- Jurisdiction
- Australia
Hello,
I am a police officer and I am researching how to refer to evidence from a previous conviction. The reason I am researching this is due to investigations into graffiti damage. A graffiti offender will use the same tag, as it is a signature in which he gains reputation amongst his peers among other things.
To best ask my question I will present a particular scenario:
1/12/16, male observed causing graffiti damage by tagging 'JESUS SAVES' in the bathroom on a library. He is confronted by security who had been observing a regular pattern where he was present on previous days that the same tag was done in the library. Police called, searched his bag, found 2 permanent markers. The male has a large tattoo on his arm swing JESUS SAVES. the male interviews, during the interviews he denies committing the damage. The male writes on a piece of paper saying JESUS SAVES. Hand writing specialist confirms same author for graffiti based on this. Male asked if he had committed the offences elsewhere during the interview which he denies. He is charged and remanded to appear before court. He pleads guilty.
Issue: we have identified that there are an additional 50 offences that his handwriting is matched to with the same tag.
How can I prosecute a case in this matter where the evidence for the 50 new charges is based on evidence from a previous conviction. I understand that Australian law is different however there is generally common ground between our laws.
I am a police officer and I am researching how to refer to evidence from a previous conviction. The reason I am researching this is due to investigations into graffiti damage. A graffiti offender will use the same tag, as it is a signature in which he gains reputation amongst his peers among other things.
To best ask my question I will present a particular scenario:
1/12/16, male observed causing graffiti damage by tagging 'JESUS SAVES' in the bathroom on a library. He is confronted by security who had been observing a regular pattern where he was present on previous days that the same tag was done in the library. Police called, searched his bag, found 2 permanent markers. The male has a large tattoo on his arm swing JESUS SAVES. the male interviews, during the interviews he denies committing the damage. The male writes on a piece of paper saying JESUS SAVES. Hand writing specialist confirms same author for graffiti based on this. Male asked if he had committed the offences elsewhere during the interview which he denies. He is charged and remanded to appear before court. He pleads guilty.
Issue: we have identified that there are an additional 50 offences that his handwriting is matched to with the same tag.
How can I prosecute a case in this matter where the evidence for the 50 new charges is based on evidence from a previous conviction. I understand that Australian law is different however there is generally common ground between our laws.
