information, crime,
The whistleblower who uncovered a lewd act at Parliament Home in March has been the topic of two new police search warrants – one in Canberra and one other in Mackay, in Queensland – in what his lawyer has described as “victimisation”. Mark Davis, the lawyer for the whistleblower, mentioned he was disturbed by the actions of the Australian Federal Law enforcement officials “as police are coming for him [the whistleblower] and never for the perpetrators”. The warrants relate to an incident in March during which a Liberal staffer masturbated on the desk of a feminine MP at Parliament Home, filmed himself doing it on a cell phone, after which shared the video with others, together with the whistleblower. The video, which was first proven on Channel Ten, sparked a furore over widespread inappropriate and wicked behaviour inside Parliament Home. The person who carried out the act was sacked however detectives inside ACT police, and a devoted group inside the federal police, proceed to work on the case. “This seems like little greater than victimisation of a person who did the appropriate factor,” Mr Davis mentioned. “He revealed disgusting behaviour in our nationwide Parliament towards a feminine MP and others. “And now police are coming for him.” Police solely launched a short assertion on Saturday which might solely affirm “search warrant exercise was carried out final week in Mackay and Canberra as a part of an ongoing investigation”. “No arrests had been made,” the assertion mentioned. “This pertains to alleged unauthorised sharing of intimate pictures”. READ MORE: The warrant was executed underneath part 72C of the Crimes Act 1900 whereby “the offender is aware of the opposite individual doesn’t consent to the distribution; or is reckless about whether or not the opposite individual consents to the distribution”. It’s generally known as the “revenge porn” clause. “There’s a very disturbing tone to those warrants,” Mr Davis mentioned. “As soon as once more there seems to be an investigation into particular person journalists doing their job within the public curiosity”. Our journalists work onerous to supply native, up-to-date information to the neighborhood. That is how one can proceed to entry our trusted content material:
/pictures/rework/v1/crop/frm/ZBtA3uhzm786CWHKXPpjK4/11826ac0-8733-492b-81bb-0d70ef272765.jpg/r0_292_4500_2834_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg
The whistleblower who uncovered a lewd act at Parliament Home in March has been the topic of two new police search warrants – one in Canberra and one other in Mackay, in Queensland – in what his lawyer has described as “victimisation”.
Mark Davis, the lawyer for the whistleblower, mentioned he was disturbed by the actions of the Australian Federal Law enforcement officials “as police are coming for him [the whistleblower] and never for the perpetrators”.
The warrants relate to an incident in March during which a Liberal staffer masturbated on the desk of a feminine MP at Parliament Home, filmed himself doing it on a cell phone, after which shared the video with others, together with the whistleblower.
The video, which was first proven on Channel Ten, sparked a furore over widespread inappropriate and wicked behaviour inside Parliament Home.
The person who carried out the act was sacked however detectives inside ACT police, and a devoted group inside the federal police, proceed to work on the case.
“This seems like little greater than victimisation of a person who did the appropriate factor,” Mr Davis mentioned.
“He revealed disgusting behaviour in our nationwide Parliament towards a feminine MP and others.
“And now police are coming for him.”
Police solely launched a short assertion on Saturday which might solely affirm “search warrant exercise was carried out final week in Mackay and Canberra as a part of an ongoing investigation”.
“No arrests had been made,” the assertion mentioned.
“This pertains to alleged unauthorised sharing of intimate pictures”.
The warrant was executed underneath part 72C of the Crimes Act 1900 whereby “the offenderis aware of the opposite individual doesn’t consent to the distribution; or is reckless about whether or not the opposite individual consents to the distribution”. It’s generally known as the “revenge porn” clause.
“There’s a very disturbing tone to those warrants,” Mr Davis mentioned.
“As soon as once more there seems to be an investigation into particular person journalists doing their job within the public curiosity”.
Our journalists work onerous to supply native, up-to-date information to the neighborhood. That is how one can proceed to entry our trusted content material: