Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, Nsw, 12 Sept 2014 - #48

[JLZ]

Surveillances Devices Act 2007, s.7(3):

Subsection (1) (b) [the general prohibition against recording private conversations] does not apply to the use of a listening device by a party to a private conversation if:
. . . (b) a principal party to the conversation consents to the listening device being so used and the recording of the conversation:
(i) is reasonably necessary for the protection of the lawful interests of that principal party

I suggest Jubelin had reason to believe he would be the subject of a complaint by PS and therefore needed a reliable record of their interactions.

Perhaps he also made some recordings for his own reference in decision-making in relation to the investigation re William:

. . . , or
(ii) is not made for the purpose of communicating or publishing the conversation, or a report of the conversation, to persons who are not parties to the conversation.
NSW Legislation

 

[JLZ]

If an officer applies for retrospective authorisation for the use of a surveillance device without a warrant under the emergency provisions (s.31 Emergency use of surveillance devices—threat of serious personal violence or substantial property damage; s.33 Application for approval after use of surveillance device without warrant or under emergency authorisation) and the judge refuses to authorise the surveillance because in the judge's opinion the circumstances did not meet the appropriate criteria--I take it that the recording would not be admissible evidence; but would the police officer have criminally breached the Act? On the one hand by failing to obtain retrospective authorisation, the situation isn't exempt under s.7(2) (a); but on the other hand the officer has complied with the requirement of s.33 to seek the retrospective emergency authorisation and arguably has done everything in his power to act lawfully.

 

[mussopossum]

I only looked at Gordon Wood's trial due to something that happened during Simon Gittany's trial. But Wood's appeal was successful because the Supreme Court found that there was 'not enough evidence' for a jury to have found him guilty. They said that an expert witness' testimony was fundamentally flawed.

Nothing was really 'done wrong' imo. Even though Wood's lawyer claimed things were done wrong. Wood lost his lawsuit for malicious prosecution and wrongful imprisonment.

Thanks for clarifying SA. This was a really sad case but a really good book.

 

[JLZ]

I don't think the police are under the pump to let them know they are being recorded - such as in the case of Paul Cowan, as long as they fit those criteria already mentioned - otherwise, they would have had to let Paul Cowan know?

In other words BBM above - doesn't really fit

If you mean Brett Cowan, I came across an exemption that would seem to cover "stings": Surveillance Devices Act 2007, section 7, subsection 4:

Subsection (1) does not apply to the use of a listening device to record, monitor or listen to a private conversation if:
(a) a party to the private conversation is a participant in an authorised operation and, in the case of a participant who is a law enforcement officer, is using an assumed name or assumed identity, and
(b) the person using the listening device is that participant or another participant in that authorised operation.
NSW Legislation

(BBM)

 

[SouthAussie]

Surveillances Devices Act 2007, s.7(3):

Subsection (1) (b) [the general prohibition against recording private conversations] does not apply to the use of a listening device by a party to a private conversation if:
. . . (b) a principal party to the conversation consents to the listening device being so used and the recording of the conversation:
(i) is reasonably necessary for the protection of the lawful interests of that principal party

I suggest Jubelin had reason to believe he would be the subject of a complaint by PS and therefore needed a reliable record of their interactions.

Perhaps he also made some recordings for his own reference in decision-making in relation to the investigation re William:

. . . , or
(ii) is not made for the purpose of communicating or publishing the conversation, or a report of the conversation, to persons who are not parties to the conversation.
NSW Legislation

I have a feeling that it is going to be a really weak case against Jubes.

The prosecutor obviously advised the top brass that there was sufficient evidence for a prosecution - no doubt there is sufficient evidence for prosecuting just about all of the police officers who record without permission, if they chose to look at those people. But it took the brass a helluva long time to decide to go ahead and charge Jubes.

IIRC the internal investigation commenced in November, Jubes (and Lambert) was removed from the case in January, and then Jubes wasn't charged until late June - having submitted his resignation/retirement in late May.

We also may find, once Margaret Cunneen puts Jubes on the stand, that recording conversations with important POIs was a fairly standard practise for Jubes.

As you say, for his own notes or because he felt he needed protection from anything that POIs might allege about him (keeping in mind that Spedding's lawyer wanted to have a go at Jubes about 'police methodologies', and also that Jubes spent a long time dealing with gangland people).

imo

 

[SouthAussie]

Heck, Jubes hadn't even made his hour-long recording of his convo with Paul Savage on 28th December yet, while the internal investigation had already started in November.

So how did the internal investigators find out about that? Squeal, squeal .... or Jubes submitted the recording to the case file, for his own notes or protection. imo

 

[JLZ]

Heck, Jubes hadn't even made his hour-long recording of his convo with Paul Savage on 28th December yet, while the internal investigation had already started in November.

So how did the internal investigators find out about that? Squeal, squeal .... or Jubes submitted the recording to the case file, for his own notes or protection. imo

We don't know how much opportunity he had to remove personal material when he was ejected from the case. It could be that the recordings or notes from recordings were discovered or appropriated rather than intentionally communicated.

And if an investigation relating in part to his treatment of PS was underway, the December recording may well be explained and justified as self-protection.

 

[SouthAussie]

We don't know how much opportunity he had to remove personal material when he was ejected from the case. It could be that the recordings or notes from recordings were discovered or appropriated rather than intentionally communicated.

And if an investigation relating in part to his treatment of PS was underway, the December recording may well be explained and justified as self-protection.

Yes, it certainly sounds as if Jubes felt he had no reason to 'hide' the recordings - having made a very lengthy one while the internal investigation was happening - and that recording having been included in the charges.

 

[interested64]

Surveillances Devices Act 2007, s.7(3):

Subsection (1) (b) [the general prohibition against recording private conversations] does not apply to the use of a listening device by a party to a private conversation if:
. . . (b) a principal party to the conversation consents to the listening device being so used and the recording of the conversation:
(i) is reasonably necessary for the protection of the lawful interests of that principal party

I suggest Jubelin had reason to believe he would be the subject of a complaint by PS and therefore needed a reliable record of their interactions.

Perhaps he also made some recordings for his own reference in decision-making in relation to the investigation re William:

. . . , or
(ii) is not made for the purpose of communicating or publishing the conversation, or a report of the conversation, to persons who are not parties to the conversation.
NSW Legislation

maybe he did tell him and ps forgot since he is so forgetful

 

[mussopossum]

If anyone is interested 60 minutes has an Ivan Milat special tonight.

Sorry another unrelated post however some may be interested.

 

[peekinandy]

If you mean Brett Cowan, I came across an exemption that would seem to cover "stings": Surveillance Devices Act 2007, section 7, subsection 4:

Subsection (1) does not apply to the use of a listening device to record, monitor or listen to a private conversation if:
(a) a party to the private conversation is a participant in an authorised operation and, in the case of a participant who is a law enforcement officer, is using an assumed name or assumed identity, and
(b) the person using the listening device is that participant or another participant in that authorised operation.
NSW Legislation

(BBM)

Thanks JLZ. And yes I did mean Brett Cowan... I'm glad in a way I forgot his name, if you know what I mean

 

[mussopossum]

I have been searching in MSM about these recordings that Jubelin is being investigated over however I cannot now find the times of when these recordings were taken.

I thought I read when this all first came about that it was over several years?

Do we know what years / dates?

I remember reading at 10pm at night for some of those calls.

Secondly it states recordings at Parramatta and Kendall locations.

I presume this only means that the calls were made by Jubelin from Paramatta to Kendall?

Was this at the station and just from mobile phone when he called or did he call from a different location?

Did he call from a different phone and just record the conversation whilst on speaker phone with his mobile phone?

Just trying to get my head around these recordings of when how and what.

ABC article also states this: A source close to Mr Jubelin said he had only been performing basic duties to obtain information from a suspect.

This is the first time I have seen PS referred to as a suspect in MSM

William Tyrrell case detective charged with misconduct

 

[Wexford]

I have been searching in MSM about these recordings that Jubelin is being investigated over however I cannot now find the times of when these recordings were taken.

I thought I read when this all first came about that it was over several years?

Do we know what years / dates?

I remember reading at 10pm at night for some of those calls.

Secondly it states recordings at Parramatta and Kendall locations.

I presume this only means that the calls were made by Jubelin from Paramatta to Kendall?

Was this at the station and just from mobile phone when he called or did he call from a different location?

Did he call from a different phone and just record the conversation whilst on speaker phone with his mobile phone?

Just trying to get my head around these recordings of when how and what.

ABC article also states this: A source close to Mr Jubelin said he had only been performing basic duties to obtain information from a suspect.

This is the first time I have seen PS referred to as a suspect in MSM

William Tyrrell case detective charged with misconduct

William Tyrrell exclusive: Paul Savage at centre of allegations against Gary Jubelin | Daily Mail Online
"Court documents said Jubelin is accused of making four illegal recordings between November 3, 2017, and December 28, 2018, three times in Kendall and once in Parramatta".
There is more detail about length and times and place in this article.

 

[mussopossum]

William Tyrrell exclusive: Paul Savage at centre of allegations against Gary Jubelin | Daily Mail Online
"Court documents said Jubelin is accused of making four illegal recordings between November 3, 2017, and December 28, 2018, three times in Kendall and once in Parramatta".
There is more detail about length and times and place in this article.

Thanks Wex will have good look this tonight

 

[k-mac]

maybe he did tell him and ps forgot since he is so forgetful

oh wow
wouldn't that be quite the karma!....

 

[interested64]

oh wow
wouldn't that be quite the karma!....

yip loll

 

[mussopossum]

William Tyrrell exclusive: Paul Savage at centre of allegations against Gary Jubelin | Daily Mail Online
"Court documents said Jubelin is accused of making four illegal recordings between November 3, 2017, and December 28, 2018, three times in Kendall and once in Parramatta".
There is more detail about length and times and place in this article.

So!

Cant find much in way of around NOV 2017 on William however I wonder if this was related:

(From the below link)
Another conversation Mr Jubelin allegedly recorded in May 2018 lasted an hour and 17 minutes, court documents said. An alleged recording the next morning lasted just eight minutes.

News article and New search 13 June 2018:
Jubelin said the search was about establishing that William’s disappearance “was “the result of human intervention and not through misadventure”, before a possible coronial inquest.

I wonder if something with Savage was brewing leading up to the search?

William Tyrrell exclusive: Paul Savage at centre of allegations against Gary Jubelin | Daily Mail Online

William Tyrrell: search to focus on evidence of 'human intervention'

 

[katydid23]

maybe he did tell him and ps forgot since he is so forgetful

I think you need to record that part at the beginning of the interview. It would start by saying, for example ' this is Nov 2nd, 2017 and I am recording this conversation with Mr Savage, is that correct Mr Savage? ---and the interviewee would then answer, 'Correct.' On the audio. As proof he was notified it was being recorded.

And maybe that is how his legal missteps were discovered---someone taking over the case files may have listened to the interviews, and could tell there was no recorded portion notifying PS of the recording device?

 

[SouthAussie]

My opinion has always been that PS witnessed something from his position.

For whatever reason IF it may be that Jubelin got wind from a tip-off (Crimestoppers or a local) that PS had either lied or had confided in someone that he did in fact know or see something however refused to admit this to LE.

If Savage had just witnessed something, and was reluctant to tell the police, I wonder why he wouldn't leave a detailed Crime Stoppers tip himself .... early in the piece. Providing the details that might have given the police clear direction, when combined with their expertise.

Instead of wandering around in the bush by himself looking for William.

 

[Warshawski]

If anyone is interested 60 minutes has an Ivan Milat special tonight.

Sorry another unrelated post however some may be interested.

I'm confused - I'm apologetic - that as a society we have people who believe it's their right to take advantage of others.