“The system is broken”, no it’s not, it’s functioning perfectly the way it was designed.
The legal system is stacked against you (the serf) even before you enter the premises of a court, let alone a court room.
The colony’s police forces are organisations that commit criminal activities every single day, but the general population is blissfully oblivious to this fact, and with the help of the media, their crimes are kept from the public eye.
If police are committing criminal offences, then it’s up to the people to catch them out, just like motorists are criminals and it’s up to the police to allege this before a court, but you (the motorist/serf) will never get a “fair hearing”, in this case being Victoria.
Keeping in mind that Victorian premier Dan Andrews' vehicle struck a cyclist where no criminal offence has been recorded by police.
Police acting under dictation?
According to the law motorists commit criminal offences and not civil ones.
In criminal law, the burden of proof is on the accuser, where first and foremost there is a presumption of innocence.
Not so ‘lucky’, when you’re a motorist, as you're guilty until proven otherwise under strict or absolute liability, at law which is unlawfully enacted.
Absolute liability is that you’re guilty and a penalty will be enforced,
Strict liability is that you’re guilty and you must prove otherwise.
Another unlawfully enacted piece is something called owner onus, where the scope of this is outside of this post.
Many aspects of law come under an action called a question of law, but that is generally kept from the 'client' by the legal profession if you're represented, i.e. a mute in the eyes of the court.
When you’re an ‘alleged’ criminal for example a murderer, paedophile or rapist, and you appear before a jury ("of your peers", that being other alleged criminals?) your criminal past is hidden in order for you to get a “fair hearing” with respect to that allegation.
Not so ‘lucky’ when you’re a criminal in a motor vehicle, or more specifically on Victorian roads.
In your preliminary brief, the court is presented with your entire driving history, but there is a problem there.
This is done illegally.
Section 91 of the Evidence Act 2008 states the following:
Exclusion of evidence of judgments and convictions
(1) Evidence of the decision, or of a finding of fact, in an Australian or overseas proceeding is not admissible to prove the existence of a fact that was in issue in that proceeding.
(2) Evidence that, under this Part, is not admissible to prove the existence of a fact may not be used to prove that fact even if it is relevant for another purpose.
Note
Section 178 (Convictions, acquittals and other judicial proceedings) provides for certificate evidence of decisions.
There is also another problem, the fact being that in order for your driving history to be entered into evidence, the Court needs your permission, as stated by the law, that being Part 4 of Section 90 of the Road Safety Act 1986.
(4) Any such document may not be tendered in evidence without the consent of the accused if the accused is present at the hearing of the information.
So the problem is that before you even get to court, the police send you the preliminary brief containing your driving history which will be presented before a magistrate, without prior consent where the presumption of guilt takes precedence where that information is used against you for sentencing purposes, which most people are not aware of and their legal counsels do not tell them.
To the contrary the ‘lucky’ ones are the alleged rapists, paedophiles or murderers, as that person’s criminal history is not disclosed for sentencing purposes.
BRILLIANT!
When you’re dealing with a police officer, that person’s criminal history may influence that person’s actions against you but there is (deliberately at law) zero transparency.
A person's criminal past is protected, an action against the interest of the public.
If a police officer is to be presented with this form he/she may ‘voluntarily’ give this information, or not!
See original source: https://www.police.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-07/Voluntary%20Disclosure%20Form_9.pdf
Which police officer will divulge to you, the serf, that he has a criminal past that may include domestic violence or tasering a 95 year old frail woman?
It should be mandatory for an officer's past to also be submitted into evidence, Corinna Horvath matter, anyone, but that's not how the law is set up in this (penal) colony.
Just like they put out the serf's information out by default.
The are many officers that are still employed even after committing criminal activity.
Victoria Police also commit illegal actions, and are not effected by them, even if the matter is brought before a court.
See article:
Police illegal speeding fines withdrawn before court action, a cause for concern!
It gets even worse, for the serfs.
At one point in time in Australia’s (legal) history a person had a right to a fair hearing, but this is no longer the case in Victoria.
The alleged right to a fair haring may still exist, but the reality is that in any jurisdiction be it a court or tribunal, in Victoria a person will not have one.
The administration of justice is handled by Court Services Victoria, where stakeholder’s are involved, that being but not limited to Goldman Sachs.
In 2021 the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria, in a public document stated the following with regards to what a prospective employee must adhere to:
• As a highly influential and respected professional on MCV’s Executive Leadership Group, provide expert, complex advice to the CEO, Executive Group, judiciary and key external stakeholders on the direction and performance of the MCV workforce.
• Lead the strategic direction of the People and Culture Division consistent with the organisational strategic objectives and develop and implement supporting business plans to deliver quality people outcomes.
• Represent the Courts best interests and change agenda, acting as a professional expert in committee meetings, working parties, program development project teams and performance monitoring and review processes.
• Develop, maintain, and enhance key relationships with internal and external stakeholders to influence decision making processes and outcomes critical to the success of MCV, including court staff and judiciary, Court Services Victoria, and other Victorian government departments.
See reference to the document in the article of the headline:
Should one be more interested in the topic of criminal traffic law, the following case law may help:
Barton v Walker [1979] 2 NSWLR 740; Bainton v Rajski (1992) 29 NSWLR 539
Australian National Industries Ltd v Spedley Securities Ltd (in liq) (1992) 26 NSWLR 411 at 436; and Wentworth v Graham [2003] NSWCA 240
Barton v Walker and Barakat v Goritsas [2012] NSWCA 8 at [10]
Crabbe v Queensland Police Service [2013] QDC 122 (13 May 2013) at [28]
As you should know Australia's police force started with criminals and not honourable people.