torrent and other P2P
in [Computers]
|
Prev: How do I turn my mouse off?
Next: Centrelink error...
From: Loreen on 15 Apr 2010 09:10 Sylvia Else wrote: > On 15/04/2010 8:48 PM, Loreen wrote: >> Sylvia Else wrote: >>> On 15/04/2010 3:39 PM, Epsilon wrote: >>>> Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>> On 15/04/2010 12:21 PM, terryc wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> what are the anti-entrapment laws here? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> None at all. It's not a concept that's recognised in Australia. >>>>> You do the crime you do the time (not that non-commercial >>>>> copyright infringement is a crime in Australia). It matters not >>>>> that someone enticed you for the purpose of catching you at it. >>>> >>>> I would have thought that this case could apply throughout >>>> Australia - >>>> http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldjudgmt/jd011025/loose-1.htm >>>> >>>> . >>> >>> It cites Ridgeway v R which it certainly cannot overrule in >>> Australia. >>> http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/1995/66.html >> >> Yes, of course. Ridgeway is the current High Court decision on >> entrapment binding in Australia, but the later HL decision is >> consistent with it. The point is that we do have an anti-entrapment >> law in Australia. > > It's perhaps an issue of definition. I wouldn't regard Ridgeway as an > authority for the existence of an anti-entrapment law. If a police > officer puts a $100 note on the ground (having previously obtained > council permission so to do, of course), then waits until you pick it > up, and follows you until you spend it, then you can be charged with > theft, and the charge will stick no matter how loud you scream > entrapment. Run the facts in Ridgeway. If the police try prosecuting, what will be the outcome? That shows the operation of the anti-entrapment law here.
From: Sylvia Else on 15 Apr 2010 09:40 On 15/04/2010 11:10 PM, Loreen wrote: > Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 15/04/2010 8:48 PM, Loreen wrote: >>> Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 15/04/2010 3:39 PM, Epsilon wrote: >>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>> On 15/04/2010 12:21 PM, terryc wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> what are the anti-entrapment laws here? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> None at all. It's not a concept that's recognised in Australia. >>>>>> You do the crime you do the time (not that non-commercial >>>>>> copyright infringement is a crime in Australia). It matters not >>>>>> that someone enticed you for the purpose of catching you at it. >>>>> >>>>> I would have thought that this case could apply throughout >>>>> Australia - >>>>> http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldjudgmt/jd011025/loose-1.htm >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> . >>>> >>>> It cites Ridgeway v R which it certainly cannot overrule in >>>> Australia. >>>> http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/1995/66.html >>>> >>> >>> Yes, of course. Ridgeway is the current High Court decision on >>> entrapment binding in Australia, but the later HL decision is >>> consistent with it. The point is that we do have an anti-entrapment >>> law in Australia. >> >> It's perhaps an issue of definition. I wouldn't regard Ridgeway as an >> authority for the existence of an anti-entrapment law. If a police >> officer puts a $100 note on the ground (having previously obtained >> council permission so to do, of course), then waits until you pick it >> up, and follows you until you spend it, then you can be charged with >> theft, and the charge will stick no matter how loud you scream >> entrapment. > > Run the facts in Ridgeway. If the police try prosecuting, what will be > the outcome? As far as I can see, a conviction. There's no unlawful conduct by the police to be considered. There's no abuse of process. The accused comes across a scenario that they might reasonably encounter without police involvement, and then exploits it unlawfully. I can't see why a court would have any problem with the charge or the evidence. Sylvia.
From: F Murtz on 15 Apr 2010 11:45 Sylvia Else wrote: > On 15/04/2010 8:48 PM, Loreen wrote: >> Sylvia Else wrote: >>> On 15/04/2010 3:39 PM, Epsilon wrote: >>>> Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>> On 15/04/2010 12:21 PM, terryc wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> what are the anti-entrapment laws here? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> None at all. It's not a concept that's recognised in Australia. You >>>>> do the crime you do the time (not that non-commercial copyright >>>>> infringement is a crime in Australia). It matters not that someone >>>>> enticed you for the purpose of catching you at it. >>>> >>>> I would have thought that this case could apply throughout Australia >>>> - >>>> http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldjudgmt/jd011025/loose-1.htm >>>> >>>> >>>> . >>> >>> It cites Ridgeway v R which it certainly cannot overrule in Australia. >>> >>> http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/1995/66.html >> >> Yes, of course. Ridgeway is the current High Court decision on >> entrapment binding in Australia, but the later HL decision is consistent >> with it. The point is that we do have an anti-entrapment law in >> Australia. > > It's perhaps an issue of definition. I wouldn't regard Ridgeway as an > authority for the existence of an anti-entrapment law. If a police > officer puts a $100 note on the ground (having previously obtained > council permission so to do, of course), then waits until you pick it > up, and follows you until you spend it, then you can be charged with > theft, and the charge will stick no matter how loud you scream entrapment. > > Sylvia. It would be fun in that scenario to put it in your pocket and put a lost property notice in the local paper which would probably cover you legally.(in reality they would not wait that long)
From: terryc on 15 Apr 2010 12:55 On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 23:40:35 +1000, Sylvia Else wrote: > As far as I can see, a conviction. There's no unlawful conduct by the > police to be considered. There's no abuse of process. The accused comes > across a scenario that they might reasonably encounter without police > involvement, and then exploits it unlawfully. I can't see why a court > would have any problem with the charge or the evidence. If I pick up $100 dollars of the ground, which law directs what I have to do with it?
From: Epsilon on 15 Apr 2010 18:40
terryc wrote: > On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 23:40:35 +1000, Sylvia Else wrote: > > >> As far as I can see, a conviction. There's no unlawful conduct by the >> police to be considered. There's no abuse of process. The accused >> comes across a scenario that they might reasonably encounter without >> police involvement, and then exploits it unlawfully. I can't see why >> a court would have any problem with the charge or the evidence. > > If I pick up $100 dollars of the ground, which law directs what I > have to do with it? There is no such law. But you need to be aware of the criminal law about theft by finding ie if you find something (eg on the street) and pick it up, it still belongs to the true owner. You need to make some effort to see if the true owner can be found. With a $100 note, you wouldn't have to do much. You might approach the house or shop nearly, and say that you have found a sum of money (or whatever) and leave your 'phone number. If no-one claims it, it's yours because the law give you the greatest rights to it after the true owner who can't be found. |