Hi there, Steel and others...

I believe all correspondents herein have legitimate views and opinion.

As a retired member of the policing profession, I must agree with some of your sentiments, apropos the apparent 'wasting of resources' et al.

As most of you would know, the burden of proof that's incontrovertibly placed on police and the DPP is essentially this. '... police must prove that the accused person, did in fact, commit the crime, and that proof must be - to a point beyond that of a reasonable doubt...'.

In civil matters, the burden of proof is much simpler. 'On the balance of probabilities'

It's not very hard for a competent defence counsel (during a hearing or trial), to distinguish a simple flaw or deficiency in the prosecution's arguement. In order to raise that 'reasonable doubt'. It really doesn't need very much at all !

That is why it is so very necessary for police and the DPP, to 'dot every y' and 'cross every T' in the careful and punctilious preparation of a 'Criminal Brief of Evidence'.

I'm sure you good folk would recognise, the exacting nature of such an onerous task, would necessarily require the expenditure of a lot of dollars and many many hours of qualified labour (wasted resources, Steel?).

A reference was made (in this topic) with respect to a very well known recent event, involving a Gold Coast Medical Practitioner.

The only comment I'd make is... a lot is known (facts) about this individual, and some of those facts are; Emmmmmmmmmmmm (not quite sure how to word this precisely ?)..........

Essentially, police often KNOW (irrefutably) that an individual has done something wrong. However, KNOWING and PROVING it (in a court of law) can be two entirely different things, for many multifarious and varied reasons.

There is a very basic and important Tenet in the Criminal Law. Simply put, '...he who accuses, MUST prove...'! As I stated earlier, the successful interdiction of the world's ne'er do wells, really does cost the BIG bucks ! Is it a waste of Money...? I dunno?

Cheers !

I have a great deal of respect of the smart police forces,German,French and British police and to a certain extent the Victoria and Federal Police..
In Australia there are too many State police forces who think that they are still living in a 19th century convict colony.
They are trained to be Prison officers, and not Police,in a civilised society.
Try to complain to a police chief about there procedures.You soon come to a sticky end.....
The State Police do not tolerate sensible debate by either politicians or the general public.
The state police have no adit or control from above.
They act above the laws of the land and in their own small mind perform as the famous joke.
" why do police travel in three,s,One likes to think he is clever,One likes to be with somebody cleverer than themselves ,The third likes to hang around with intellectuals."
Since affirmative action in the force,Police used to walk or travel on their own,Now the big older police man had a lady servant to talk with.This is why it now costs twice as much to police the same area as in the 1960's.

What bothers me about that o sung wu is this: If police did not have enough evidence to convict Haneef, they should never have dreamed of detaining him in the first place, or have tried.

I find it hard to believe some emails to some relatives are no more than just that. Emails to relatives. Even if they were more than that, there is nothing wrong with talking to a family member despite their connections. Did you expect Corby's family to be detained because of their links and association to the convicted Corby.

Nevertheless I present this new information that should shame those involved and those still wasting our taxpayers money on their pride. Not only that, they hurt an innocent man and don't have the presence to admit they are acting like fascists/stalinists and believing their own propaganda.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/04/13/1208024996168.html

"POWERFUL evidence of Mohamed Haneef's innocence has emerged at the Old Bailey in London — evidence the Australian Federal Police and the Commonwealth Director of Prosecutions appear to have ignored in holding the Gold Coast doctor for questioning last year and then charging him with a terrorism offence."

Hi Steel and others...

Look I agree with you. If there was insufficient evidence or 'product' to hold and subsequently charge him, he should never have been detained.

I've retired from the job now, but I have heard that there were far too many agencies involved in this investigation.

Too many bodies with too many agendas. None really prepared to share their 'product', lest they miss out on getting the credit.

This petty overprotectiveness of information and intelligence that overtly pervades the culture of these law-enforcement bodies, further obscures and occludes the salient facts imperative for a successful prosecution.

God help us, if we ever do have a collaborative international terrorist incident. Individually, they have the talent to interdict such an event. But collectively, they'd all be trying to gain the credit and advantage........as I said, God help us?