posted is wrong? Come on, do a Fonzie.
 
cullennz said:
Good point tbf.

It will be interesting to read the coroners report.

But I'm imagining they did a preemptive examination
Click to expand...

It's a coroner's investigation, not an autopsy. That was done in 2014.

Because it was a contentious case, and went against apparent public opinion, and I suppose because of the failings of the prosecution, it has been referred to the coroner for further inquiry. To give the coroner a chance to recommend any changes in legislation that may be apropriate. The coroner may also recommend (just guessing here) changes to the safety railings on a certain apartment buulding ...... or implementing the clauses that allow a second trial .....

*lots of supposition in there by me.
 
lionking said:
I can't ask if you are trolling as it would be against the MA. But can I ask if you are serious when evidence has demonstrated that what you have posted is wrong? Come on, do a Fonzie.
Click to expand...
Nothing so impressive.

It's 12.30am and just made a mistake
 
Shiner said:
It's a coroner's investigation, not an autopsy. That was done in 2014.

Because it was a contentious case, and went against apparent public opinion, and I suppose because of the failings of the prosecution, it has been referred to the coroner for further inquiry. To give the coroner a chance to recommend any changes in legislation that may be apropriate. The coroner may also recommend (just guessing here) changes to the safety railings on a certain apartment buulding ...... or implementing the clauses that allow a second trial .....

*lots of supposition in there by me.
Click to expand...
If it is anything like here the coroners recommendations will be in the paper for a day. The government will go "We may need to look at that" and an MP will say something stupid which takes over the news.
 
cullennz said:
If it is anything like here the coroners recommendations will be in the paper for a day. The government will go "We may need to look at that" and an MP will say something stupid which takes over the news.
Click to expand...

I just gave you a link that details the QLD government'sgovernment's implementation of coroner's recommendations.
 
Last edited:
lionking said:
Yes they can. See earlier links.
Click to expand...

That's an interim report by the Law Reform Commission describing the principles of double jeopardy and exactly the reason *why* appeals aren't permitted, except in the case of fresh and compelling evidence (passed by the amendment bill in Qld in 2007)

Really, the highlighted quote from the Queensland Courts is as plain as day.

Come on, let's see you take your own advice and do a Fonzie.
 
Shiner said:
I just gave you a link that details the QLD government'sgovernment's implementation of coroner's recommendations.
Click to expand...
She is hardly going to cause a retrial

"We think it is important to let you know we have considered each of the recommendations and comments Queensland coroners direct to us at inquests. We do this by producing an annual report. The report provides a response to each of the recommendations or comments directed to us and tells you if (and how) we plan to implement the coroners’ recommendations."
 
lionking said:
To repeat:
Click to expand...

I like how you disingenuously omitted the very next sentence:

Section 73 of the Constitution provides the High Court with extensive jurisdiction, including, the High Court has held, jurisdiction to hear appeals from an acquittal made by a judge or jury at first instance.[162] However, while it is within the Court’s power to hear an appeal from an acquittal, the Court will generally not grant special leave, unless issues of general importance arise.
Click to expand...
 
Hard Cheese said:
That's an interim report by the Law Reform Commission describing the principles of double jeopardy and exactly the reason *why* appeals aren't permitted, except in the case of fresh and compelling evidence (passed by the amendment bill in Qld in 2007)

Really, the highlighted quote from the Queensland Courts is as plain as day.

Come on, let's see you take your own advice and do a Fonzie.
Click to expand...

First. What is doing a Fonzie? I thought that was "eyyyy"

Secondly, did you read this part?

"The Law Commission concluded that interference with the rule may be justified where the acquittal is ‘manifestly illegitimate’ and ‘sufficiently damages the reputation of the criminal justice system"
 
Shiner said:
First. What is doing a Fonzie? I thought that was "eyyyy"

Secondly, did you read this part?

"The Law Commission concluded that interference with the rule may be justified where the acquittal is ‘manifestly illegitimate’ and ‘sufficiently damages the reputation of the criminal justice system"
Click to expand...
I think he means "jumping the shark"

It's on wiki

Have no idea how it relates
 
lionking said:
To repeat:
Click to expand...

Shiner said:
I'm interested in your opinion on my interpretation of the link that cullennz posted.

Do you see it differently?
Click to expand...

It simple reinforces the principles of double jeopardy and describes the amendments passed into state law allowing exceptions where fresh evidence is discovered. 10.3.7 is simply a recommendation to tighten the effects of those amendments, remember the document is a Law Reform Commission report
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom