[LINK] It's Queensland - (sorry to Qlders)

[rene]

On Thu, 26 May 2011 11:44:17 +1000, Jan Whitaker wrote:

> At 03:28 PM 19/05/2011, Mailing List wrote:
>
>> Perhpas he needs to watch this video. It is American but I would
>> guess much of it would still apply here.
>> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc>
>
> Just got around to watching this. I'm not sure it would apply here in
> all circumstances. For example, if a transit officer on the tram in
> Vic asks you for your ID or perhaps your name and address, you must
> provide it or you will be arrested. And these guys are BIG. So just
> saying your name and address is I believe a requirement under some
> administrative law at least. Not sure about criminal law.

Given this thread is still titled "It's Queensland", I'd remark that Qld 
Police in questioning 'suspects' (at the least in relation to indictable 
offences) are required to inform such persons of their right to remain 
silent and to have a lawyer present and also about various other rights and 
things, as set out in the Qld Police Responsibilities Code, section 33 and 
subsequent sections (Sch. 10 Police Powers and Responsibilities Regulation 
2000).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_reg/pparr2000456/sch10.html

The transcript published by Fairfax shows that the Qld police complied with 
the 'letter of the law' in that regard. 

In addition s35(3) states: "If the person confirms that he or she does not 
want to answer any questions, the police officer must not question or 
continue to question the person."

If the journalist had exercised his right to remain silent, of which he was 
informed, it iseems highly unlikely the police would have been able to form 
a "reasononable suspicion" sufficient to allegedly give them power to 
arrest him for the purpose of seizing his iPad. While much has been said by 
various commentators about Qld police powers to "arrest for questioning", 
the transcript indicates they did not question him after arresting him. Qld 
Police also have the power to arrest without a warrant for the purpose of 
preserving 'evidence'. According to the transcript, the journalist had  
voluntarily told them there was information on the iPad that the police 
presumably considered was/would be evidence.

Also, I think it is far more likely than not that all AU police have 
similar powers, but probably in some or many AU jurisdictions it's called 
power to "detain", not "arrest".

Irene