Why has it taken police over 6 years to prosecute Jeffrie Nirens for fraud
Dear Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity,
Under FOI I humbly request information into:
Why has the case against accountant Jeffrie Nirens taken over 6years to be tried in court.
Why is the crime squad allowing this man to Rome free and earn over 90k per year while his 150 plus victims wait for justice.
Why is h permitted to apply for dismissal due to mental health issues. What evidence is there to support such a claim?
Where is the 150million he reportedly invested and lost on behalf of his victims?
Why can he owe 4.5million to the ATO and not be held accountable?
Yours faithfully,
Damaged goods
Sensitive: Personal
Good afternoon,
Please find attached a scanned copy of a notice of receipt and decision relating to your recent request to ACLEI pursuant to section 15 of the Freedom of Information Act 1982.
Regards,
Jonas Lipsius
FOI Officer
Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity
-----Original Message-----
From: Damaged goods [mailto:[FOI #2807 email]]
Sent: Monday, 5 December 2016 8:22 AM
To: ACLEI FOI
Subject: TRIM: Freedom of Information request - Why has it taken police over 6 years to prosecute Jeffrie Nirens for fraud
Dear Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity,
Under FOI I humbly request information into:
Why has the case against accountant Jeffrie Nirens taken over 6years to be tried in court.
Why is the crime squad allowing this man to Rome free and earn over 90k per year while his 150 plus victims wait for justice.
Why is h permitted to apply for dismissal due to mental health issues. What evidence is there to support such a claim?
Where is the 150million he reportedly invested and lost on behalf of his victims?
Why can he owe 4.5million to the ATO and not be held accountable?
Yours faithfully,
Damaged goods
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #2807 email]
Is [ACLEI request email] the wrong address for Freedom of Information requests to Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity? If so, please contact us using this form:
https://www.righttoknow.org.au/change_re...
This request has been made by an individual using Right to Know. This message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet. More information on how Right to Know works can be found at:
https://www.righttoknow.org.au/help/offi...
If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------
If you have received this transmission in error please
notify us immediately by return e-mail and delete all
copies. If this e-mail or any attachments have been sent
to you in error, that error does not constitute waiver
of any confidentiality, privilege or copyright in respect
of information in the e-mail or attachments.
-----------------------------------------------------------
This email may contain sensitive personal information and
is to be handled in accordance with the provisions of the
Information Privacy Principles made pursuant to the Privacy
Act 1988.
Locutus Sum left an annotation ()
Unfortunately there is no part of this reuest that is a valid request under the Freedom of Information law in Australia. The Commonwealth FOI Act only allows for access to documents. A person can request information but if the information does not exist in a document, then the request is not valid. The questions that the applicant asks the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity are not likely to have answers in a particular identifiable document or documents, so the applicant will receive a short reply to tell him that the application is not valid.
There are, of course other answers to the questions. Probably the case has taken a long time to be tried in court because it has been difficult to accumulate evidence that will survive close examination. If the evidence cannot survive close scrutiny then a jury will not be able to conclude "beyond reasonable doubt" that the person is guilty. Perhaps Ms Damaged Goods has this evidence; in this case it would be helpful to share it with the Australian Federal Police. One question asked by MDG is worth answering directly. It is the question, "Why is he permitted to apply for dismissal ..." The answer is "because every accused person is entitled to apply for dismissal of the charges against them." It is not special to Mr Nirens, it is a feature of your democratic system. It is so much easier is some countries where this feature is considered to be like a software "bug" and where it is not required to have evidence.
To return to the FOI law, there probably are many interesting documents that answer some of the applicants questions, but they will be exempt under section 37 ("Documents affecting enforcement of law and protection of
public safety") or section 42 ("Documents subject to legal professional privilege") of the Act.