logo

The Blackburn Case: Failure of Investigation Supervision

   

Added on  2022-12-14

8 Pages1885 Words344 Views
 | 
 | 
 | 
0
18343205 HOUDA NOUFL
BLACKBURN CASE
ROYAL COMMISSION, NSW.
Western Sydney University
Evidence, Investigations, and Police Intelligence
The Blackburn Case: Failure of Investigation Supervision_1

1
The Blackburn case which was considered as a very essential case of the Royal Commissioner
which was based upon the failure of the supervisions of the investigation. This case provides an
adequate weightage to the alibi evidence and further also classifies the gathered evidences which
were presumed or thought to be falsely presented in this case. This essay will identify all the
gathered evidences by the invigilators and other reliefs which could be or were provided to
Blackburn in this case. Mr. Justice JA Lee in the Royal Commissioner Report made by the Royal
Commission of the inquiry into the arrest very clearly determined all the subsequent as well as
changing withdrawals of charges taken against all the matters associated with Harold James
Blackburn. Furthermore this essay would reflect all the wrong steps taken while investigating
Blackburn’s case by the police and also the comments would be made upon the admissibility and
reliability of all the evidences extracted in both the terms of law i.e. the one stood in 1990 and
the other falling under the Evidence Act of 1995 in NSW, crimes act 1900 and common laws.
Harold James Blackburn who in New South Wales was a retired detective chief superintendent
of police force and was dismissed from his job of the commissions of war crime in the
department of federal attorney general due to the charge of which he was alleged on. Blackburn
was charged with 25 different crimes involved in the attacks committed in George’s hall and
Sutherland on July 24th, 1989 under the crimes act 1900. Throughout the investigation,
identification of the evidences were considered as a critical component throughout. All these had
The Blackburn Case: Failure of Investigation Supervision_2

2
largely contributed to the incrimination of the crime Mr. Blackburn was alleged with (Jackson,
2017).
It was 24th July 1989 when Blackburn who was spending a normal day without having any idea
relating to the fact that he was been suspected for being a serial rapist and also his home was also
been tapped for three months and the NSW police were also following him throughout that
period. He had left his place and went off to work i.e. making investigations of the war criminals
living in Australia. That day he had also seen the surveillance police but had no idea that he was
the only target to whom they were following. That was the same day on which he was arrested
and immediately after that a damaging indictment of NSW had taken place. The media and all
the journalist were putting pressure on the police to have a bite of the case. Consequently, at the
headquarters of the police lock-up a conference by the media was conducted and all the
journalists present in the lockup at that time provided the brief of all the evidences recorded by
them before the Royal Commission. The entire captured story relating to the arrest of the
Blackburn for committing sexual offences were leaked in the public at large because of the
influence of the radio and television. This news had also added a spice in the headlines of the
newspapers (Cattle, 2016).
Initially at the time of arresting Mr. Blackburn, the police officials had no exact evidences so
they had completely relied upon a hunch of justifications which was to be given by Mr.
The Blackburn Case: Failure of Investigation Supervision_3

End of preview

Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.

Related Documents
Eyewitness Identification: Admissibility & Reform
|9
|2092
|289

Misrepresentations by Investigating Police Officers in the Case Against James Harold Blackburn
|6
|2037
|98

Criminal Law: Wrongful Conviction of Donald Marshall
|9
|2568
|54

Criminal Law Case Study Miranda v. Arizona 2022
|5
|1190
|21

Corporate/Business Law - Dietrich v The Queen [1992] HCA 57
|5
|1116
|21

Difference Between Sensationalism and Journalism
|4
|724
|366