A quick glance at the Coronavirus Act tells me all of the new offences it created are summary only. Does this mean, if the reports are true, Bozza is in the clear over his fabled Christmas bash?

... does it become void?

Say S47 assault or dangerous driving as an example. File is built and laid out to CPS 9 months after the offence.

CPS reviews and says “can’t charge S47/dangerous driving, could only charge common assault/careless driving”

Same with harassment with violence vs harassment with no violence.

What happens then? Charge gets through anyway, or is it a straight NFA?

Partly influenced by an IOPC case where a CPS referral was made a year after the incident for an alleged S47 in custody (bruise on a wrist, allegation of excessive force). A small bruise, even if excessive use of force is somehow proven, never gets a S47 charge with CPS (from what I know).

What happens in situations like this, if either way is charged as summary when the STL has expired for it?

That legal sac was pretty dogshit ngl. Praying to the VCAA gods for a 30 🙏🙏

The Australian federal government is currently pursuing regulatory change to allow for the deregistration of charities in cases where staff, members or volunteers commit a summary offence, the most minor of legal breaches. Under this legislative proposal, Australia’s 59,000 charities could be held responsible for minor legal breaches committed by volunteers, members or supporters. This could lead to them losing their charitable status and their preferential tax treatment.”

The new regulations could, for example, allow a massive charity like the St Vincent de Paul Society or UnitingCare to be stripped of charity status if one of their employees attends a protest and does not move on when directed by police.

The current rules prohibit charities from conduct that “may be dealt with either as an indictable offence … or by way of a civil penalty of 60 penalty units”. That will be expanded to include a range of summary offences “relating to real property, personal property or persons under an Australian law”. Charities will also now be required to take reasonable steps to “ensure their resources are not used, nor continued to be used, to promote or support any entity to engage in unlawful activities prohibited under the standard”.

In addition, the plan by the government could see organisations stripped of their charity status because they might commit a crime. Under the proposal, the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC) would be able to deregister an organisation if it “reasonably believes” its members are likely to commit a summary offence. The government’s explanatory materials on the changes say they would lower the standard of proof so that “it is not necessary for a registered entity to be charged or found guilty of a relevant summary offence for the ACNC Commissioner to take enforcement action”.

Professor Ruth Phillips, a University of Sydney academic and ANZTSR vice-president, said the changes appear designed to target protests by environmental NGOs.

The sector fears the changes are a threat to the right of almost 59,000 registered not-for-profits to engage in political advocacy. The Saturday Paper reported last week that the changes have caused widespread alarm in the sector, including from Reverend T

If released under investigation for a summary only offence, does the 6 month time limit to charge the individual still apply?

To clear up some misconceptions and to provide facts instead of speculation.

These are the first 6 of ~170 instances. I don't have time to translate them all.

Suspects

source, german pdf pages 29 - 42

Edit: fixed link

Edit2: I just counted how many times the victim(s) could recognize the offender(s).

• 126 times "no" or "unknown" or "?" or "probably not"
• 34 times "yes" or "probably"
• Some fields were empty

Edit3: Fixed translation

England ~

Was arrested May 16th accused of electronically harassing my ex and had my laptop and phone taken. It was a malicious complaint on her behalf.

I don't know 100% but I believe the complaint was made in early March - I think the delay in the arrest was because the police force handling it had to ask my local police force to arrest me on their behalf

I was posted my phone back in September and I got my laptop back at the start of October

I was hoping to receive a letter saying no further action by now but nothing as of yet

I've read harassment is a summary offence and the following

> The Crim PR 2014 stipulate that a written charge for a summary only offence must be issued within six months from the date of the commission of the offence.

So if she reported this is March, it's been over 6 months? seeing as I haven't received a letter saying I've been charged, should I be ok now and it's a matter of time before i receive a letter telling me such?

I feel like my life has been put on hold waiting to be cleared of this so it would be nice to finally get confirmation

So I know of some ones situation where they committed a criminal offence in anther country. It was recorded by a security camera. They know of the identity of the person and know their passport details. It was not paying the bathroom fee in Germany by skipping thru with someone else. Would the company that owns that footage would they just hand it over to their police and they in turn hand it over to the Canadian government. Would this mean a criminal record back in Canada? It would be a summary crime.

....since someone charged with a summary offence aren’t fingerprinted, even if they are convicted?

Unless I’m mistaken, the way I understand it, anyone charged with a indictable offence who has been fingerprinted & photographed has a criminal record despite the outcome of the case. (Whether it be a Conviction, an acquittal, stay of proceeds, charges not approved, charges dropped/withdrawn, dismissed, etc)

Someone charged with a summary offence aren’t fingerprinted and even if they are found guilty in court, a conviction may not show up on a criminal record check since there are no fingerprints to match to the accused.

How is that possible that someone can have a criminal record despite never being convicted or found guilty but someone convicted of a summary offence could be spared a criminal record (not considering a discharge, of course)?

Are there any NSW cases in which an offender, guilty of a summary offence, received the maximum imprisonment of 2 years?

If this counts as asking for legal advice I'm sorry.

I did a quick search for this here and it didn't turn up, if there is a reason for this I'm sorry but I am curious what people from the field of law think about the changes which have been brought in.

Personally I am very concerned about the changes but I'd like to hear what you think.

Old Law: http://tinyurl.com/klff27s

Changes: http://tinyurl.com/korsh2m

Summary offences are matters that are tried by a judge alone. Indictable offences require a trial by judge and jury.

1. Is committing a summary offence a criminal act?

2. Is a summary offence subject to disclosure for DBS checks (previously CRB checks)?

For example I read in an Acts of Parliament: "A person who, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with subsection (1) commits a summary offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.

As I understand it a summery offence is one where a Magistrate would judge it. It will be a minor offence like shoplifting or not complying with supply some documents. Shoplifting I can get my head around as the shopkeeper would call the police and the perpetrator would be arrested etc etc...

I believe that 'low-value' shoplifting is can now a summery-only offence.

But if the shopkeeper where to request some documentation of another. And the other party does not supply them then what happens?

Does the shopkeeper call the police, approach a magistrates court and start a private prosecution, might a trade body or local council pursue the case? The documents might be requested from a company so how does that proceed?

The more I read about this kind of 'summery offence' the more confused I get. An 'offence' is an offence. The 'summery' is the way it's dealt with. But I can't imaging the shopkeeper going to the police station to report not being supplied with some paperwork.

I'm pretty desparate to find housing for next term.

While jail isn't my first choice of residence, it does allow for consistent meals and a roof over my head.

Of course, this plan relies on being able to escape easily to write the midterms and final exams. I'll also need a partner who is willing to smuggle in class notes for me.

I.e. sleeping on ops duty or malingering etc. or only for cases that are civil offences.

Heard it is only a criminal record if you sit in DB for a certain number of days… is this true?

Hello,

I am the victim of stalking/cyberstalking and the PC handling my case has put in a legal data request to Twitter for more information on the person behind an account publishing malicious content about me and my family/friends.

Twitter, predictably, has been a nightmare to deal with because they are willing to "defend free speech" to the death even when this person is threatening my safety and threatening the people around me.

According to an update I received from Crime Management Services, the PC has now put in a request to OPTICA (sp?) as a result of Twitter's shortcomings.

What is OPTICA? Is it some sort of internal intelligence unit for the Metro police?

What is the turnaround time for these internal data requests?

Unfortunately, the majority of my contact with the PC has been through email so it takes a lot of time for me to hear back from them despite the fact that I feel this is a time-sensitive situation. I understand that the police are quite busy with things that are of much higher priority than a case of stalking, but it has been months since I reported this to the police and we've been waiting for nothingburger data requests ever since.

Thank you so much for your service, ladies and gentlemen of the force.

Hi everyone. I am one of the many who was persecuted by the CCP regime. In 2020, I was imprisoned for tweeting ‘inappropriate tweets’. The following is the draft statement that I prepared to hand in to the Home Office as materials in support of my asylum application. It is not the final version, which was totally re-composed by my lawyer to meet some format standards. But this one has more details. (The final version was shrunk to no more than ten pages with many unnecessary details omitted.)

I decided to share my past experience here by using my statement below, but I have to omit some details in the statement, and all of the deleted parts were replaced by ‘[…]’. All the dates, numbers and the names of places and people’s were changed into xxx, too, because even though I am now in a safe country, disclosing these materials may bring troubles to my families in mainland China. And that is why I cannot show you my Indictment, Judgement and other documents.

I am grateful that I managed to flee the evil regime, yet so many of us are still stranded there. And the situation in mainland China is still deteriorating every single day. Yesterday was Human Rights Day, and yet I cannot see hope in improving human rights in mainland China.

————————————

Summary

My name is XXX. ID No: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Passport No: XXxxxxxxx. I was born on D MMMM 199Y, in XXXXXX, XXXXXX, mainland China.

In 2020, I was politically persecuted and sentenced to X months of imprisonment under the infamous ‘picking quarrels and provoking trouble’ (Chinese: 寻衅滋事) for, according to the CCP regime, posting ‘inappropriate remarks’ in a private (‘protected’) Twitter account. Page 2 to 30 (apparently here on this web page there will be no page numbers) is a detailed statement on this. Following that is a list of documents that I handed in on D MMMM 2021 at the UK Border of XXXXXX Airport. Supplemental information is provided following this list.

In fear of further persecution from the CCP regime of mainland China, after months of preparation, I finally managed to flee the regime on D MMMM 2021 and arrived at the UK Border the next day. I then applied for asylum right away at the border, and submitted all the documents that can prove my experience I had at that time. I do solemnly affirm that every word written in this statement and every proof provided are true and genuine and I am, therefore, sincerely imploring your consideration.

Thank you.

D MMMM 2021.

**———

England, attack happened in England also

A little bit over 8 years ago when I turned 18 I was the victim of an attack which left me paralysed. I didn't know who orchestrated it or who my attackers were, until now.

The thing is. Three out of the seven attackers now live in other countries and I don't have much evidence, just the apparent orchestrator's step-sister's confession to me over Facebook. There could be more but I'm waiting to meet with the step-sister in person before I go to the police (if there's even any point.) I have a hunch she might have some more evidence although I'm doubting there's gonna be a boatload.

Is this worth pursuing legally or trying to press charges? I'm not looking for monetary compensation but if you look at my other post you'll probably understand why I want to see them rot.

Edit --- should have clarified, but the step-sister was not one of the attackers.

After watching vigilante paedophile hunter groups videos, I’ve noticed they all say the same thing, “I’m detaining you. You’re under citizens arrest”. This would be under 24a of PACE, but this is only for indictable offences. My question is, who gets to decide whether the offence is indictable or summary? Because people throw around ‘citizens arrest’ all the time without knowing what that really means.

I wanted to put my thoughts down about where I saw both promotions (and the competition between them) as we close out 2021. I nearly did it in 2020, thought better of it and wished I had, only because a year in wrestling is like 30 in real life. So much changes so quickly, I thought it would be good to see (at least from my perspective) where things are. I'm also into talking through a number of these points so it would be cool to talk about a number of them.

WWE

WWE seem to be in an edging competition with their audience. What's the slowest we can take things, the most stripped back and basic we can do this, in order to make as much money as we can? Gone are the fun intros, replaced with big block letters on a tron and a reflective floor. Gone are over 80 wrestlers this year. Granted, 3/4's of which were midcard or tour fodder, and un-needed. Gone too are surprises, pace or excitement.

WWE made it's hay being shocking, violent (also offensive, sexist, homophobic and all the rest - a different time) but mostly by being entertaining. It surprised, thrilled and felt unpredictable. Modern WWE is the absolute antithesis of that. Sterile, safe, predictable - comforting in it's own way. You know each week you're going to get your champion, multiple recaps, slick, professional presentation and a safe pace that means you can miss a week or two and catch back up. Storylines are eked out for quarters and halves of years instead of weeks now. Look at Brock vs Reigns - the Wrestlemania headline program started at Summerslam. WWE have done long builds before, but often with more to sustain them.

On the positives, it has become the market leader in inclusivity. POC, LGBTQ+ performers and any other minorities are never treated as special attractions, nor do WWE trade off the worthiness of being more inclusive. They just do it. The progress from presenting native Americans as savages with no shoes 20 years ago is pretty staggering.

It is still the market leader. It still feels huge. WWE is spectacle. It is also definitely professional. it's presentation is always top tier - be it on TV, at events or their PPVs. The approach to TV makes everything seem larger than life, which is really cool. It's strict approach to tiered talent means that while yes, moves are heavily limited, performers are protected and feel unique. Big moments, as infrequently as they come, feel bigger for it. It's an exercise in minimalism, often at the expense of entertainment.

In 2021 the m

What the actual F**k was that Why did they spend 20 marks talking about someone being annoyed over a kite Did a literal child write that exam Not to mention the abundance of random 8 and 7 mark questions

Do your worst!

Summary of last episode for those that chose to skip it: James, Lafalla, Ceralla, Vency, Nibbles, Master Cellone, and Nibbles all meet up to have an expensive meal to celebrate Lafalla’s promotion and the passing of another year, marking the birthdays of sorts. Master Cellone drinks until she’s a little drunk and tries to fulfil a bet she made with Lafalla regarding James, and loses, upsetting James a little in the process. Ceralla silently ignores it all and enjoys a meal with her two deer friends.

-----------------------------

Book 1 / Book 2

First / Previous / Next | Wiki

-----------------------------

"I'll tell you what, this is so much easier than the cannon," Vency stated as she and James made their way to the Kynling Well with the new electrical generator.

"Really? Maybe for me, but for you it's the same amount of effort," James replied as he floated it along, keeping a careful eye on his mana levels which were still thankfully close to full.

"But a paved path is easier to walk on than a dirt road," she smirked as they entered the Well.

"Ah, good morning both of you," Master Cellone stated as she saw them. "I trust you two are doing well."

"I am, and James is eager to meet his new lover," Vency laughed.

"Shut up," James grumbled.

"Is that so? Maybe we can discuss what you like about them later then, hmm James?" Master Cellone smirked, though James could tell it was only for show.

"Let's just get this in my room please," he sighed as he diverted the generator into it and placed it down on the empty desk he had placed in the middle of his room.

"Your craftsmanship is impressive Vency, I will give you that. I am eager to see what it does, but first, this contract has been completed, so I believe this is for you," Master Cellone explained as she deposited a coin bag in Vency's hands. "I chose to make some of it out of smaller coins so you have some available for future change."

"Thank you Elder Cellone, that's very thoughtful of you," Vency

For context I'm a Refuse Driver (Garbage man) & today I was on food waste. After I'd tipped I was checking the wagon for any defects when I spotted a lone pea balanced on the lifts.

I said "hey look, an escaPEA"

No one near me but it didn't half make me laugh for a good hour or so!

Edit: I can't believe how much this has blown up. Thank you everyone I've had a blast reading through the replies 😂

It really does, I swear!

They’re on standbi

A
BILL
TO

make public toilets available without charge, set standards for the design of public toilets, and for connected purposes.

BE IT ENACTED by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

1. Definitions

1. For the purposes of this Act, “public toilets” shall refer to bathroom facilities which shall be available for public use between the hours of 07:00 am and 08:30 pm.
2. For the purposes of this Act, “local authority” has the same meaning as “local authority in England” in section 579 of the Education Act 1996.
3. For the purposes of this Act, “an officer of the body corporate” refers to—

a) A director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, and

b) any person purporting to act in any such capacity.

2. Provision of Public Toilets by Local Government

1. It shall be the duty of a relevant English local authority to ensure adequate provision of public toilets.

a) Adequate provision shall be defined as a provision that is adequate in number and distribution so as to allow a member of the public to easily locate and use one while in an unfamiliar area.

2. Wherein a Local Authority does not believe it has adequate resources to provide such facilities, it may make a request to the Secretary of State for fiscal resources.

a) The Secretary of State shall be required to approve any reasonable request for resources made under subsection 2) where he is satisfied that provision of requested fiscal resources would ensure adequate provision of public toilets.

3) A toilet guard and/or cleaner must be required to attend the public toilet at least once an hour.

3. Prohibition of Fees for access to Commercial Toilets

1. A commercial premises with toilets may not levy a fee for access to, or unreasonably deny access to such facilities to a member of the public. 2. Where a body corporate is guilty of an offence under Section 3(1), an officer of the body corporate is also guilty of an offence, if—

a) the offence was committed with the consent or knowledge of an officer of the body corporate, or

b) the offence can be linked to any negligence on the part of the officer.

[~~3) An offence under this act is punishable upon summary