Why has it taken police over 6 years to prosecute Jeffrie Nirens for fraud

Damaged goods made this Freedom of Information request to Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity

Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity did not have the information requested.

From: Damaged goods

Delivered

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

Link to this

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.

Link to this

From: ACLEI FOI
Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity


Attachment 20161215110101260.pdf
1.2M Download View as HTML


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

show quoted sections

Link to this

Things to do with this request

Anyone:
Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity only: