2 Editorial
- how the law can be used to crush those who step out of line.
3 Craig Ingram
- another Independent who makes things happen.
5 Update On CIR In SA
- still ticking along
6 Affirmative Action For Judges
- Dr Spry laments the poorer quality of justice arising from the implementation of ideology
8 Conspiracy Or Incompetence? (in full at the end)
- the CMC report allows us to look more closely at what when wrong in the prosecution of Hanson and Etteridge.
10 Australians For Honest Politics
-the involvement of Tony Abbot (in full at the end)
12 Anti-terrorist Equals Anti-civil Liberties
- Geoff Muirden sees laws going too far.
13 Letters To The Editor
- Margit Alm also went to the Population Conference, Sid Hayward has a view on Iraq.
14 Election 2004 - Here We Go Again
- Davydd Williams thinks Mark Latham is electable, but can he deliver?
15 The Imp’s Dictionary
- Updating, some more definitions
16 Green Pages
Clearing - sometimes Greens can speak sense.
18 - Global Warning
- it is happening, so what can we do?
19 So You Think Immigration Is Under Control?
- Robyn Spencer looks at the figures and at what lies hidden behind them.
20 Multiculturalism - Is It A Big Mistake?
- Denis McCormack finds the seminar is a taxpayer funded boost for multiculturalism.
21 Across Australia - Coaching Through The Bush
- tough going and tall tales.
23 Book Review - Behind The Razor Wire
- a balanced view, rather different from that of the bleeding hearts in the media.
The importance of an independent, trustworthy judiciary can hardly be exaggerated. Citizens are entitled to the enforcement of their rights and the application of the law.
CONSPIRACY OR INCOMPETENCE?
THE PROSECUTION OF PAULINE HANSON AND DAVID ETTERIDGE
Since Dr. Spry wrote his article the Queensland Commission for Misconduct and Crime (CMC) has reported on an inquiry into the prosecution of Pauline Hanson and David Etteridge. Their conclusions have enabled the unctuous Premier, Peter Beattie, to wash his hands of the affair.
The report is available on the web at www.cmc.gov.au, so you can read it for yourself.
Summary
The CMC concluded that there was no misconduct or impropriety. It has shown that there was at least monumental incompetence and left the way open for conspiracy theories. What started as a conspiracy (in the sense of a concurrence of action) between Mr.. Sharples and Tony Abbott and secret financial backers led on to a series of decisions wåhich exhausted the due processes of the law in prosecution before the authorities gave up. On the way there were plenty of markers which indicated the prosecution would fail.
The CMC has done a good job in setting out clearly the chain of events. It makes valiant efforts to excuse people in the Queensland judicial system. Some conspiracy theorists will still see a full blooded conspiracy in the events, some will see subconscious bias as more plausible. There was no evidence that Beattie was involved in influencing the outcome. But he had appointed three of the key players, DPP Leanne Clare, Justice Roslyn Atkinson and Judge Patsy Wolfe as part of affirmative action.
Registration and the Civil Case
Mr. O’Shea, the Queensland Electoral Officer, registered the party and subsequently defended his decision. In July 1988 a challenge by Tony Abbott and Mr. Sharples, a disaffected member, who was supported financially and otherwise by Australians for Honest Politics, fronted by Tony Abbott.
One of the more significant items in the CMC are a couple of lines buried in the report where His Honour Mr. Justice Ambrose in August 1988 dismissed an application by Mr Sharples to prevent Mr O’Shea from paying monies to the party for votes cast prior to full trial, having formed the opinion that the case brought by Mr Sharples was unlikely to succeed. His view was not that of Justice Roslyn Atkinson who heard the full case in July 1999 and decided that the money be paid back. Her view was confirmed by the Court of Appeal. The money was paid back and eventually distributed to the candidates.
The Criminal Case
Mr O’Shea then referred Justice Atkinson’s findings to the Crown Solicitor. Since there was not enough in the findings to justify action, the latter wrote to the Commissioner of Police. Detective Sergeant McNeil and then Mr Wagner, a Police Service lawyer, each recommended that no further action be taken. However Detective Inspector Webster did not concur;
‘Due to the resources and particularly the political implications of his recommendation to finalise this investigation, I recommend an overview and legal advice be provided for any further direction.’
The CMC interpreted DI Webster’s use of ‘political implications’ as ‘...merely prompted by the thought that the utmost care must be taken before the Police Service finally adopted a course of action.’
The matter was now referred to Acting Senior Legal Counsel Ms. Loder. Eventually in June 2001 she presented a report to the DPP, Ms.. Clare, recommending prosecution but not mentioning the advice of McNeil and Wagner. Ms. Clare decided to prosecute and briefed Mr Campbell, a Crown Prosecutor.
The CMC comments:
‘It does not appear that Ms..Clare considered the possibility of obtaining outside advice from, for example a barrister in private practice, as to whether the charges intended to be laid were soundly based. Nor does the file of the DPP contain any written internal analysis on the issues in the prosecution and how the Crown would discharge their onus in relation to them, in particular with respect to the membership issue.
The Commission is of the view that, because the case was likely to generate public and political controversy, it might have been prudent to obtain outside written advice, or at least to produce a written internal advice prepared by an officer under the control of the DPP. That would have provided some additional protection both for the accused and the DPP’
Note that while DI Webster was prepared to take further advice because of the political sensitivity, no such qualms were entertained by the DPP.
The case went to trial before District Court Judge Patsy Wolfe and a jury in August 2001. The verdict was guilty. An appeal went to the Court of Appeal.
The Appeal Verdict
The CMC repeatedly stressed through their report the complexity and mass of material presented, involving claims and counterclaims and verbal statements, that the various courts had before them.
We pay the legal system to sift through the rubbish and get to the nub of the matter. In an unanimous decision, the Court of Appeal did just that; no matter what anybody had said about their status, the fact was the members in question were members. Although a new witness was introduced in the criminal trial, the documents that were decisive in the final Court of Appeal, were exactly the same as available earlier.
As the CMC observed:
‘Having regard to the documents that His Honour referred to, evidencing that the people on the party membership list came to be members in the way described, it is not easy to understand, at first sight, how the conclusion was able to be reached that none of these people was a member of the party.’
The CMC attempted to justify the legal system;
‘One must suspect that the mass of other written and oral material that thecourt was confronted with in these cases [the first three] detracted from the impact the critical documents might have had, if examined more closely.’
‘The justice system depends on the actions of human beings, not machines.’
The CMC did not comment directly on Judge Wolfe, who misdirected the jury in her case.
It doesn’t see a problem with the different final verdicts in the civil and criminal courts.
‘The fact that there are apparently conflicting results in two pieces of litigation, although an unusual event, is not necessarily an indication that legal system has malfunctioned’
If the legal system is not at fault, to the bewildered ordinary person, the answer is incompetence in administration of it or misuse of it.
Nor did the CMC see any problems with refusing bail. They quote legal precedents. If they are correct, then it is time the law was changed to allow bail in cases where freedom presents no possibility of further offences. From a taxpayer view point it costs money to keep people in jail unnecessarily. From the individual there is no equity, you serve the time without recompense even if your appeal is successful.
The CMC choose not to mention the severity of the sentence; three years without parole. This from a judge who gave a paedophile nine months.
There were no less than four allegations that police officers had at one stage or another made statements to the effect that ‘they were out to get her’. All the police concerned denied it at the CMC.
Due Process
The most chilling comments came from the Chief Justice in his judgement, when he attempted to justify the whole farcical proceedings:
‘It should be understood that the result (the release of the appellants) will not mean that the process has to this point been unlawful. While the appellants’ experience has been unsupportively painful they will have endured the consequences of adjudication through due process in accordance with the rule of law.’
Indeed, they were put through horrendous legal expense, forced to pay back $500,000 on the basis of a flawed judgement, spent hours and hours of time preparing for and appearing before courts, paid legal fees and finally put into jail for six weeks without compensation.
Without financial backing they would still be in jail. If the system is merely incompetent, how many other people in Queensland are wrongfully imprisoned?
The CMC chose to endorse the views of the Chief Justice:
‘Due process implies the impartiality of the courts and that special measures are not taken against anybody. The regular course of procedure must be followed and the courts and prosecuting authorities must not be subject to improper influence, such as pressure from political figures.’
Those most responsible for this miscarriage of justice were well aware of strong antipathy to Hanson and Etteridge, on the part of Beattie among others. They had been appointed by him, so could there have been unconscious bias? Or were they just incompetent?
AUSTRALIANS FOR HONEST POLITICS
The involvement of Tony Abbot
Autsalians for Honest Politics is the name of a trust fund, which had Mr. Abbott as front man. The fund name reminds one of the practice of hardline Communist states to call themselves Democratic Republic of X. Or perhaps Mr. Abbott has a sense of humour. The CMC couldn’t bear to mention the name.
Although the instigator of the first action, Mr. Abbott dropped out early, having set the hounds running. He refuses to reveal all those who put the money up for the trust Australians for Honesty in Politics. The CMC chose not to pursue the matter with the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC).
Nor did it choose to pursue the assertion that he had committed maintenance (aiding a party in litigation without lawful cause) and champerty (the offence of assisting a party in a suit in which one is not naturally interested with a view to receiving a share of the disputed property). If he was not guilty, then he was guilty of pursuing political action with undisclosed backers. The latter appears to be the most reasonable view and Mr. Abbott seems to concede this by saying that he would only reveal the details on instruction from the AEC.
The involvement took place between four and five years ago. There have been sporadic proddings from the media, but the AEC has remained silent.
The Independent Australian decided to check on the state of play. On the next page is published the correspondence.
Obviously the AEC is being very, very cautious. It inevitably raises speculation that the donors are high profile and do not wish to be identified.
So The Independent Australian invites you to speculate. Or maybe you know, or at least have the good oil. Please email us editor@theindependentaustralian.com.au.
The Electoral Commissioner,
Dear Sir
I am going to publish an article on the Queensland Commission for Misconduct and Crime report on the prosecution of Pauline Hanson and David Etteridge.
In the CMC report, under Consideration of the Involvement of Tony Abbott, the following occurs:
‘... It follows that Mr Abbott appears to accept that he established a trust to deal with One Nation, with funds donated by a number of people whom he named, as well as a number whom he did not name.
Mr Abbott indicated that he would not provide details of the others who had made contributions to the trust without an instruction from the Australian Electoral Commission, in accordance with a provision of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. The CMC has no authority to pursue this matter further...’
From the above Mr. Abbott acknowledges that the trust was engaged in a political activity, that is, to deal with One Nation, and that you had a right to request the names of all the donors.
Has the AEC requested the information from Mr.. Abbott? If so, please could you supply me with names of all the donors? If not, why not?
Yours faithfully,
P R Wilkinson
Editor
1/3/04
Dear Mr. Wilkinson,
I refer to your letter of 1 March 2004 requesting information concerning the Australians for Honest Politics trust fund.
The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) has a policy of considering matters relating to compliance with the financial disclosure provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (the Act) that are raised in public forums in order to determine whether disclosure obligations exist.
As such the AEC is looking at whether the Australian for Honest Politics trust fund meets the definition of an ‘associated entity’ as set out in section 287 of the Act and, therefore, has corresponding disclosure obligations. Should the AEC determine that the trust fund is an associated entity, then any financial disclosure returns lodged by the trust fund would be made available for public inspection as required by section 320 of the Act.
The AEC treats these matters seriously and, as such, must ensure that it deals with them in a consistent, considered and equitable manner. Accordingly, the AEC does not offer comments on matters until it has had the opportunity to research and consider all information available and has come to an informed conclusion.
Further, the AEC asks its clients to appreciate that in dealing with legislative compliance issues the AEC must give due regard to confidentiality. Unnecessary publicity may prejudice their further investigation.
As the AEC has not concluded its consideration of this matter, I am not in a position to provide you with any information on this matter.
Yours sincerely,
Doug Orr
Assistant Commissioner Elections
16 March 2004
Still nvestigating after four years? I cowardly gave up in the face of beascratci obstruction.
About The Contributors.
Davydd Williams is a freelance writer, once the publisher of a country newspaper. Still lives in the SA country.
Dr I C F Spry is the Editor of the National Observer.
Geoff Muirden is the Research Officer of the Australian Civil Liberties Union.
Robyn Spencer was a founder of Australians Against Further Immigration.
Denis McCormack is a freelance writer who was formerly prominent in the Australia First Party.
Mark Richardson delves into the writings of early European settlers.
Others remain anonymous because penalties for political incorrectness may be loss of employment or promotion.