Destroying documents is a favourite past time..

To win a court case by deceit. One must wonder!!!


This was taken from an appeal by
PELIGRINO RINO CHRISTOPHER <<ZOLLO>> V. ANDREW RUSSELL THOMPSON [1996] SAIRC 7 (8 March 1996)
Its a shame that there was no prosecution against workcover under the criminal law act for the destruction of evidence. ( obviously they are a law unto themselves)
http://www.austlii.edu.au//cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/sa/SAIRC/1996/7.html?query=zollo
THE DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE AND THE QUESTIONS RELATING TO PRIVILEGE DOCUMENTS.

During the course of this hearing I was alarmed by the actions of the WorkCover officials in wiping certain tapes of interview with Gibson. At the time and now I regard this as improper. The proper task of the investigator is to collect evidence and certainly not to destroy any. However I am not persuaded in the result that it is cause to quash the result of the trial. See Gibson at pp.163, 164, 165, 185, 186 and 191. But, I repeat my disquiet about such actions. See Holmden v. Bitar (1987) 47 S.A.S.R. 509 at 517.

I also deal with the question of the behaviour of the prosecution in having in its possession statements made by Gibson to the defendant's solicitors and which Gibson thereafter, gave to the prosecution without the defence being advised. In other words the prosecution failed to pass that information on to the defence. I indicated at the hearing of this matter that I regard that behaviour as quite improper and to be censured. The behaviour of the prosecution under section 120 should be, in my view, no less than that imposed on the Crown Prosecutor in normal prosecutions. See Carter v. Hayes S.M. and Another (1994) 61 S.A.S.R. 451. As Jacobs J. said in Milocco v. Bates, (unreported), Judgment S1720, of 31 August 1989. I quote from the latter:-

`In these circumstances, it is unnecessary to examine further the criticism of the conduct of the prosecutor. Some of the matters were brought to the attention of the learned special magistrate during the course of the trial, and others were raised, somewhat belatedly, after judgment had been reserved and just before the magistrate was about to deliver his decision and his reasons, when he was asked to abort the trial. He declined to do so, because he was confident that his judgment was not and would not appear to be, impeded or influenced by any of the matters that were raised, and there I think this aspect of the case should rest, but perhaps with this observation, that an appearance of fairness on the part of those who prosecute, or indeed on the part of those who defend, is important to the due administration of justice. Glib references to "objectivity" and "impartiality" are not of much help, because an adversary situation invites taking one side or the other; but although the defence may be expected to fight for an acquittal, it is really no part of the prosecutor's role to fight for a conviction at any cost. At the very least fervour must be tempted by discretion. The fact that criticisms of the kind made in this case, which do not strike me as frivolous, are made at all is a cause for some disquiet, even if they have no legal consequence.'

Posted by My job depended on it.. at 8:38 PM, 27/3/2007

If they are destroying documents during a trial try and press for contempt proceedings..that will give them a push