Private investigator, private detective, for criminal investigation, phone 1300 966 103, or 24/7 contact us by email at [email protected]. Free quotes, discretion assured. Ex-police and experienced investigators.
Do not believe that just because someone is charged by a law
enforcement representative that they are guilty. Charges are laid for
a variety of reasons including pressure from the public, pressure from
supervisors, to improve clear up rates, department policy, the shotgun
approach, poor police work and faulty investigations.
We are
here to take that police brief or investigation, dissect it, find
the
witnesses and exculpatory evidence the police would prefer wasn't
presented in court and locate the grounds for reasonable doubt. One
difficulty, currently, is the police habit of seizing phones, even if
there is no allegation that is relevant. This takes away information
about contacts, and communications.
We also look to mitigate the damage done by people's
actions, done in the heat of the moment, with thing such as negotiated
outcomes and diversion to other arena's, rather than criminal hearings. We need to be bought in early, to do our job effectively. We need a
copy of any police brief or correspondence. We need your version of
events.
When people are charged, summonsed, given a notice to
appear or simply taken before a court, they are taken before a court where for criminal matters they
usually have three choices. These are to plead guilty, plead not
guilty or seek a remand to obtain legal advice. For more serious
matters people will appear to have bail enlarged so that a date for a
committal hearing may be set down. An indication of a plea may be made.
People
do not always plead guilty because they are guilty. Some people plead
guilty to protect others, some people plead guilty because the cost of
defending themselves is too high, and the outcome of a court hearing
can never be guaranteed. Some people plead guilty because they lose
hope. In some jurisdictions an early guilty plea is taken into
consideration when sentencing.
Some people are convinced to accept a domestic violence order without admissions. This is often for the less rich, who are fatigued by the continuous solicitor bills, and ongoing court. Basically the are failing to understand that they are not placating the other party, who will leave them alone. They are emboldened with a win. The court system also does not care that you never made admissions. You are basically convicted. The order exists ergo you are guilty.
For myself I would always choose
a trial by jury, if possible, because you would hope that a jury would
see things in the shades of grey that is life, rather the black and
white of statute law. Remember you are dealing with a court system, not a
justice system, the two are not identical.
For almost all criminal charges the onus is on the prosecution to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In rare cases the onus reverses, once a prima facie (on the face of it) case is establish. An example of this is where the legislation States that the accused must establish a reasonable excuse for their actions, an example would be carriage of a knife in public place (Qld S.51 Weapons Act) places on onus in the defendant to show a reasonable excuse (such as required as part of their work, or as part of national dress etc), once the police establish the offence elements.
Beyond reasonable doubt is a high standard of evidence. The prosecution must establish each element of the offence beyond reasonable doubt, to obtain a conviction. That means evidence, and surrounding circumstances must support the charge, without a reasonable doubt being raised.
If a person denies their involvement, however is similarly
dressed in average clothes, of similar height, but cannot be placed in
the area at the time of the offence, nor a motive established, then the
element of identity may not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt. The
question would be could a person of similar height, wearing similar
clothes, not related, be found away from the crime scene at that time, and in that
place. If it was a remote one horse town at 3am, when they were the only person camping in a park, probably not. Reasonable suspicion may be established.
If it was
a busy residential and entertainment precinct, at 3am on a Saturday
morning as bars, and coffee shops were closing, in the vicinity of the
accused persons home, not near the crime scene, then maybe so. The
defence may raise a reasonable doubt the accused is the offender.
We investigate for both the prosecution and the
defence, in different settings (e.g private criminal actions, civil
actions relating to criminal activity). We cannot work for both sides of
the same matter.
