Eels in the media

[parra pete]

Na I meant Ken Thornett. That guys definitely a criminal mastermind

Don't be a blasphemer...

 

[Chipmunk]

Well that was my point too. I doubt they would've been tapping Hayne's phone hoping for a sexual assault confession. Clearly the tap was for something else and the Pearce conversation was incidental.

I think you will find telecommunications interception warrants (i.e. phone taps) are quite restrictive on what you can later use the evidence obtained for. I don't think the police can get a phone tap for one purpose (e.g. some sort of drug related investigation) and then use recordings from that tap in a completely unrelated case (e.g. a sexual assault investigation).

 

[IFR33K]

Na I meant Ken Thornett. That guys definitely a criminal mastermind

Sorry mate, most of the forum struggle keeping up with you, me included.

 

[parra pete]

Do you need a plumber to get a hose tap?

 

[Poupou Escobar]

I think you will find telecommunications interception warrants (i.e. phone taps) are quite restrictive on what you can later use the evidence obtained for. I don't think the police can get a phone tap for one purpose (e.g. some sort of drug related investigation) and then use recordings from that tap in a completely unrelated case (e.g. a sexual assault investigation).

Are you certain?

 

[84 Baby]

I think you will find telecommunications interception warrants (i.e. phone taps) are quite restrictive on what you can later use the evidence obtained for. I don't think the police can get a phone tap for one purpose (e.g. some sort of drug related investigation) and then use recordings from that tap in a completely unrelated case (e.g. a sexual assault investigation).

I reckon it was the other way around (they got the tap somehow for some reason on the sexual assault) but then possibly that’s led to information about other things. They may not be able to use that specific information as evidence but they’d use it to direct investigation into those matters. But warrants aren’t necessarily that restrictive, cops only need to justify reasonable suspicion to intercept the call based on the original warrant. If that call/whatever contains information regarding another criminal matter, while it may not be enough to arrest a person, particularly a third party, on that grounds, it’s possibly enough further reasonable suspicion to garner a separate warrant.

 

[Chipmunk]

I reckon it was the other way around (they got the tap somehow for some reason on the sexual assault) but then possibly that’s led to information about other things. They may not be able to use that specific information as evidence but they’d use it to direct investigation into those matters. But warrants aren’t necessarily that restrictive, cops only need to justify reasonable suspicion to intercept the call based on the original warrant. If that call/whatever contains information regarding another criminal matter, while it may not be enough to arrest a person, particularly a third party, on that grounds, it’s possibly enough further reasonable suspicion to garner a separate warrant.

Yes can certainly use it as intel, but I can't see them being able to use it in court as evidence.

 

[Chipmunk]

Are you certain?

I'd have to go and read the legislation to confirm, but I'd be surprised if you could.

 

[84 Baby]

Yes can certainly use it as intel, but I can't see them being able to use it in court as evidence.

Given the tenuous connections, it probably wouldn’t matter. They’d just use the intel and make the other case with better, first hand evidence, with it being unlikely that they’d then have to justify how they came across the intel in the first place.

 

[Chipmunk]

Given the tenuous connections, it probably wouldn’t matter. They’d just use the intel and make the other case with better, first hand evidence, with it being unlikely that they’d then have to justify how they came across the intel in the first place.

It's not like the USA...I don't think you have to justify how you got the intel in the first place.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

I reckon it was the other way around (they got the tap somehow for some reason on the sexual assault) but then possibly that’s led to information about other things. They may not be able to use that specific information as evidence but they’d use it to direct investigation into those matters. But warrants aren’t necessarily that restrictive, cops only need to justify reasonable suspicion to intercept the call based on the original warrant. If that call/whatever contains information regarding another criminal matter, while it may not be enough to arrest a person, particularly a third party, on that grounds, it’s possibly enough further reasonable suspicion to garner a separate warrant.

The difference between evidence and intelligence

 

[84 Baby]

It's not like the USA...I don't think you have to justify how you got the intel in the first place.

Still need reasonable suspicion to be able to legally apply that intel

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

David Beckham grew up in Fairfield.

I was born at Fairfield Hospital. I cant bend it though .

 

[Gary Gutful]

I was born at Fairfield Hospital. I cant bend it though .

Not with that attitude!

 

[Gary Gutful]

Sorry mate, most of the forum struggle keeping up with you, me included.

He’s talking about Ken Thornett the criminal. I don’t understand why that’s so hard to follow.

 

[Gronk]

 

[Gronk]

^^^ Macron sound like they're a french manufacturer of intra-uterine devices.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

#Wallabeels

 

[Twizzle]

so wtf does it mean

 

[Noise]

Rugby team?