unitedstatessecurities

  • Subscribe to our RSS feed.
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Digg

Thursday, December 13, 2012

CRIMES ACT 1958 - SECT 464C - RIGHT TO COMMUNICATE WITH FRIEND, RELATIVE AND LEGAL PRACTITIONER

Posted on 1:47 PM by Unknown
464C. Right to communicate with friend, relative and legal practitioner

(1) Before any questioning or investigation under section 464A(2) commences,
an investigating official must inform the person in custody that he or she-

(a) may communicate with or attempt to communicate with a friend or
relative to inform that person of his or her whereabouts; and
TO COMMUNICATE WITH FRIEND
(b) may communicate with or attempt to communicate with a legal
practitioner-

and, unless the investigating official believes on reasonable grounds that-

(c) the communication would result in the escape of an accomplice or the
fabrication or destruction of evidence; or

(d) the questioning or investigation is so urgent, having regard to the
safety of other people, that it should not be delayed-

the investigating official must defer the questioning and investigation for a
time that is reasonable in the circumstances to enable the person to make, or
attempt to make, the communication.

(2) Subject to subsection (1), if a person wishes to communicate with a
friend, relative or legal practitioner, the investigating official in whose
custody the person then is-

(a) must afford the person reasonable facilities as soon as practicable to
enable the person to do so; and

(b) must allow the person's legal practitioner or a clerk of the legal
practitioner to communicate with the person in custody in
circumstances in which as far as practicable the communication will
not be overheard.

(3) This section also applies to any questioning or investigation in
accordance with an order made under section 464B(5).

(4) This section does not apply to questioning or investigation in connection
with an offence under section 49(1) of the Road Safety Act 1986.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ca195882/s464c.html 

Road Safety Act 1986 - SECT 49

Offences involving alcohol or other drugs
49. Offences involving alcohol or other drugs

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he or she-

(a) drives a motor vehicle or is in charge of a motor vehicle while under
the influence of intoxicating liquor or of any drug to such an extent
as to be incapable of having proper control of the motor vehicle; or

(b) drives a motor vehicle or is in charge of a motor vehicle while the
prescribed concentration of alcohol or more than the prescribed
concentration of alcohol is present in his or her blood or breath; or

(ba) drives a motor vehicle or is in charge of a motor vehicle while
impaired by a drug; or

(bb) drives a motor vehicle or is in charge of a motor vehicle while the
prescribed concentration of drugs or more than the prescribed
concentration of drugs is present in his or her blood or oral fluid;
or

(c) refuses to undergo a preliminary breath test in accordance with
section 53 when required under that section to do so; or

(ca) refuses to undergo an assessment of drug impairment in accordance with
section 55A when required under that section to do so or refuses to
comply with any other requirement made under section 55A(1); or

(d) refuses or fails to comply with a request or signal to stop a motor
vehicle, and remain stopped, given under section 54(3); or

(e) refuses to comply with a requirement made under section 55(1), (2),
(2AA), (2A) or (9A); or

(ea) refuses to comply with a requirement made under section 55B(1); or

(eb) refuses to provide a sample of oral fluid in accordance with section
55D or 55E when required under that section to do so or refuses to
comply with any other requirement made under that section; or

(f) within 3 hours after driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle
furnishes a sample of breath for analysis by a breath analysing
instrument under section 55 and-

(i) the result of the analysis as recorded or shown by the breath
analysing instrument indicates that the prescribed concentration of
alcohol or more than the prescribed concentration of alcohol is
present in his or her breath; and

(ii) the concentration of alcohol indicated by the analysis to be present
in his or her breath was not due solely to the consumption of alcohol
after driving or being in charge of the motor vehicle; or

(g) has had a sample of blood taken from him or her in accordance with
section 55, 55B, 55E or 56 within 3 hours after driving or being in
charge of a motor vehicle and-

(i) the sample has been analysed within 12 months after it was taken by a
properly qualified analyst within the meaning of section 57 and the
analyst has found that at the time of analysis the prescribed
concentration of alcohol or more than the prescribed concentration of
alcohol was present in that sample; and

(ii) the concentration of alcohol found by the analyst to be present in
that sample was not due solely to the consumption of alcohol after
driving or being in charge of the motor vehicle; or

(h) within 3 hours after driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle
provides a sample of oral fluid in accordance with section 55E and-

(i) the sample has been analysed by a properly qualified analyst within
the meaning of section 57B and the analyst has found that at the time
of analysis a prescribed illicit drug was present in that sample in
any concentration; and

(ii) the presence of the drug in that sample was not due solely to the
consumption or use of that drug after driving or being in charge of
the motor vehicle; or

(i) has had a sample of blood taken from him or her in accordance
with section 55, 55B, 55E or 56 within 3 hours after driving or
being in charge of a motor vehicle and-

(i) the sample has been analysed by a properly qualified analyst within
the meaning of section 57 and the analyst has found that at the time
of analysis a prescribed illicit drug was present in that sample in
any concentration; and

(ii) the presence of the drug in that sample was not due solely to the
consumption or use of that drug after driving or being in charge of
the motor vehicle.

(1A) A person may be convicted or found guilty of an offence under paragraph
(c), (ca), (e), (ea) or (eb) of subsection (1) even if-

(a) in the case of an offence under paragraph (c), a prescribed device was
not presented to the person at the time of the making of the
requirement; and

(b) in the case of an offence under paragraph (ca)-

(i) a requirement to undergo an assessment of drug impairment was not made
at a place where such an assessment could have been carried out; and

(ii) a member of the police force authorised to carry out an assessment of
drug impairment was not present at the place where the requirement was
made at the time it was made; and

(c) in the case of an offence under paragraph (e)-

(i) a breath analysing instrument was not available at the place or
vehicle where the requirement was made at the time it was made; and

(ii) a person authorised to operate a breath analysing instrument was not
present at the place where the requirement was made at the time it was
made; and

(iii) the person requiring a sample of blood had not nominated a registered
medical practitioner or approved health professional to take the
sample; and

(iv) a registered medical practitioner or approved health professional was
not present at the place where the requirement was made at the time it
was made; and

(d) in the case of an offence under paragraph (ea)-

(i) the member of the police force requiring a sample of blood had not
nominated a registered medical practitioner or approved health
professional to take the sample; and

(ii) the member of the police force requiring a sample of urine had not
nominated a registered medical practitioner or approved health
professional to whom the sample was to be furnished for analysis; and

(iii) a registered medical practitioner or approved health professional was
not present at the place where the requirement was made at the time it
was made; and

(e) in the case of an offence under paragraph (eb)-

(i) a prescribed device was not presented to the person at the time of the
making of the requirement; and

(ii) a prescribed device was not available at the place or vehicle where
the requirement was made at the time it was made; and

(iii) a person authorised to carry out the prescribed procedure for the
provision of a sample of oral fluid was not present at the place where
the requirement was made at the time it was made; and

(iv) the person requiring a sample of blood had not nominated a registered
medical practitioner or approved health professional to take the
sample; and

(v) a registered medical practitioner or approved health professional was
not present at the place where the requirement was made at the time it
was made.

(1B) To avoid doubt, in proceedings for an offence under paragraph (e) of
subsection (1) a state of affairs or circumstance referred to in subsection
(1A)(c)(i) or (ii) is not a reason of a substantial character for a refusal
for the purposes of section 55(9).

(1C) To avoid doubt, in proceedings for an offence under paragraph (eb) of
subsection (1) a state of affairs or circumstance referred to in subsection
(1A)(e)(i), (ii) or (iii) is not a reason of a substantial character for a
refusal for the purposes of section 55E(12).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/rsa1986125/s49.html 
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Posted in 'Australia is a Crime Scene' - Robbie Thorpe, 100% Australian Independent Media, mikiverse, Mikiverse Headline News, Mikiverse Health, Mikiverse Law, Mikiverse Politics, Mikiverse Science | No comments
Newer Post Older Post Home

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Popular Posts

  • SEND THIS DOCUMENT TO THE JUDGE AND WATCH YOUR COURT CASE VANISH!
    http://freedomfromgovernment.us/?p=725  Taken from FREEDOM FROM GOVERNMENT webpage. Use the following freedom affidavit to let them know tha...
  • DECLARING YOURSELF AS A SECURE PARTY CREDITOR
    Published February 12, 2012 | By admin In the review of the steps necessary for filing your Redemption, the main and primary focus, for ...
  • JEAN KEATING ORLANDO FLORIDA SEMINAR
    Transcribed by Rockney Martineau 12/25/04 Jean Keating Work Shop   ______________________ INTRODUCTION By:   Michael Young               ...
  • THE UNIFORM SECURITIZATION SCHEME-THE BIRTH SCAM
    PLEASE NOTE: I do not know who authored this, but, think that it was a biological composition with the calling of Bill. I was presented with...
  • BEAT THE LAW "HOW TO GET DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY"
    ALL CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE OR FROM COL WILSON IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. ALL RIG...
  • COSMIC BLUEPRINTS OPEN FORUM TONY Z AND KATE OF GAIA
    Listen to internet radio with Critical Mass Radio on Blog Talk Radio ETHICAL   DONATORS  AND  COMMUNITY MEMBERS  REQUIRED, TO FILL THIS SP...
  • WHEN ENGLAND BECAME A VASSAL STATE OF THE VATICAN.....THE SECRET TREATY OF VERONA 1213
    “On October 3rd 1213, King John, as ‘King of England Corporation Sole’ claimed autonomy over all the sovereign rights of England and ...
  • COSMIC BLUEPRINTS OPEN FORUM. TONY Z, KATE OF GAIA AND OTHERS TALK TO TAMI PEPPERMAN
    Listen to internet radio with Critical Mass Radio on Blog Talk Radio ETHICAL   DONATORS  AND  COMMUNITY MEMBERS  REQUIRED, TO FILL THIS SP...
  • NEGOTIORUM GESTIO & NEGOTIORUM GESTOR AS DEFINED IN BLACKS LAW FIRST EDITION
    NEGOTIORUM GESTIO. Lat. In the civil law. Literally, a doing of business or businesses. A species of spontaneous agency, or an interference ...
  • LEAVING THE PFARM - OPPT DISCUSSION BY TAMI PEPPERMAN AND FRIENDS
    There are some terrible audio problems over the first 5-10 minutes then it really kicks off. The trend that I am noticing in the OPPT debate...

Categories

  • 'Australia is 100% Australian Independent Media (6)
  • 'Australia is a Crime Scene' - Robbie Thorpe (107)
  • 100% Australian Independent Media (392)
  • 100% Independent Australian Media (69)
  • 100% Independent Australian Media Australian Constitution (2)
  • A4V (2)
  • Administration and Probate Act 1958 - SECT 9 (1)
  • Australia is a Crime Scene (1)
  • Australian Federal Police Act 1979 (1)
  • Australian Independent Media (1)
  • Bill Turner (1)
  • Bills of Exchange Act 1909 (1)
  • Blacks Law (1)
  • Bono Vacantia (1)
  • Bouvier's (1)
  • Bruce Bell (1)
  • Cestui Que Vie Act 1666 (7)
  • Challenger (1)
  • COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA IS A CORPORATION. (1)
  • Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (1)
  • County Court owned by Liberty (1)
  • Daily Mail (1)
  • Dean Clifford (7)
  • Frank O’Collins (6)
  • Free Roger Hayes (2)
  • Freedom from Government (1)
  • Herald Sun (3)
  • high court (1)
  • High Court decisions (2)
  • http://mikiverselaw.blogspot.com.au/ (24)
  • Idle No More (1)
  • Information Privacy Act 2000 (1)
  • Jean Keating (2)
  • Judiciary Act 1903 S.40 (1)
  • King James II of Australia (1)
  • Larry Hannigan (1)
  • Liberty (1)
  • Mark A Robinson (1)
  • Mark McMurtrie (23)
  • Master in Equity (1)
  • Mens Rea (1)
  • Mental Health Act (1)
  • Mika of the family Rasila (4)
  • mikiverse (486)
  • Mikiverse Headline News (464)
  • Mikiverse Health (492)
  • Mikiverse Law (490)
  • Mikiverse Politics (494)
  • Mikiverse Science (488)
  • mikiverse.com (23)
  • MikiverseLaw (6)
  • Motor Car Act 1909 (1)
  • NATIONAL TRANSPORT COMMISSION (ROAD TRANSPORT LEGISLATION—AUSTRALIAN ROAD RULES) REGULATIONS 2006 (1)
  • NSW Law Reform Commission (1)
  • OPPT (8)
  • Original Soveregn Tribal Federation (5)
  • Originie Australian (2)
  • OSTF (9)
  • Pacific Islanders Protection Act 1872 (1)
  • Police Brutality (1)
  • PUBLIC NOTICE (1)
  • Real Justice (1)
  • RealJustice (1)
  • Robert Arthur Menard (4)
  • Robert Menard (4)
  • Rod Class (3)
  • Roger Hayes (1)
  • RT (1)
  • Rumble-v-Liverpool Plains Shire Council No. 2011/58125 (1)
  • S 16 Motor Car Act 1909 (1)
  • S.76 Sentencing Act 1991 (1)
  • Santos Bonacci (1)
  • Stefan Molyneux (1)
  • Tami Pepperman (3)
  • The Judiciary Act 1903 (1)
  • The Mikiverse (3)
  • UCC Financing Statement (1)
  • Vimeo (1)
  • Wayne Glew (1)
  • Winston Shrout (1)
  • You Tube (24)
  • Your CAR is NOT a MOTOR VEHICLE (3)

Blog Archive

  • ►  2013 (304)
    • ►  September (15)
    • ►  August (59)
    • ►  July (30)
    • ►  June (28)
    • ►  May (18)
    • ►  April (25)
    • ►  March (31)
    • ►  February (66)
    • ►  January (32)
  • ▼  2012 (196)
    • ▼  December (48)
      • CONTRACT BY CONSENT.( STATUS, JURISDICTION, ADJUDI...
      • THE HISTORY OF THE U.S. CODE - ROD CLASS
      • EXERCISING CONTRACT LAW AND SOVEREIGNTY WITH THE L...
      • THE POWER OF PAPER
      • DEALING WITH BUREAUCRATS
      • JOHN WILSON'S LETTER TO AUSTRALIAN ATTORNEY-GENERA...
      • THE LETTERS PATENTS OF KING HENRY THE SEVENTH GRAN...
      • BRITISH-AMERICAN DIPLOMACY THE JAY TREATY; NOVEMBE...
      • BLACKS LAW 1 & 4 ED: NOMEN DEFINITION
      • EURO-COURT OUTLAWS CRITICISM OF EU
      • THE BRITISH CROWN = JESUIT CONTROLLED SINCE KING G...
      • TAMI PEPPERMAN ON RIPPLES FROM THE POND UK RADIO D...
      • FREEMAN ON THE LAND MOVEMENT CREATES ‘MAJOR POLICI...
      • THE WIZARDS OF OZ PART 1
      • MASS ARREST WARRANTS - DAVID WILCOCK & WINSTON SHR...
      • CORPORATIONS (QUEENSLAND) ACT 1990
      • VIC HEADED FOR 'HORRENDOUS' ROAD TOLL
      • IS THE HERALD SUN RUNNING A HIT PIECE OR COMMUNITY...
      • JURISDICTION AND EDUCATION PRESENTATION BY SHARON ...
      • A HISTORY OF THE TREASURY CORPORATION OF VICTORIA
      • SOME INTERESTED PARTIES -A HISTORY OF "G4S"- CONTR...
      • COUNTY COURT, LIBERTY CONSORTIUM CONTRACT CSA 1
      • COUNTY COURT PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS
      • CANADA'S PRIVY (SECRET) COUNCIL AND THE WATER WAR ...
      • ABORIGINAL GROUP CHALLENGES CONSTITUTION
      • THE UCC CONNECTION
      • ONLINE CONVERSATION BETWEEN SOVERN AND A LAWYER AB...
      • AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE ACT 1979 - SECT 64AAA PR...
      • INFORMATION PRIVACY ACT 2000 SECTION 9
      • CRIMES ACT 1958 - SECT 464C - RIGHT TO COMMUNICATE...
      • CRIMES ACT 1958 - SECT 464J - RIGHT TO REMAIN SILE...
      • CRIMES ACT 1958 - SECT 456 AA - REQUIREMENT TO GI...
      • TALKING TO FAKE COPS IN AUSTRALIA
      • NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 PART 15 DEFINITIONS
      • NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 PART 5
      • MARK McMURTRIE SPEECH HIGHLIGHTS (INAUGURAL SOVERE...
      • MIKIVERSE LAW PASSES THE 50K MILESTONE MARK
      • AUSTRALIAN TREATY SERIES 1980 No. 23 [REPRINT]
      • TRIBAL WAYS VERSUS GLOBAL CORPORATE PSYCHOSIS - AN...
      • DRIVER ATTEMPTS TO PULL OVER COP
      • PROBLEM-SOLUTION-REACTION
      • LEWIS MOHR COMMENTS ON JEAN KEATING
      • DECLARING YOURSELF AS A SECURE PARTY CREDITOR
      • SECURE PARTY STATUS INTRO & ECOURSE
      • COURTS AND HOW TO HANDLE THEM
      • OUTSIDE THE BOX BY FREEDOM REIGNS OCTOBER 13, 2012...
      • HOROWITZ ET AL V. LINDENBACH; ET AL
      • PALESTINIAN STATEHOOD AND THE ICC
    • ►  November (25)
    • ►  October (15)
    • ►  September (11)
    • ►  August (13)
    • ►  July (12)
    • ►  June (37)
    • ►  May (10)
    • ►  April (5)
    • ►  March (6)
    • ►  February (13)
    • ►  January (1)
Powered by Blogger.