NSW police questionnaire

[HappyInVan]

Please ignore the fake news and the hate mail.

 

The NSW Commission of Inquiry has interviewed the key witnesses from the Ruby Princess. They have established the important facts. Read posts 73 and 82 here...

 

 

 

 

[caribill]

7 hours ago, Aus Traveller said:

On the opening page for Cruise Critic, go about two-thirds of the way down the page, past the Roll Calls and past the Special Interest cruises. It is listed as Australia and New Zealand Cruisers.

 

Thank you

[Omega1]

Wow, I thought the U.K. had its fair share of conspiracy theorists, but Oz seems to have some corkers!

[DiamondFour]

I have found a legal article here in Australia about the requirement to be a witness:

https://www.gotocourt.com.au/criminal-law/police-statements/

From the article.

Under no circumstances can you be forced to make a statement to police. You have the right to be silent. The police can only ask for your name, date of birth and address if they reasonably believe you have committed a crime or are about to commit a crime.
It is also important to remember that, although the police can request that you attend a police station for the purpose of making a statement, they cannot make you do so without arresting you. To arrest you, they must reasonably believe that you are either about to commit a summary offence (a minor crime) or that you have committed an indictable offence (a serious crime).
If you feel uncomfortable with the conduct of a police officer, or you feel that they are trying to force you to give a statement against your will, you should immediately ask to speak to a solicitor.

[Aus Traveller]

10 hours ago, Omega1 said:

Wow, I thought the U.K. had its fair share of conspiracy theorists, but Oz seems to have some corkers!

I am not a conspiracy theorist, and always subscribe to the idea that most things are more likely to be a 'stuff up' (Australian slang for mistake or 'screw up') than a conspiracy.

 

However, in this case I wonder if the big pay rise for the Police Commissioner personally organised by the Premier of NSW (when other government employees are fore-going their scheduled pay increases) is literally a 'quid pro quo' for diverting attention from the mid-handling of the matter by the Premier's own departments. All political.

[Omega1]

4 hours ago, Aus Traveller said:

I am not a conspiracy theorist, and always subscribe to the idea that most things are more likely to be a 'stuff up' (Australian slang for mistake or 'screw up') than a conspiracy.

 

However, in this case I wonder if the big pay rise for the Police Commissioner personally organised by the Premier of NSW (when other government employees are fore-going their scheduled pay increases) is literally a 'quid pro quo' for diverting attention from the mid-handling of the matter by the Premier's own departments. All political.

I’m not a conspiracy theorist... however.... bang, another conspiracy theory!😂👏

Why not wait for the outcomes of the Commission of Enquiry and Police investigation (and subsequent court case if there is sufficient evidence)?

[Aus Traveller]

35 minutes ago, Omega1 said:

I’m not a conspiracy theorist... however.... bang, another conspiracy theory!😂👏

Why not wait for the outcomes of the Commission of Enquiry and Police investigation (and subsequent court case if there is sufficient evidence)?

Why not wait? While we are in lockdown, following the events surrounding the Ruby Princess gives us something to do🤣. I hate injustice and always stand up for someone I see being justly accused. That is how I see it.

[Omega1]

Sounds as though your mind’s made up. Anyway, stay safe and happy cruising, whenever that might be!

ps should that be ‘unjustly accused’?

[Aus Traveller]

11 hours ago, Omega1 said:

Sounds as though your mind’s made up. Anyway, stay safe and happy cruising, whenever that might be!

ps should that be ‘unjustly accused’?

You are right. It was a typo. I meant 'unjustly accused'. Thanks for pointing that out.🙂

 

I suppose my mind is made up.🙂 I have followed the issues surrounding the Ruby Princess debacle very closely. A representative from the NSW Health Department testified that they were following their 'protocols' (their normal time lines and procedures). Ruby Princess was required to advise them on the morning before docking (9.30am from memory) how many people on board were ill. Because the number of passengers reported to have respiratory infections was a tiny bit less than 1% (.96% from memory), NSW Health Dept assessed it at "low risk". If the department had asked the question again later in the day or had staff working during the night before the ship docked, they could have found out that the number had increased to more than 1%, thereby triggering a shift to "medium risk".

 

The bottom line is that coronavirus had not caused NSW Health to change its procedures, so instead of proceeding with caution and keeping the passengers on the ship until tests were complete, they OK'd them to disembark. BTW, when the Golden Princess docked in Melbourne the previous day, passengers couldn't start disembarking until 3.30pm or so until tests had been done on ill passengers. None had COVID. 

 

 To make matters worse with the Ruby, swabs from ill passengers sent to NSW Health for testing at 3am after the ship docked, were not tested until 36 hours later. Another error by NSW Health and that is what these were - errors. And you ask why my mind is made up????? 😁

[MMDown Under]

On 5/8/2020 at 8:05 AM, Aus Traveller said:

I don't want to sound cynical, but I like the line "conduct interviews with those who give noteworthy responses". Does this mean that police will interview passengers who give information critical of Princess, but ignore those who say that there were announcements and printed information about health and/or coronavirus and that there was extra cleaning. BTW, that is was a few different people on CC have said happened on both voyages.

No, it does not mean that.  It means what it says "police will interview passengers who give noteworthy responses".  They can't interview all passengers who were on the ship.

[Omega1]

7 hours ago, Aus Traveller said:

And you ask why my mind is made up????? 😁

Thank you for your response. For clarity (and accuracy), I didn’t ask why your mind was made up, simply it seemed to be made up.

With an on going investigation and enquiry, I think it is quite dangerous to draw conclusions, no matter how tentative, when only part of the evidence has been heard. The evidence should be viewed in its entirety, premature conclusions are simply that - an incomplete picture. 

I am not disputing what you say - I am saying you cannot possibly have a complete picture because all the evidence has not been heard.

Anyway, I will watch how matters unfold, from afar, with interest and trust in the rule of law and due process.

Best regards.

Edited May 10, 2020 by Omega1

[Battleship02]

I also live in NSW Australia and have been watching the live streaming of the unrelated Special Commission of Inquiry with interest. All I will say on the matter is that I believe the police investigation to be "corrupt" I do not think criminal charges against anyone can be successfully prosecuted as the NSW police commissioner has already handed any defence team the victory on a silver platter. I do not know if he did it intentionally knowing that charges could never be laid or if he is serious. On the other hand the special commission of inquiry being run by one of the states top lawyers appears to be above board and full of integrity and professionalism. If I were a passenger on the cruise I would be avoiding the police investigation as much as legally possible and cooperating with the Special Commission of Inquiry. I really cannot see how any criminal charges can be laid now even if someone did act criminally, the police commissioner has already seen to it with his comments in the news. What he did was unprecedented to say the least. Its the kind of gold that defence lawyers just love as it wins them their case with ease.

[Fredette]

On 5/8/2020 at 8:37 PM, leck57 said:

I'm loyal to Princess and essentially I don't care whether they are found as guilty as hell.

How sad.  You don't care if the conduct of Princess directly led to the death of innocent people.

[leck57]

4 hours ago, Fredette said:

How sad.  You don't care if the conduct of Princess directly led to the death of innocent people.

 

Nice of you to take one line from a longer post and I was replying to a post that was off the rails in my opinion. My post in full was in no way intended to to excuse Princess as have my other posts in this thread.

But feel free to be offended in your closed mind world. 

[weedpindle]

On 5/7/2020 at 6:32 AM, ChC said:

Would you care to show the whole email?

 

I would like to make some points here:

1, If you are one of the passenger on the said cruise, there would be less chance of a scammer because the scammer needs to spend a lot of time to match the passenger record. It won't be a normal scammer if it is.

2, If the NSW police is doing a criminal investigation on Princess and they are asking every passengers to cooperate. You, as a passenger on the said cruise, needs to cooperate by providing necessary statement and information. Otherwise, you could be seeing as obstruct to criminal justice. This is a serious offence. So please think twice before you take other's advice to ignore such request. You need to understand the nature of the investigation and the law on relevant action taken in order to make a good decision. I am not saying that by ignoring the email you are breaking the law. I am trying to say, please make sure you are not on the wrong side of the law before taking the advice of ignoring the email. If the email is genuine, and it is indeed from the law enforcement, there are implications you need to find out before disregarding it.

3, Thus it is important for you to verify whether this email is genuine or not. Also you may need to ask for professional opinion on the matter of non-cooperative. Very few of us here are Australian law professionals and most of us here are making recommendations based on personal knowledge and emotional reactions. However, it is never a good idea to ignore the police/law enforcement matter, should it turns out to be genuine.

4, Talk to Princess would yield nothing. Princess is in no position to give you legal advice.

 

Thus, my recommendation is to look at the email, look at the senders address to establish should you take the next step. If the senders email address looks genuine, the second step is to call the department or the relevant people to verify should the email is genuine, the nature of the investigation and whether it is compulsory to respond. Only with that, you should then decide what to do next.

 

Remember, whatever goes on in the background politically does not concern you. An investigation is law enforcement issue, you need to take it seriously unless you can prove it is a scam first. Just my 2 cents.

I hope I never have you as a fellow passenger.

[Fredette]

3 hours ago, leck57 said:

 

Nice of you to take one line from a longer post and I was replying to a post that was off the rails in my opinion. My post in full was in no way intended to to excuse Princess as have my other posts in this thread.

But feel free to be offended in your closed mind world. 

Whoops, touched a sore point did I?

It may only have been one line, but it was your line.  Perhaps you should read it again and try to work out why it is so offensive.  You don't need to have a closed mind to find someone dismissing the deaths of so many people as trivial.

Never mind.  Your problem, not mine.

[Daniel A]

5 minutes ago, Fredette said:

Whoops, touched a sore point did I?

It may only have been one line, but it was your line.  Perhaps you should read it again and try to work out why it is so offensive.  You don't need to have a closed mind to find someone dismissing the deaths of so many people as trivial.

Never mind.  Your problem, not mine.

I read the same posts and I didn't take away that Leck57 said anywhere that any deaths were trivial.  What Leck57 said was that whatever conclusion NSW comes to it doesn't matter to him/her.  Frankly, what NSW determines about Ruby won't have any effect on my continuing to sail on Princess either.

 

After all, wasn't Dreyfus guilty as hell too?