Jeremy Gans

Privately Paid Public Policing: Law and Practice

The public polices performance of policing services paid for by private individuals has not been the subject of significant empirical research. Case‐law and legislation in the United Kingdom permit the police to charge for services that fall outside the polices duty to protect the public; however, the scope of the polices duty is, in practice, determined by the police themselves, and need not extend to all services that are deemed necessary for public safety. Recent cases on the polices duty suggest that such ‘special police services’, often of the preventative kind that is commonly associated with private policing, are those that, if provided free of charge, would place a predictable yet unusual strain on local police budgets. A combination of coercions and incentives explain why some members of the public to pay for public, as opposed to private, policing services in these circumstances. While the spectre of a gradual privatisation of the public police through this process is a plausible one, it is equally arguable that privately paid public policing is a means of preserving the present level and mode of public policing.

Australian principles of evidence

Part I: Means of Proof - The Burden and Standard of Proof Facts Which Can Be Proved Without Evidence Witnesses Documents Real Evidence Privilege and Immunity. Part II: Uses of Evidence - Relevance Hearsay Evidence Hearsay Exceptions Opinions and Decisions Expert Evidence Tendency and Coincidence Credibility Evidence. Part III: Limits on Prosecution Evidence - Unreliable Evidence Other Misconduct by the Defendant Misconduct by Investigators Conduct Post-Offence Admissions to Investigators.

Rape Trial Studies: Handle with Care

The notion that the issue of the accuseds honest belief about consent has little effect on the outcome of most rape trials has gained considerable acceptance amongst some rape law reformers. The acceptance of this claim can be partly traced to the Law Reform Commission of Victorias study of rape prosecutions in 1991. However, properly considered, the study provides no support for this assertion. This is because of two limitations to the study: the merely cursory analysis of pre-trial decision making and the lack of plausible assessment of the jurys approach to its fact-finding task. Properly understood, the studys findings suggest a reform of the trial judges direction to the jury, a possibility ignored in the Law Reform Commissions report. This paper argues that law reformers should pay more attention to such limitations when considering empirical research into rape prosecutions.

Law reform and source material

‘You pricks goin’ to listen the Threat tonight. Cause you feel when I pump this P-89 into your head like lice. Slugs will rush ya’ life twice, like handlin’ dice. Eighty slugs pass ya’ D, like Montana and Rice, that’s five hammers, 16 shots to damage your life, leave you faggots all bloody like Passion of Christ. When I blast the pipe, I crack the night. Run in your cribs like Feds. So, get them answers right. Where’s the cash and stash of white? I got ya’ wife tied to the bed and at her throat is a knife. I came for the change, coke, water and ice. Don’t make me hit you with stun gun or go in the other room, lace ya’ Mom with these dumb-dumbs. Slump your whole family and make you watch they fuckin’ brains run like Mo’ Green gettin’ chased with guns. I’m tired of crumbs. I’m tryin’ to eat steak and eggs with a side of yum on the block with a bottle. Gettin’ high with a bum, my young dudes with pies in the slums.’