Kodak Black and plea bargaining - is this process really okay?

Dieuson Octave, also known as Kodak Black in his career as a rapper, left the courts happy. Today he was let off a 55-year maximum sentence through a process known as plea bargaining.

A plea deal was made. The deal allowed Koda to agree to do five years of probation and a year of house arrest brought the result.  He had fans calling for his release, showing their support by wearing ‘Free Kodak’ shirts. The overwhelming support of fans was likely an influencing factor for the prosecution’s eagerness to get him out of the courthouse.

The young rapper has gathered followers through the popular video platform Youtube. Well-known rapper ‘Drake’ has even featured his song ‘Skrt’ on his YouTube channel.  However, Kodak's career is plagued with a series of legal issues including assault and drug offenses. While the rapper stereotype matches the conflict with the legal system, the impact on his career would be significant. Some sources suggest this was part of the reason why Kodak was let off.

Lawyers Allan Stephen Zamren and Gary Kollin were both very pleased with the result. Their client will appear on the international music circuit shortly.

So what exactly is a plea bargain?

The term plea bargaining comes from the United States. In Australia, the practice is used as well. It is mostly commonly involved in criminal or civil penalty charges. Usually, the defense will bargain with promises of good behavior and house arrest in exchange for the prosecution recommending a non-custodial sentence.

A plea deal is where your legal team makes an agreement with the prosecutor to accept a lesser charge. That will most likely mean that you will have to enter a plea of guilty. You will plead guilty to a lesser charge.

In Barbaro v The Queen the issue was examined carefully. There the facts are unique. Accused Pasquale Barbaro and Saverio Zirilli were charged for involvement with drugs. The defense and prosecution had negotiated away from court benches. They’d reached an agreement on a sentencing deal.

The judge refused to accept the prosecution’s request for a non-custodial sentence. The judge then lay down his own sentence, upsetting the usual practice.

The case was taken on appeal to the high court. There the prosecution was on a matter of law. The high court had to consider where a plea bargain can be used to prevent the judge from exercising his discretion. It in that the judge as the superior legal mind is capable and should is not his discretion over the case. Usually, this isn’t an issue, but when the defense has bargained away a rightly deserved custodial sentence – can the judge do anything?

It was not a material error for the judge to refuse to accept the prosecution’s submission. The judge was allowed not to take into account any sentencing ranges from the prosecution or defense. The 2014 case was significant as it overruled the previous right for the prosecution to set the bounds of the sentencing range; R v MacNeil-Brown.

Kodak Black is not an isolated case of individuals freed from crimes by plea deals. In fact, he is probably one of the few cases where plea bargaining is just a simpler litigation process. Some litigants who benefit from plea bargaining faced serious crimes
.
Then plea bargaining becomes a threat to the safety of the community as a whole.

Carl Williams was a famous underworld figure. He of with three counts of murder and one count of conspiracy to commit murder. These serious crimes are usually reserved for the most heinous of cases. We’d all like to think they’re treated with the respect they deserve. However, plea bargaining minimizes the severity of the crime. In some cases, it can feel like there was no retribution at all.
Williams’ sentence was thrown away when the Victorian Office of Public Prosecutions struck a deal with Williams’ defense team. Barbaro v The Queen was a 2014 and Williams was trialled in 2007. Then the judge felt he had to follow R v MacNeil-Brown. That meant he accepted the prosecution's submissions and Carl Williams walked away.

So what’s the issue?

Some may find themselves supporting plea bargaining. On face value, it’s a great way of minimizing expensive court costs and negotiating your way out of a devastating custodial sentence. However, the private negotiation process can either force a guilty plea on an innocent accused or realign the sentence to something less serious than what it is.

Plea bargaining is somewhat of a double edged sword. It can save or ruin lives and the foundations of society at the same time.

It is also one of the most secretive processes of the criminal law system.
It is secretive because the negotiation takes place without any official recordings. There is no legislation that can referee this bargaining process and there’s no objective review tribunal. It harbors a little bit too close to the saying ‘you get the justice you pay for.’
If you can afford to hire a good negotiator, you could avoid a drug trafficking charge with a mere use of drugs fine and rehabilitation condition.

To pinpoint what you should be concerned about – realize that this plea bargaining process is entirely anti-democratic an d undermines the foundations of the Australian constitution. There is no jury watching the process. There is no law to ensure justice. Instead, there is just two rogue lawyers and an accused in a room.

It sounds a lot like the plot line of suits, and you would be right to think so.
Some people suggest that this entire process undermines the right against self-incrimination and the right to a retrial. After all, if you accept the wrong plea bargain, there're no files there for you to appeal against.

It’s a lot like an illusory promise. For those who are not familiar with the term, this refers to a contractual promise that has no legal force behind it. It lacks payment or consideration forcing the courts to ignore it.

A plea bargain carries no weight in an appeal court. That being said American courts have treated plea bargains like contracts. That, however, does require some documentation of the bargaining process. Many Australian lawyers prefer to plea bargain through a series of subtle changes and applications to the court. This slower, costlier process has no action in contracts and can take much longer.
Overall, plea bargaining is a well-established process of the courts. However, it can legally pervert the course of justice. Judges are seldom as brave as seen in Barbaro v The Queen. Requiring that plea bargaining becomes an above the table, recorded litigation process can help to ensure justice on both sides of the bench.

The fault in our democracies

Safe to say coffee won't be going
near my laptop again!

Hello everyone, sorry for the long break in posting. It was supposed to be a short break – but following some computer problems, it quickly turned into a longer one. – Long story short I managed to spill coffee on my laptop…and didn’t that just ruin my love of coffee? 

There have been a lot of interesting things going on in my absence including but not limited to, the rise of Donald Trump, the Medicare scandal and most famously the Brexit decision. There are a lot of legal issues associated with them, but the most common thread between all of them is misinformation causing a false overall decision.

It is the general rule that you cannot intentionally misinform the public without some consequence for your mistake. We witness this most commonly through media shows like today tonight or consumer affairs, which publicly shame businesses for misinforming the public producing a false or unfair result. A couple of years ago a juice company Ribena was rebuked after its ‘black current health drink’, promoted to children and their families, was shown to be incredibly unhealthy. The drink deliberately misled parents to believe that it was safe to consume regularly when in actuality it could have harmful effects on health if regularly consumed without a healthy diet and regular exercise.

I am sure there are much more examples of penalties for companies that misinform the public. 

The law may seem boring, but it is important
for maintaining an equitable society

However, despite penalties existing for businesses, a cone of immunity surrounds the political arena and its delegates. It is fair to say that the most watched democracies; namely the USA and the UK have been the largest culprits of these political scandals. Obviously, there must be some level of inducement made by political parties to promote their message. However, surely it must stop short of behavior that would be unacceptable anywhere else, like lying or harassment. I would like to pick this topic up later as I feel there are many more sides to this argument.

This situation does bring up the question of freedom of speech. When electing politicians, you would think that you would want to give them the freedom to speak openly. However, this privilege is

clearly being abused, especially in America where the constraints on freedom of speech are so minimal that you could just about defame anyone as long as you have the money to defend yourself. Which is probably why Donald Trump has not been sued for making inappropriate and defamatory public statements such as;

‘Barack Obama’s birth certificate is a fraud.'

‘Ariana Huffington is unattractive, both inside and out.'

‘It does not matter what the media write as long as you have got a young and beautiful, piece of ass.'

‘If I were running ‘The View’ I’d fire Rosie O’Donnell. I mean, I’d look at her right in that fat, ugly face of hers, I’d say ‘Rosie, you’re fired.’”

‘The only card [Hilary Cinton] has is the woman’s card. She’s got nothing else to offer and, frankly, if Hillary Clinton were a man, I don’t think she’d get 5 percent of the vote.’

In all of these quotes, Trump either directly defames a famous person or an entire industry. If you do some research, you will find that Trump has managed to escape liability for all of these statements almost entirely.

A lot of what Trump says makes me think of
'Let them eat cake' - Marie Antoinette

I say almost because the one point at which Trump has suffered and I am sure you will all agree is his personal brand. A personal brand is a term usually referring to a person’s professional reputation and transferring it into a market value. Every person has a personal brand, and you may use it when applying for a job, writing an article or networking at a professional event. Merely mentioning ‘Trump’ can end an entire conversation. His reputation is so socially damaged that some would suggest that it was irreparable.

Terrifyingly, America has continued to support this political figure, despite multiple outrageous and inappropriate statements. Some propose that he is only popular because it is a way of people protesting against the weak leadership shown by other candidates indicating the public’s disillusionment with the overall political system. The landside backing of Barack Obama supports this theory– who, although had a high level of integrity, showed strong leadership and distinction in his policies. This can sway public opinion significantly.

It concerns me that this bears a striking similarity to the Brexit result. I will not give my opinion on the final result because I would prefer to perform an analysis of the actual events leading up to it.  The Brexit was fraught with both misinformation and public confusion. The high level of disillusion in Britain with the decisions of the European Union in the past and the lack of democratic influence that they had over Brussels led to uncertainty about the actual consequences of the decision.

Some individuals were able to inform themselves about the role of the European Union and investigated in depth the effects that the British leaving the European Union would have. Yet the majority of people relied upon the media and its coverage of politicians to determine who they would vote for. Similar as to what occurred in Australia during the Medicare Scandal of 2016, one issue led the decision because of media sensationalism.

Immigration.

Immigration is a contentious problem that has advantages and disadvantages on both sides. It would be unreasonable to suggest that migration does not come with difficulties. Every culture from Africa to Britain has its quirks and melding one culture with another will undoubtedly cause conflict. Therefore, finding cultures that are similar are imperative for positive migration with minimal conflict.

Some may suggest that the geographical location of European countries infers a cultural similarity. However, such a suggestion is outdated and ridiculous. Russians and Britains are not similar despite sharing a continent. Same as Norway and Germany are not similar despite sharing a border. Australians and Britains have a culture that is relatively similar despite a geographical distance. The same is true for Canadians and Australians.

History and culture are part of who we are
and should not be ignored when seeking a
new homeland

The history shared by the countries has created a similar culture that allows for the blending of the three of them to be as simple as possible. Therefore, thought needs to be given to the culture and habits of the country to which migrants are traveling. It is terrifying enough to move countries, and I am sure that anyone who has visited other countries knows the relief of coming to a country which bears similarity to its own. It is not racist or insensitive to suggest that the common characteristics of cultures should be matched to another country for refugee migration but a practical consideration for better immigration.

However, it does leave open the issue of diversity. Diversity encourages the development of thought and broader value appreciation. In fact, Australia has benefited from the integration of cultures like the Italian, Greek and Vietnamese. This migration did not come without issues and occurred in numbers that were carefully monitored by the Australian government.

It does not take much research to discover the racist rebuke of Australia towards the influx of migrants. It was not long ago that Australia sported a ‘white Australia’ policy, which operated to prevent the flow of undesired migrants into the country.

While the application of the policy was culturally insensitive and disappointing in reality, the theory is sound. The original idea behind it was that Australia would apply a selective process to determine the characteristics of entrants into the country that would suit the ideology of Australian culture. This process preserves the idiosyncrasies that make up a diverse culture while ensuring that there was a thread of commonality that maintained the national image of Australia.

It was the same concern that drove the disillusionment of the British people. In a belief that their national image was under threat with the influx of unknown and potentially radically different migrants a reactive protest resulted in Britain leaving the European Union.

The concern, however, is that the people of Britain did not understand the true nature or impact of their vote. A false understanding was promoted to the public at mass by political parties such as the Independence Party – with political member Boris Johnson.

The ex-Mayor of London was so confident in his false promotions that he drove around on a bright red bus proclaiming that leaving the European Union would give the NHS 350 Million pounds extra a week. Unsurprisingly, this was later denied to be true by Nigel Farage. Nigel Farage is a British Political, who is the leader of the Independence Party.

One would assume that the head of the independence party would have prevented the overzealous Boris Johnson from spreading misinformation. However, it appears that in this battle, it was more about getting votes for their party than actually informing the public.

This cruel tactic may sound familiar to Australians who recently found themselves at the mercy of the Labor party. Bill Shorten, the leader of the Labor Party, pitched a claim to the public that the Liberal Party had plans to privatize Medicare.

Researching is a serious business ;)

As a country that has prided itself on the provision of healthcare to all in need, it is understandable why the public reacted so violently to the claim. Similar to the Brexit this was not the only issue at hand, as the economic future of Australia was also important. Through media tactics, the Medicare scare quickly took hold in the minds of most Australians preventing other relevant discussions from taking place.

What is evident in all three situations is that there is fast becoming a culture of sensationalism in politics. Democracies will always run the risk of erring too closely to an ‘American Idol’ type contest, where popularity determines the winner and not political sense. It is evident that currently, the media is taking a front seat in driving politics away from an objective debate to a reality television style throw down.

It would be inappropriate to ban the media from participating in election campaigns. Freedom of speech is perpetuated by the press and should never be lost. It was a right that democracies around the globe fought for by the people. They did not fight for the right to spread misinformation and I am shocked to see this occurring around the globe.

I would love to hear your ideas about how we can prevent media sensationalism in the future so please if you enjoyed or disagree with me - please let me know! You can get in contact with me through email, twitter, instagram or tumblr.

Is the Australian compulsory-vote discriminative against protestants?

You know I love coffee shops right?

They’re great, especially for studying. I have written about why they are one of the biggest study aids in one of my previous posts ‘is this the study tool you’ve been looking for?’

They’re filled with great studying rewards and focus-encouraging atmospheres….except when you overhear a conversation that you’re desperate to join in on. Recently I was in a similar situation when I noticed a man loudly proclaiming that he didn’t have to vote under section 116 of the Australian Constitution because he was a Protestant.

A Protestant is a denomination of the Western Christian Churches that follow the principles of the Reformation. They are a very traditional Christian religion that encourages its followers to adhere to some rules of life as founded within The Holy Bible. – However, please know that voting for a minister of governance in your country of residence is not against the tenants of The Holy Bible.

For those who aren’t from Australia, voting is compulsory for all registered residents over the age of eighteen. Not to vote is a criminal offence in Australia which can result in a $20 fine or prosecution in court which will increase the fine up to $170 plus court costs.

Additionally Australia is a country that bases itself on democracy, failure to vote means that you are not participating in a critical element of our country. But, if something is against constitutional law it is held to be supreme because the Australian Constitution is the creative document of our country (even though it’s an act of British Parliament.) That’s why I thought it would be a great idea to examine how and why this man thought he didn’t have to vote under section 116.

-          A brief history of the Australian Constitution 

In 1901, the Australian Constitution was given Royal Assent. Royal Assent is the title of the process that gives laws of a constitutional monarchy legal effect. Because Australia did not exist before the Constitution was enacted the constitution had to be submitted to the British Parliament for approval.

The desire to federate was led by two men, Samuel Griffith and Henry Parkes. Griffith and Parkes were the forerunners of Federation and participated in all of the conventions around Australia. The two most important meetings that achieved 

Federation were in Melbourne and Sydney.  First, in 1890 at the Melbourne conference where they made the unanimous decision to federate. Then at Sydney in 1891 where they chose to follow the American system of government and drafted the constitution. Notable figures at this convention included Alfred Deakin, the second Prime Minister of Australia and Inglis  Clark a barrister and judge who was the principal author of the Australian Constitution.

-          What is section 116 about?

Section 116 (the clause of the constitution that the guy was talking about) refers to the exclusion of power of the Commonwealth to make laws about any religion or religious activity. It has a very limited jurisdiction as a consequence of two landmark cases, Kruger v Commonwealth and Adelaide Co of Jehovah’s Witnesses Inc v Commonwealth.

Its exact words are:

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 116Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion                   The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

-          What was the loophole in section 116?

The guy was claiming that there was a ginormous gap in this article that allows him to escape voting. His claim was that forcing him to vote under section 116 was prohibiting the exercise of his religion. Before you all jump on board and claim to be protestant to get out of voting, I suggest that you all realise this is a very, very risky idea. It is highly unlikely that this section has such jurisdiction over voting.

First you would have to prove how is voting prohibiting the exercise of his religion.

According to him voting made him part of a political party and hence was against the beliefs of his religion. A little confusing for sure, but basically he was saying that following a political party was like worshipping an idol. This is against The Holy Bible.

-          How 116 has limited jurisdiction

This section of the Australian Constitution is probably most infamous for its role in the stolen generation. In Kruger v Commonwealth, the question was put before the court whether there could be laws made to take Aboriginal children from their families and put them with white households. They presented that the intent of section 116 was to allow the exercise of freedom of religion. Basically, they argued that the Aboriginal religion (the dreamtime) was being discriminated against by the laws of the Commonwealth.

Logically taking the children from a particular religious group and forcing them to be raised in different homes would appear to be genocide. However, the judges of the case determined (in summary) that the act was merely applied to the making of the law and not the application or administration of it. This horror verdict has managed to limit the application of this section. It was limited so severely that the man loudly proclaiming his right not to vote on account of his religion is probably going to be staring down a nasty fine in the not so distant future.

Adelaide Co of Jehovah’s Witnesses Inc v Commonwealth further limited the authority of the clause. The lesser known case was about whether the Commonwealth could impose laws that were directly prejudiced against a single group. This had a similar decision to Krygger v Williams and both cases determined that a prejudiced law was not a contravention of section 116 if made for the purpose of the efficient defence of the commonwealth. Clearly, this case does not apply to the man in the coffee shop for Australia has never prosecuted Protestants directly under the law.

I’m not quite sure where the non-compulsory voting for Protestants arose from, but it was a good exercise in analysis of Constitutional law. I sure hope that anyone reading doesn’t try to get out of voting under this section of the Australian Constitution. It’s definitely not a loophole.

The Underage Lawyer