But what they did and said to the foster child(ren) is criminal behavior in my eyes. I’m comfortable knowing that they won’t get to treat any other child the way they treated the one we know about. That’s punishment enough for me right now. Unless or until new evidence is found. Then I want total accountability. Moo
Australia Australia - William Tyrrell Disappeared While Playing in Yard - Kendall (NSW) #78
- Thread starter Coldpizza
- Start date
Marg944
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2021
- Messages
- 535
- Reaction score
- 4,547
Possible charges over William Tyrrell disappearance delayed
Another 6 month delay. Seems to me that ODPP wants police to withdraw the brief rather than ODPP having to say it's a joke.
Meanwhile the Coroner puts the Inquest files back in her drawer.
Warshawski
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2015
- Messages
- 2,115
- Reaction score
- 9,231
As I expected - delays upon delays, while a little boy is denied justice.
What’s the hold up I wonder. Imo, either she’s to be charged or they need to focus elsewhere. Is the DPP team short staffed ?
SouthAussie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2012
- Messages
- 29,313
- Reaction score
- 176,321
Sounds to me that the ball is back in the police's court. According to the article, the ODPP want the police to clarify some of their evidence.
imo
marv hucker
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2021
- Messages
- 84
- Reaction score
- 631
Probably more like it.
At-risk children's 'broken' NSW government protection system is harming them, advocates say
After more than 20 years as a child protection case worker, Betina Huber reached her breaking point last year.
"Seeing the children's pain and suffering on a day-to-day basis it got to a point where I thought 'I can't do it anymore'," she said.
After a period of leave, Ms Huber resigned in February.
She had worked for the New South Wales government's Department of Communities and Justice (DCJ), overseeing the care of children removed from family homes for their own welfare.
Ms Huber said that while it could be difficult to hear and see what was happening to children in their own homes, she felt the welfare system was also "abusive" to them.
. . .
The NSW government says one solution to the damaging emergency care arrangements is to recruit more foster carers.
But it is struggling to retain the ones it already has.
Courtney, whose real name has been withheld for privacy, has taken about 10 children into her home as a foster carer over the past decade.
Caseworkers burnt out and quitting in 'broken' NSW child protection system as vulnerable kids go unseen
Caseworkers, foster carers, and even those in the judiciary have revealed the extent to which the NSW government is failing to protect children after the release of a "harrowing" report last week.
www.abc.net.au
Warshawski
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2015
- Messages
- 2,115
- Reaction score
- 9,231
IMO, the reported ‘burn out’ has been happening in this dept for many years, at the expense of both staff & the children relying on them.At-risk children's 'broken' NSW government protection system is harming them, advocates say
After more than 20 years as a child protection case worker, Betina Huber reached her breaking point last year.
"Seeing the children's pain and suffering on a day-to-day basis it got to a point where I thought 'I can't do it anymore'," she said.
After a period of leave, Ms Huber resigned in February.
She had worked for the New South Wales government's Department of Communities and Justice (DCJ), overseeing the care of children removed from family homes for their own welfare.
Ms Huber said that while it could be difficult to hear and see what was happening to children in their own homes, she felt the welfare system was also "abusive" to them.
. . .
The NSW government says one solution to the damaging emergency care arrangements is to recruit more foster carers.
But it is struggling to retain the ones it already has.
Courtney, whose real name has been withheld for privacy, has taken about 10 children into her home as a foster carer over the past decade.
Caseworkers burnt out and quitting in 'broken' NSW child protection system as vulnerable kids go unseen
Caseworkers, foster carers, and even those in the judiciary have revealed the extent to which the NSW government is failing to protect children after the release of a "harrowing" report last week.
It’s a disturbingly sad side effect of the decline in societal values, financial pressures, drug & alcohol abuse and DV - to list a few. The road back will be long & hard one, and I’m not sure how it will happen.
Just my opinion.
Well to be fair one can see it while ever it is under consideration....THERE MUST BE something that keeps them holding it.
IMO it would be very easy for the NSW DPP to tick the box off with a NO.
Why aren't they?????
Reportedly the ODPP has asked police for clarification on a number of pieces of evidence included in the brief.
Again, my guess is they privately expect the police to withdraw the brief owing to lack of evidence sufficient -- in the DPP's opinion -- to convict on a beyond reasonable doubt basis.
Can any of the salient points of the article be covered please?
(Paraphrased)
Dateline: April 11, 2024 - 8:17AM
William Tyrrell’s foster mother will have to wait another six months to learn whether police have enough evidence to charge her over the boy’s disappearance. The inquest into William’s disappearance was expected to finish in March 2023 but was delayed until November.
Sources say that the police suspect that the FM covered up the accidental death of WT and then dumped his body in bushland nearby. In June 2023 NSW Police gave the DPP a brief of evidence recommending that the 59 year old FM be charged with perverting the course of justice and interfering with a corpse, but the DPP now wants a six-month extension of time to review it, and will advise the police if they have sufficient evidence to charge her. The DPP also wants clarification on some pieces of evidence.
The inquest cannot proceed until the DPP decides on any possible charges, Counsel Assisting Gerard Craddock SC said.
This has probably been covered before but wondering why the Taskforce may have referred this case to the ODPP? Apparently in NSW, the police prosecute 95% of criminal cases. The ODPP prosecutes on behalf of the people of NSW. Is it the public interest in the case, the govt. departments involved with WT's care, the types of charges that are being considered in regards to the FFC or the appearance of impartiality as opposed to a police prosecution?
If there was nothing to the charges to be considered, it's difficult to see why the ODPP hasn't promptly handed the brief back to the police. The idea that it is not a priority and sitting at the bottom of a pile somewhere is difficult to consider since this is highly publicised and awaiting this office's next move for a coronial inquest to continue. What reasons could the ODPP have for still having this brief?
So, from what I understand, the coroner was ready to deliver her findings on June a few years ago, when the police began focusing on the FFC and all the legal proceedings after that which included saying she was a primary POI/suspect, the big dig, forensic search of FGM's car, NSW CC, unrelated charges for various things and having a child in her care removed. I'm guessing that to consider re-opening the inquest and listening to more evidence, other lines of inquiry have opened up since the coroner was going to deliver her findings but Gerard Craddock's comments seem to have distanced the coroner's court proceedings with anything in relation to the FFC. The dig and FGM car search was signed off by the coroner. Maybe he was distancing the court from all the surveillance and subsequent charges. Someone had to have justified and signed off on 14 months of bugging? I wonder what the coroner's findings would have been a few years ago and what they want to explore during the next tranche.
If there was nothing to the charges to be considered, it's difficult to see why the ODPP hasn't promptly handed the brief back to the police. The idea that it is not a priority and sitting at the bottom of a pile somewhere is difficult to consider since this is highly publicised and awaiting this office's next move for a coronial inquest to continue. What reasons could the ODPP have for still having this brief?
So, from what I understand, the coroner was ready to deliver her findings on June a few years ago, when the police began focusing on the FFC and all the legal proceedings after that which included saying she was a primary POI/suspect, the big dig, forensic search of FGM's car, NSW CC, unrelated charges for various things and having a child in her care removed. I'm guessing that to consider re-opening the inquest and listening to more evidence, other lines of inquiry have opened up since the coroner was going to deliver her findings but Gerard Craddock's comments seem to have distanced the coroner's court proceedings with anything in relation to the FFC. The dig and FGM car search was signed off by the coroner. Maybe he was distancing the court from all the surveillance and subsequent charges. Someone had to have justified and signed off on 14 months of bugging? I wonder what the coroner's findings would have been a few years ago and what they want to explore during the next tranche.
If you are charged with a serious criminal offence – known as an 'indictable offence' – the police will refer the matter to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) who will decide whether to 'elect' (choose) to take the case on and, if they do so, whether to continue to prosecute the case.
If the ODPP does choose to take on the case, rather than refer it back to the police, it will then decide whether to continue to prosecute the existing charges, whether to replace them with different charges, or to withdraw the proceedings altogether.
For very serious cases – known as ‘strictly indictable cases’ (eg murder, aggravated sexual assault etc) – the ODPP will not refer the case back to police to prosecute but will need to decide how to deal with the case.
What Will the DPP Consider When Deciding Whether to Prosecute a Criminal Offence?
The Director of Public Prosecutions will consider a range of factors when deciding whether to commence or continue with a criminal prosecution.
www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au
But she hasn't been charged with an indictable offence...If you are charged with a serious criminal offence – known as an 'indictable offence' – the police will refer the matter to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) who will decide whether to 'elect' (choose) to take the case on and, if they do so, whether to continue to prosecute the case.
If the ODPP does choose to take on the case, rather than refer it back to the police, it will then decide whether to continue to prosecute the existing charges, whether to replace them with different charges, or to withdraw the proceedings altogether.
For very serious cases – known as ‘strictly indictable cases’ (eg murder, aggravated sexual assault etc) – the ODPP will not refer the case back to police to prosecute but will need to decide how to deal with the case.
What Will the DPP Consider When Deciding Whether to Prosecute a Criminal Offence?
The Director of Public Prosecutions will consider a range of factors when deciding whether to commence or continue with a criminal prosecution.
The charge of moving a corpse could be dealt with summarily, as could perverting the course of justice if it was downgraded, see reference links,Perverting the Course of Justice (NSW) and Indictable Offences (NSW)
If police can't even consider these charges being dealt with summarily, then they may indeed have nothing.
The weighing up of what result the police can achieve for some justice with WT's case and this suspect may be very difficult and time consuming to achieve. MOO
So far she hasn't been charged.
It's been my contention all along that the brief in question is so weak that it's a joke. Again, I suspect that the ODDP is waiting for the police to withdraw it before the DPP has to put the kibosh on it.
(PS: The bolding in the bit I quoted was the author's, not mine.)
Last edited: