The Greyhound-Data Forum has been created to act as a platform for greyhound enthusiasts to share information on this magnificent animal called a greyhound.
Greyhound-Data reserve the right to remove any post that is off topic, advertisements or opinions they consider to be offensive.
If you answer then please try to stay on topic. It's absolutely okay to answer in a broader scope but don't hijack posts by switching to something off topic.
In case you see an insulting post: DO NOT REPLY TO IT!
Use the report button to inform the moderators so that we can delete it.
Matt Griffiths Australia (Verified User) Posts 1955 Dogs 56 / Races 2 12 Feb 2016 02:54
(0)
(0)
Admittedly a lot of the inquiries were brought up by but he does it why can't I try to keep up but we have gone from jail time to we got nothing on you's.
EXTERNAL LINK Don't get me wrong, I know for a fact that a few of them names have never lived baited and the inquiries had to be withdrawn but why wouldn't you get the facts before creating an inquiry.
Jeff Crawford Australia (Verified User) Posts 238 Dogs 12 / Races 0 12 Feb 2016 03:51
(0)
(0)
Yes Matt,
The video images didn't look good, and the images have cost all participants dearly but this is a great win for people's rights to not be impacted by the acts of the Anti's breaking the law themselves by illegally taking the footage in the first place.
I'm sure there is to be many lawsuits come out of this, and I hope AA, ALQ and especially ABC pay dearly....I know I am through increase fees, breeding restriction etc etc.
Anthony McVicker Australia (Verified User) Posts 1439 Dogs 24 / Races 126 12 Feb 2016 05:07
(0)
(0)
Am i right in reading this Act ? Could state racing bodies be in strife ?
Tom Astbury Australia (Verified User) Posts 442 Dogs 0 / Races 0 12 Feb 2016 05:36
(0)
(0)
Class actions and/or police actions??
AA for choosing to make the illegal footage ABC for illegal publication nationally Authorities for their use of illegally obtained material used to deprive persons of legal rights.
We all said the problems were due to the earlier Board who didnt care and so are now disposed, seems the latest cant get it right also. Wont be much left for prizemoney.
Ben George (Verified User) Posts 716 Dogs 2 / Races 2 12 Feb 2016 06:56
(0)
(0)
State bodies will be in strife....... Which I stated on this forum on several occasions many many months ago............ It's called the Australian Law!!!!! It's about time people wake up.
Michael Bowerman Australia (Verified User) Posts 4615 Dogs 11 / Races 0 12 Feb 2016 07:15
(0)
(0)
that law must be only in nsw, as queensland, and victoria has finish inquiry and made sentence, or is it a commwealth law, good on the trainers for finding this law, this means they will be able to continue in our sport,
Jack Gatty Australia (Verified User) Posts 2055 Dogs 1 / Races 0 12 Feb 2016 08:00
(0)
(0)
The ABC and AA must be sued and hopefully prosecuted and get jail time. They sat on those images for months to make a TV show not giving a toss about animals being live baited. It's hyper critical and they are the ones who should be facing inquiries and criminal charges.
Ross Farmer Australia (Verified User) Posts 208 Dogs 0 / Races 1 12 Feb 2016 15:03
(0)
(0)
Tom Astbury wrote:
Class actions and/or police actions??
AA for choosing to make the illegal footage ABC for illegal publication nationally Authorities for their use of illegally obtained material used to deprive persons of legal rights.
We all said the problems were due to the earlier Board who didnt care and so are now disposed, seems the latest cant get it right also. Wont be much left for prizemoney.
The issue here is that illegally obtained evidence can be accepted if in the public interest. But to accept the evidence in the face of a direct breach of an Act, would be unexpected, though possible. If there were pending charges for a breach of that Act, it would be harder again.
NSW has seemingly given the Surveillance Devices Act proper consideration and acted accordingly. Consideration of the equivalent Victorian Act was passed over in the Victorian actions on legal advice, so it seems that the Victorian actions will be tested in this area on appeal.
I understand that AA was actively involved in arranging the footage. In Victoria, this would represent a breach of the Surveillance Devices Act for both AA and the actual perpetrator. The Acts in Vic & NSW have similar wording, but not so Qld.
There is also the issue of human rights. These are covered in Victoria by the Charter of Human Rights & Responsibilities Act; another law not so far considered in Victorian actions.
So in summary, 1. It would seem that there are potential charges under the Surveillance Devices Act in Victoria against AA and the perpetrator if someone reported the matter to the police. The breaches of the Act would be expected to have legal effect on the Victorian actions, but decisions have been made and penalties imposed for these actions.
2. In Victoria, publication of information gathered in breach of the Surveillance Devices Act is allowed in the reasonable public interest. This exemption does not apply in NSW. In my opinion, there is no viable action regarding publication in Victoria. There could be viable actions for illegal publication in NSW against AA and the ABC. In NSW, possession of such material is also an offence.
3. The authorities have been provided evidence that does warrant disciplinary action, and in Victoria at least, don't have to follow laws of evidence. Full legal process would apply on appeal. In my opinion, the potential action here in some cases would be the failure of authorities to consider and apply the relevant human rights legislation.
4. Criminal charges by RSPCA will face similar issues (but not the human rights issues). My expectation is that the NSW decision will require reconsideration of the Victorian charges.
The NSW Board seems to have acted appropriately in the circumstances.I would not be critical of them, as this will limit the expenditure on unviable legal actions. In the circumstances, it is reasonable to expect that legal costs in Victoria will be much higher than NSW.
It seems clear that the legal profession has different positions on this issue. The Surveillance Devices Acts are not sufficiently different to warrant such a difference.
Jack Gatty Australia (Verified User) Posts 2055 Dogs 1 / Races 0 12 Feb 2016 21:28
(0)
(0)
A federal WA senator (I think his name Black) drafted a bill that would make it illegal not to report cruelty to animals immediately to authorities and to tighten the laws on trespass on properties. I know the greens and animal rights groups were lobbying against his bill but don't know if it's gone to a vote yet. Seems hyper critical that the libbers don't want a law that requires cruelty to be reported asap. They are the criminals in my eye.
Ross Farmer Australia (Verified User) Posts 208 Dogs 0 / Races 1 12 Feb 2016 22:14
(0)
(0)
Jack Gatty wrote:
A federal WA senator (I think his name Black) drafted a bill that would make it illegal not to report cruelty to animals immediately to authorities and to tighten the laws on trespass on properties. I know the greens and animal rights groups were lobbying against his bill but don't know if it's gone to a vote yet. Seems hyper critical that the libbers don't want a law that requires cruelty to be reported asap. They are the criminals in my eye.
I thought that the issue with the 'antis' had with the law was that that it also prevented action being taken if it was outside a prescribed period.
In Victoria there is a 12 month limitation in respect of taking criminal action for all but indictable offences (serious offences such as murder, sexual offences & drug trafficking). This limitation seems to have been exceeded in some cases.
I in no way condone animal cruelty, but the issue with 'antis' is the lengths that they are prepared to go to support their agenda, which exceeds just animal cruelty.
They have shown that they have no respect for human rights, break laws, publicise untruths, and misrepresent facts to support their cause; all of which reflect the same values associated with the rise of Hitler.
Their morality is, at best, questionable.
Jack Gatty Australia (Verified User) Posts 2055 Dogs 1 / Races 0 12 Feb 2016 22:49
(0)
(0)
Yes morality is something they seem to be free of Ross. I saw a report out of England where an Animal Rights Group was considered a terrorist group second only to alqueda or isis and had been responsible for blowing up science labs that had animals in them. They are dangerous zealots and instead of an inquiry into greyhounds the government would be better off looking into these crazies.
Paul Wheeler Australia (Verified User) Posts 329 Dogs 8 / Races 0 12 Feb 2016 23:34
(0)
(0)
Under section 11 (1) of the Surveillance Devices Act 2005 it is an offence to publish, or communicate to any person, a record of the carrying on of an activity, that has come to the persons knowledge as a direct or indirect result of the use of an optical surveillance device
If this is the law then am I right in saying that drones used for surveillance is illegal ? Also does this law mean that any TV station that showed the illegally obtained/produced film is in breach of the Law
If so then we should all submit objections to the TV licencing Authorities about these TV stations and suggest their respective licences should be removed or substancially fined for their illegal breaches
If that happen how many more televising of the ABC show would be aired
Paw
Mark Donohue Australia (Verified User) Posts 3236 Dogs 6 / Races 0 12 Feb 2016 23:40
(0)
(0)
Matt James wrote:
Admittedly a lot of the inquiries were brought up by but he does it why can't I try to keep up but we have gone from jail time to we got nothing on you's.
EXTERNAL LINK Don't get me wrong, I know for a fact that a few of them names have never lived baited and the inquiries had to be withdrawn but why wouldn't you get the facts before creating an inquiry.
. I think the piece of legislation was made in 2007 and not 2005 as recorded and written by GRNSW. . Also, has it taken 12 months to come to the conclusion about the evidence ? One thing most of us believed was that it was unlawfully obtained evidence. Therefore, they may have been in possession of this material for a long time ? One would have thought it was a major priority in the scheme of things that is, to seek legal advice and dispense with the matter and the material quickly. We've even had a Special Commission ! They have former police officers now working at GRNSW, but they must be slow off the mark. Looking for further ?? Then again, they've had them before.
Joe Baldacchino Australia (Verified User) Posts 561 Dogs 6 / Races 2 13 Feb 2016 00:32
(0)
(0)
Paul Wheeler wrote:
Under section 11 (1) of the Surveillance Devices Act 2005 it is an offence to publish, or communicate to any person, a record of the carrying on of an activity, that has come to the persons knowledge as a direct or indirect result of the use of an optical surveillance device
If this is the law then am I right in saying that drones used for surveillance is illegal ? Also does this law mean that any TV station that showed the illegally obtained/produced film is in breach of the Law
If so then we should all submit objections to the TV licencing Authorities about these TV stations and suggest their respective licences should be removed or substancially fined for their illegal breaches
If that happen how many more televising of the ABC show would be aired
Paw
Paul, the authorities have to obtain a warrant, sworn before a Magistrate, before they can obtain any footage and then use that footage as evidence. They cannot obtain the footage and then show it to the Magistrate to legalise the footage. They must provide the Magistrate with sufficient & credible evidence of 'suspected' illegal activity before the Warrant is granted. This is a common thread in all State & Territory Legislation. That is why you'll see an exact time and date record on any police video footage
With this in mind, GRNSW will probably discontinue its 'flying school'.
Sandro Bechini Australia (Verified User) Posts 19488 Dogs 15268 / Races 1856 13 Feb 2016 01:33
(0)
(0)
The question is, Has there been a miscarriage of justice?
There have been people jailed for illegal offences as a result of another illegal offence.
Do two wrongs make a right?
Nathan Auld Australia (Verified User) Posts 438 Dogs 8 / Races 3 13 Feb 2016 01:44
(0)
(0)
The television programs didn't get the footage from sending their emplyees out to set up the cameras, they were sent in by anti racing people who done the ground work themselves and aired what footage they were given. Grnsw then only started the inquiries after they seen it on four corners. Its going to be virtually imposible to throw the book at anyone IMO. Everyone should be just happy they've decided to stop the proceedings against our fellow participants
Ron Hunter (Verified User) Posts 4151 Dogs 13 / Races 0 13 Feb 2016 02:10
(0)
(0)
Does this mean those who were sentenced to gaol. Are now to be released!
Anthony McVicker Australia (Verified User) Posts 1439 Dogs 24 / Races 126 13 Feb 2016 02:15
(0)
(0)
The only way to bring about this is for one of the charged in each state to lodge a complaint with the police regarding trespass and breach of surveillance act, the state racing bodies, AA, ABC etc would be put in their place and cease picking on the industry, this may also add weight to any further issues the industry may look at with regards to false and misleading statements in media etc
Julie Edmondson Australia (Verified User) Posts 133 Dogs 43 / Races 0 13 Feb 2016 02:43
(0)
(0)
Your so right jack and Ben and Anthony they were watching the videos for 9 mths (illegally) and didn't report it till the end they are just as guilty as the ones that saw it and didn't report it and they take everything of us even though WE havnt been found guilty in court of law , I don't care what fellow dog people are saying about me behind my back , but remember it all comes out at the end and I can hold my head up high as I have nothing to fear ,
Jack Gatty Australia (Verified User) Posts 2055 Dogs 1 / Races 0 13 Feb 2016 03:21
(0)
(0)
Looking at these Laws, how in the hell can a magistrate convict yet alone jail people? Was the magistrate told to make an example or join the witch hunt? How he has a job is beyond me if he doesn't know the law.
Do you have questions about greyhound racing?
