Huggies Forum

  1. home
  2. Baby Forum
  3. General Baby Topics
  4. General Discussion
  5. Strange question about legal stuff

Strange question about legal stuff Lock Rss

This isn't about me (thank goodness!!) but a close friend. I won't go into too much detail, because it hasn't gone to trial yet. But if anyone has any idea about procedures, it would help a great deal, because the whole thing seems a bit fishy to me.

A person was attacked at random by an unknown assailant.
Police arrived shortly after and held people who were still at the scene (but of course the attacker had fled).
After some rather strange interviewing processes etc, and basically accusing the victim of being the instigator (no way in hell) they have finally said they have had someone charged.
They WILL NOT tell the victim who this person is.
Apparently the accused has applied for bail (and been refused) twice in the last week.

Now, to me, if the police have charged someone - you can't have someone put in jail without being charged, can you?? - in relation to a violent assault, how can they refuse to give you any information??? Surely you would need to be involved, because you would be involved in the trial (or be allowed to be at the sentencing if they plead guilty) wouldn't you?

They haven't contacted any of the witnesses or the victim about it, so they don't even know how they've reached the conclusion this person is the guilty/accused party. I mean, wouldn't someone have to identify them or something? No one who was a witness at the scene had any idea who the attacker was.

Sorry, but I have never been through anything like this, and it's leaving everyone involved confused and frustrated. They haven't even been told that they WILL be informed if it goes to trial or anything else.

It all just seems like very strange behaviour by the police to me.

This isn't about me (thank goodness!!) but a close friend. I won't go into too much detail, because it hasn't gone to trial yet. But if anyone has any idea about procedures, it would help a great deal, because the whole thing seems a bit fishy to me.

A person was attacked at random by an unknown assailant.
Police arrived shortly after and held people who were still at the scene (but of course the attacker had fled).
After some rather strange interviewing processes etc, and basically accusing the victim of being the instigator (no way in hell) they have finally said they have had someone charged.
They WILL NOT tell the victim who this person is.
Apparently the accused has applied for bail (and been refused) twice in the last week.

Now, to me, if the police have charged someone - you can't have someone put in jail without being charged, can you?? - in relation to a violent assault, how can they refuse to give you any information??? Surely you would need to be involved, because you would be involved in the trial (or be allowed to be at the sentencing if they plead guilty) wouldn't you?

They haven't contacted any of the witnesses or the victim about it, so they don't even know how they've reached the conclusion this person is the guilty/accused party. I mean, wouldn't someone have to identify them or something? No one who was a witness at the scene had any idea who the attacker was.

Sorry, but I have never been through anything like this, and it's leaving everyone involved confused and frustrated. They haven't even been told that they WILL be informed if it goes to trial or anything else.

It all just seems like very strange behaviour by the police to me.


Not sure but my guess would be that its something to do with privacy laws, if they were to give details on this person there's a possibility someone could take the law into their own hands, go to this persons home, harrass them... not saying that your friend would do this but that could be their angle.

When someone ran into my car the police told me the person was under no obligation to give me their address (although my insurance co told me they needed it for the claim so I should have got it from the person). They police also couldnt tell me the name of this person (based on their car rego details).

Not sure but my guess would be that its something to do with privacy laws, if they were to give details on this person there's a possibility someone could take the law into their own hands, go to this persons home, harrass them... not saying that your friend would do this but that could be their angle.

When someone ran into my car the police told me the person was under no obligation to give me their address (although my insurance co told me they needed it for the claim so I should have got it from the person). They police also couldnt tell me the name of this person (based on their car rego details).


Thanks - I guess I can sort of see it from that aspect, but it's still frustrating. Especially them saying they weren't going to keep the victim up to speed on how the case was going, even if they weren't giving names.

With your accident though, I thought leaving without giving an address/contact details was illegal?? People are charged with fleeing the scene of an accident all the time.....When my brother was 19 he scraped a car in a carpark, went into a shop to get pen and paper, and by the time he came back they were gone. Turns out someone else saw it happen and gave the rego to the other driver, and she got his contact details from the police, then threatened him with all sorts of insanity (including trying to have him charged with culpable driving, which is reserved for fatal accidents, this woman was a loony lol).

Oh well, not much I can do to help unfortunately, they're trying to find out his name just so they can watch out for it through a few different channels, but no luck so far.
If someone was charged and held in custody, they get refused bail. Seems like this person may even have prior conviction and the police are putting a case against the accused. Not really sure?

Thanks - I guess I can sort of see it from that aspect, but it's still frustrating. Especially them saying they weren't going to keep the victim up to speed on how the case was going, even if they weren't giving names.

With your accident though, I thought leaving without giving an address/contact details was illegal?? People are charged with fleeing the scene of an accident all the time.....When my brother was 19 he scraped a car in a carpark, went into a shop to get pen and paper, and by the time he came back they were gone. Turns out someone else saw it happen and gave the rego to the other driver, and she got his contact details from the police, then threatened him with all sorts of insanity (including trying to have him charged with culpable driving, which is reserved for fatal accidents, this woman was a loony lol).

Oh well, not much I can do to help unfortunately, they're trying to find out his name just so they can watch out for it through a few different channels, but no luck so far.


I dont know what the law is, I went to the police to report it (as the person gave me their name, phone number and rego - I checked the rego was correct at the scene, but when I rang the number it was disconnected) anyway I said to the police could they confirm the rego was legitimate and they said they could (ie not stolen plates) but they could not give me the name or address of the driver. When I rang NRMA they said they could not process the claim without the name and address of the driver! Its actually in their policy brochure - which I'd never read but hows that when the police tell you to contact your insurance co and they'll follow it up and your insurance co tells you that you should have got the info. Police say you dont have to give your address at the scene of an accident as the person you hit could come and harrass you. We ended up paying for the damage ourselves, thankfully it wasnt that much but if someone can give you dodgy details it seems it didnt matter I had his rego, what I failed to do was ask to see his licence - but he could have said no anyway. I'm sure from his rego they (either the police or NRMA) could have found the person - maybe if there was physical injuries they would but for a small claim with no one hurt they dont.
If the accused is a juvenile they won't give out names. Also with the fact he's been refused bail it's probably due to past convictions or mising court dates. I know that a name isn't generally released publicly until your convicted. For instance if they find a drug lab the person's name isn't released even thru media if they are charged. The house is shown and the age is released but no name until it has been through court and been a conviction is recorded. I suppose it's guilty until proven innocent.. if that makes sense
Sign in to follow this topic