Comment on Activists with secret cameras spark slaughterhouse investigation
sqgl@beehaw.org 2 weeks ago
Interesting that footage obtained while trespassing is admitted as evidence. I bet it is only because of the ABC publicity otherwise the farmers would get away with having the evidence dismissed.
If you know a crime is being committed I am sure it must be admitted as evidence but fishing for crimes does not normally count.
Thank you ABC (and brave activists).
NaevaTheRat@vegantheoryclub.org 2 weeks ago
Police are limited in how they obtain evidence. If I’m squatting on your farm and I see you bury a body you better believe that my testimony can be used as evidence lmao.
The activists will be prosecuted separately if their identities are discovered, and their lives will be destroyed in the interest of protecting the meat industry and preventing people who eat meat learning the necessary abuses.
sqgl@beehaw.org 2 weeks ago
Eyewitness is different law from video and audio recording. And if you began video recording in that scenario after you saw the illegal activity commence that would not be fishing so it is certainly admissable.
Audio recording laws interest me. In Queensland you can record without permission as long as you are one of the parties in the call.
In NSW you always need permission from all parties unless it is to protect your “lawful interests” (a phrase which confuses me).
NaevaTheRat@vegantheoryclub.org 2 weeks ago
Illegally obtained evidence can be admitted to court if it is decided that it’s more important that it be admitted than not. For example if I illegally record you admitting to being a serial killer, this is likely to be admitted since murdering lots of people is a much more serious crime than illegal recording. See 138 Discretion to exclude improperly or illegally obtained evidence in www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A04858/latest/text
sqgl@beehaw.org 2 weeks ago
Thanks, will ponder.
classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/…/s138.html