Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Jason Simmons, post: 3103461, member: 8275"] Traffic matters policy in the QPS is dictated by the Traffic Manual. That bit of policy lists certain offences and states that those particular traffic offences are known as ‘life endangering offences’ and because of this seriousness, discretion should not be used for those offences. However that policy only applies with respect to the two tiered test as I mentioned above AFTER, that two tiered test is satisfied, ie: we have to have what we believe is sufficient evidence to prosecute to a successful conclusion in court and that it satisfies the public interest test, which is that of a ‘reasonable person.’ Would a ‘reasonable person’ in that situation believe it necessary to prosecute? If so, then the Traffic Manual policy dictates no discretion for those specific offences and they are basically the ‘big five’ (speeding, drink/drug driving, seat belts, mobile phones and red lights / stop signs). That two tiered test is imposed upon the QPS (and anyone else who wishes to prosecute someone criminally) in Qld by the Qld DPP, which is the authorised prosecution agency in Qld at law (though it’s powers to do so are delegated in many instances - police prosecutors, RSPCA Inspectors prosecutions and so on.) So while our policy says one thing, we prosecute whether by ticket, notice to appear, charging etc, ultimately only in the manner directed upon us, by the DPP. Body worn cameras are an issue in many respects and not the panacea their proponents think they are in many instances, and I’ll make but one more observation, heeding @huge’s advice on such things. Many RPU officers are the sort of people who wouldn’t show discretion anyway, even if the policy allowed them too. If I had my way, they wouldn’t even be employed by the QPS, but rather TMR... [/QUOTE]

Verification

Active Now

No members online now.

Total: 262 (members: 0, guests: 262)

Reply to thread

Log in

Active Now