Seeking justice for a forgotten victim

RT says:

06:21am | 07/10/09

Great Bronwyn. Now you’re revealed to be not only a party dinosaur selfishly clinging to a safe seat that could go to someone with a future, now you’re also revealed to be a subscriber to the nutty Heiner conspiracy. Never mind that there have been several inquiries, including I believe two conducted by the Senate in which your party had a majority, that could find no wrongdoing by any politician.  Why don’t you mention that? At the top of the article it says ‘file under Heiner Affair’. I’d say file under ‘vexatious conspiracy theories’.

hoofman says:

08:20am | 07/10/09

Bronwyn, you and the people you name are not whistleblowers nor their supporters. Instead, you are group of political partisans who are using the alleged victim of sexual abuse from20 years ago as a pawn in a failed political witch hunt. You are not seeking justice but political scalps. Your supporters are conspiracy theorists with a track record. That you are among them shows what a liability you are to the party. RT is right. The Senate looked into this a couple of times and decided there was nothing in it.

iansand says:

08:41am | 07/10/09

Bronwyn Bishop, Piers Akerman and Alan Jones.  That is all you need to know.

Gibbot says:

08:50am | 07/10/09

Yup. You’re every bit as relevant as Piers, Bronwyn, and every bit as confused it would seem.

Perhaps the pair of you should go on an outing to see if you can find the missing CO2 in the atmosphere that Akerman managed to lose somewhere.

And you wonder why your party is eating itself. If you’re unwilling (or more likely, unable) to do your job and actually present us with some genuine opposition policy on anything - then for Christ’s sake step aside and allow someone with some ability to do the job.

Lloyd says:

09:04am | 07/10/09

Couldn’t agree more.  The fact that the embarassment otherwise know as Piers has been flogging this dead horse for as many years as his editor indulges him says it all.

Let it go, no one is listening Bronwyn.

Jolanda says:

09:27am | 07/10/09

We have made formal allegations against a Government Department of systematic bias, bullying, educational neglect, manipulation and destruction of state records and child psychological abuse impacting 4 children and spanning 8 years.  We allege a conspiracy to cover up.  We can find no avenue to have our allegations fairly, independently and/or impartially investigated or addressed.  The person in question has been promoted to a position of even more power and controls everything to do with our requests and complaints without question or challenge.

I have copies of emails ordering the destruction of documents that were specifically requested under FOI.  I have clear evidence of manipulation and tampering and breaches in Policies and the Code of Conduct.  What I cannot find is an avenue to have the matter heard or adddressed.

The system delays the mattes for years on end and directs you to bureacratic brick wall after bureacratic brick wall as the longer it takes the more people turn against you – the complainant - and the longer it takes the more the system hopes that you lose your mind and/or give up.

When the system ignores complaints it defames the complainant as people believe that if there was evidence that something would be done.  Little do they know that it is all part of the process of discrediting whistleblowers so as to cover up allegations against Government Departments?

This state of affairs needs to change.

Education – Keeping them Honest
http://jolandachallita.typepad.com/education/
Our children deserve better.

hoofman says:

09:41am | 07/10/09

Jolanda, I was wondering when one of the Aker-lites and Heiner-nuts would pop up. You didn’t fail to spot the opportunity. Go back now to your mentor, Piers.

Andrew says:

10:04am | 07/10/09

My god a dinosaur and a Heiner obsessive (HO) and here i thought only Akers and the Parrott were dumb enough to flog a dead horse.

Jolanda says:

10:05am | 07/10/09

hoofman, I would rather be Piers supporter than yours.  At least Piers is looking out for the welfare of children - that is more than I can say about you! 

When there is a system and process in place that denies law abiding citizens or complainants procedural fairness and natural justice it puts children at serious risk of harm.  This has been obvious in matters of the handling of issues of Pedophilia and even DOCs and the like.  This state of affairs is a matter of serious concern for those of us who care about the welfare and wellbeing of children and who see it as our obligation to protect the children.  That you do not see it that way says more about you than about us.

Carl Palmer says:

10:36am | 07/10/09

Where there is smoke there is fire

Peter Collinson says:

10:38am | 07/10/09

Jolanda,  you forgot to spam your blog in the last comment.

hoofman says:

10:48am | 07/10/09

Not so, Carl Palmer. When it comes to politics, where there is smoke there is often just smoke. Jolanda - Piers cares for welfare of children? Aaaw, that’s nice.  Such a good, honest man. Next you’ll be telling us he loves puppies and butterflies as well, and convincing us that you believe him. One thing this is NOT about is justice, it’s just a witch hunt based on a series of beaten-up circumstances dressed up as ‘evidence’ of a criminal conspiracy. And it’s not just me who sees it that way - the Liberal dominated Senate saw it the same way in 1997. Piers and Brownyn have tried - and failed - to smear a range of people, but only those with Labor connections such as the PM and Governor General,  with guilt by tenuous association. I’d be worried about children if I thought their welfare was left up to the likes of you and Piers.

Me says:

11:39am | 07/10/09

I wouldn’t trust any of the slanderous lies written by Piers Ackerman as far as I could throw him…..which wouldn’t be very far. His incoherant rants are more at home alongside the likes of mad uncle Glenn Beck then in Sydney’s most popular daily tabloid, but that isn’t at all suprising given that he was once vice-president of Fox news in 1993.

Liz says:

11:44am | 07/10/09

Let there be more whistleblowers but not of the Grech variety.Let’s all care more about the support of children and innocent victims instead of getting caught up in political slanging and blather.

Carl Palmer says:

11:57am | 07/10/09

@hoofman says:  10:48am | 07/10/09
Wasn’t there child abuse at a government run institution and that a 14 year-old wasn’t pack-raped?  As I understand it, nothing was done. Is this in dispute?

Al says:

12:05pm | 07/10/09

@Rt: Would you call the following conspiracy nuts?

The Hon Jack Lee AO QC ,
Dr Frank McGrath ,
Alastair MacAdam,
The Hon R P Meagher QC,
The Hon Barry O’Keefe AM QC,
Mr Alex Shand QC .

There seem to be a lot of silk’s in that list (including a few former Supreme Court Judges).

All are signatories to a 2007 letter calling for the appointment of an independant special prosecutor to bring proceedings against those involved.

Of course there is also the opinion of Sir Harry Gibbs, GCMG, AC, KBE, QC - former Chief Justice of the Hight Court that there is a prima facie case against those involved.

But I am sure you lot know better.

Darren says:

12:32pm | 07/10/09

Other notables - Alan Jones and Pia Ackerman - no seriously Bronny why don’t you just leave parliament and give the seat to Jim Longley?

hoofman says:

01:03pm | 07/10/09

Carl, the story is a lot more convoluted than that.  The events happened 20 years ago and the victim declined to proceed with it at the time. The police laid no charges. Then some documents were allegedly destroyed but there are claims they still exist, and on and on it goes. This link to a story in The Australian probably tells it best, with its quote ‘However, the victim told The Australian last year she was tired of being used as a “political football” by Mr Rudd’s critics.’ I think that says it all. Unfortunately, the political football continues.

: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,23923673-5013404,00.html

Shane From Melbourne says:

01:05pm | 07/10/09

It seems to me that S129 is a badly written or designed section of the Queensland criminal code since any government document could be potential evidence in a criminal case or judicial proceeding that has yet to be determined in the future therefore no government document should be destroyed. Since the section only makes sense in both a legal and practical sense if legal proceedings have commenced, I don’t see that there is any case to answer….

Des says:

01:10pm | 07/10/09

For those who are ill-informed, lets look at the facts of the Heiner Affair.
The outgoing National Party Minister, Berys Nelson, establishes a Public Service inquiry (Heiner Inquiry) into the management and operation of the JOYC.  The inquiry was correctly established, so you can forget about all the rubbish put forward by Goss, Beattie and Co.

After being in opposition for 32 years, the incoming Goss Labor government closes down the inquiry and illegally shreds all the evidence gathered.  Included in that evidence were details of child abuse and details of the pack rape of a 14 year old aborigional girl.

Goss maintains they destroyed the evidence to stop public servants from suing each other.  This is am admission of an offence in itself.  Goss was a lawyer and knew better.  Kevin Rudd was Goss’s Chief of Staff and had responsibility for the Cabinet submissions on Heiner.  The Heiner Affair went to Cabinet on several occasions.

Goss and company couldn’t have cared less about a few public servants saying they were going to sue each other.  I believe he wouldn’t have been too concerned about a couple of youth workers, who were abusing kids, even if they were union delegates of the AWU (Goss’s ALP faction).

The answer is much more sinister.  There were at least, and probably many more,  two active paedophiles in the Department of Family Services.  These two paedophiles were part of a paedophile network operation Australia wide.

A former ALP politician, who was recently released from jail, over paedophilia, was the ALP pimp.  He supplied young boys and girls to his ALP mates.  He had a contact in Manila, Philippines, who could supply young boys (10-12 year olds).  There was also a network of paedophiles operating at Qld. University.

If you care of download a 1997 report “Paedophilia in Queensland” tabled in the Qld. Parliament, on 19 August, 1997 and read what was happening at Qld. University in 1984, you will get some idea.  For the well informed, they will be able to put a name to the particular school, and work out who came out of that school and where they are now.

I believe that is the real reason, why the documents were illegally shredded and the Heiner Inquiry closed down.

Remember also that the Fitzgerald Inquiry gathered a mountain of evidence on paedophile networks in 1988-9 and did nothing with it.  This evidence remains buried in the bowls of the corrupt CJC/CMC.

AT says:

01:18pm | 07/10/09

Congratulations, Des. That’s an almost olympic stretch, that conclusion of yours. The highest officers in Qld 20 years ago, and now the highest officers in the country, were all involved in a criminal conspiracy - motive? To protect some alleged pedophiles in the lower levels of the public service. And there was a pedopile network involving the whole of the ALP. Of course. I award you the Piers Akerman prize for services to the coalition cause.

iansand says:

01:23pm | 07/10/09

And there are 73 communists in the State Department.

Al says:

01:52pm | 07/10/09

@Shane - you understanding of the operation of s129 is flawed in two ways.

1. It applies to every person in Queensland not just government.
2. The section only applies to things (including but not limited to documents) which a person knows may be needed in a judicial proceeding.

Unlike an inquiry discovering evidence of sexual abuse, most government documents would not be reasonably expected to be needed for judicial proceedings.

There is lettle doubt, on the basis of the decision in R v Ensbey ; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2004] QCA 335 that there is a legitimate matter to be heard against Qld Cabinet Ministers of the time:

[15] ‘It was not necessary that the appellant knew that the diary notes would be used in a legal proceeding or that a legal proceeding be in existence or even a likely occurrence at the time the offence was committed. It was sufficient that the appellant believed that the diary notes might be required in evidence in a possible future proceeding against B, that he wilfully rendered them illegible or indecipherable and that his intent was to prevent them being used for that purpose.’

On the accepted facts the Qld Cabinet of the time did the same thing as what is outlined in this excerpt from R v Enderbey.

The learned men I mentioned in my previous post agree there is a prima facie case.

They also agree that the ‘excuse’ rolled out by these clowns about crown law advice has no bearing on whether they committed an offence.

The reason that this matter has not been dealt with by the courts is a reluctance by the Qld government to allow a prosecution, not that there is no case to answer.

iansand says:

03:33pm | 07/10/09

Al@1:52 You are probably a lawyer, possibly bush.  You should know that any opinion from lawyers, no matter how eminent, is useless unless you know the material on which it is based.  Feed ‘em the right “facts” and they will tell you what you want.

Al says:

03:56pm | 07/10/09

@iansand - Yes I have an LLB - no I don’t appreciate the ‘possibly bush’ insinuation.

The letter to which I refer was drafted by the eminent professionals concerned. It was not paid for and is an opinion on the facts provided by eminent jurists who have nothing to gain and everything to lose by drafting it.

I doubt any of them would risk their reputations by putting their name to something flawed.

I note that you cannot refute my comment, only offer some vagaries about feeding people ‘the right facts’.

If you cannot explain why charges should not be laid you don’t really have anything of value to add to this conversation do you?

Terry Wright says:

04:06pm | 07/10/09

Jolanda said:
“At least Piers is looking out for the welfare of children - that is more than I can say about you!  ... This state of affairs is a matter of serious concern for those of us who care about the welfare and wellbeing of children and who see it as our obligation to protect the children.”

For God’s Sake ... Won’t Anyone Think of the Children!

And Brony, was it like when you were chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services - The impact of illicit drug use on families, “The winnable war on drugs”? Did you get an award for that? No? From memory, that report was canned by nearly every welfare and medical group in Australia. It even attracted a mass of criticism from overseas. It has gone down in history as the most biased, irrational, and unscientific report to date. You were personally criticised for bullying and harassing experts who disagreed with you and for being completely ignorant of the subject. Ironically, it was Piers Akerman and Alan Jones who gave you undying support and substantial praise for your role and the report. I even seem to remember a headline saying something about “thinking of the children”.

iansand says:

04:11pm | 07/10/09

I thought my contribution was quite valuable.  Those “eminent jurists” can only offer opinions based on the facts they are given.  I seem to recall one of them saying that very thing to me once. 

And given that the word “wilful” appears somewhere someone really should let the world know whether and when various cabinet members actually knew that proceedings were contemplated or whether they were supposed to guess, and whether Mr Enderbey knew or merely surmised that proceedings were contemplated.

Carl Palmer says:

04:17pm | 07/10/09

Based on what I have seen and read thus far, it would seem that there is deep and widespread concern, consequently this incident will never go away and regrettably it looks like it will never be resolved. The various Senate Committee hearing were very restricted and hamstrung in what they could do because they didn’t have the terms of reference nor the power to drag the Qld State government to answer questions, hence the call for a RC. 
As a member of the community, I do not accept and completely reject the proposition that the then 14YO was abused and as of today nothing has been done.
There are plenty of articles here @ the punch where child abuse is discussed and everyone clearly AND correctly denounce the activity / crime yet it is politicized. I don’t care for A Jones, P Ackerman, Mr Rudd, the GG and I don’t care if it was Howard, Turnbull, Hocky or Pyke or B Brown, a crime was perpetrated and justice is not even SEEN to be done. A child’s life was trashed and given some of the postings we are condoning (by politicising the issue) what happened.
As Al says: 12:05pm | 07/10/09 quite rightly points out there are some heavy hitting silks that have serious objections and we should take note. I am not a lawyer, but as I understand it, the same crime could be perpetrated today, followed by the same activities with the same outcome.
If the pollies want to politicise this incident, then we should kick them in the arse and tell them that as our elected representatives get on with their job.
I support a Royal Commission with whatever powers necessary to sort out what happened in the past but more importantly to ensure it NEVER happens again because as it as it stands today it is completely unacceptable. No wonder the poor kid (still a kid to me) has had enough because WE have failed her.

Liz says: 11:44am | 07/10/09 you are on the money.

Al says:

04:46pm | 07/10/09

@iansand - Speaking of wilful, you are either wilfully or ignorantly misconstruing the requirement of knowledge for the offence.

The word willful in the context quoted above referred to a deliberate destruction of evidence (which the shredding in the Heiner affair was), and is not by way of ratio decidendi on the question of knowledge.

There need not be knowledge (constructive or otherwise) that a proceeding will be launched, just that it is possible one will be launched.

Given this knowledge the person (people) involved need only believe that it might be required as evidence in that matter.

The nature of the material alone would give sufficient knowledge to an individual that they could be considered to be on notice.

On top of this the crown was placed on notice that the material would be subject to discovery for a matter.

In answer to your question the material in Ensbey was destroyed before any proceeding had been started, same as in the Heiner affair.

Read the case for yourself, it might help you better understand:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/qld/QCA/2004/335.html

iansand says:

07:27pm | 07/10/09

Oh dear Al.  I did read it.  Perhaps you should.  Then you will understand the difference between knowing about circumstances that may possibly give rise to judicial proceedings and knowledge of the near inevitability and nature of those proceedings.

You didn’t help your argument by selectively quoting paragraph 15.  That is the resort of the barely competent lawyer.  Competent lawyers will always go to the source and discover the misrepresentation.

And there is no discovery in criminal trials, so what on earth are you on about with the crown being on notice of the Crown (a uniquely criminal concept) being on notice?

robbie says:

07:33pm | 07/10/09

If those defending what the (Goss) Queensland Government did in March 1990 (and afterwards for that matter) could put aside their partisan bias, they would quickly see that a major wrong was done. There is ample evidence on the public record which conclusively shows that the misinterpretation of section 129 of the Criminal Code was impossible (for any reasonably competent lawyer) to arrive at otherwise it would have led to the situation where no evidence would be available for court.

The interpretation of section 129 by certain CJC/CMC officials and others greatly disturbed the judges. In August 2007 they suggested that the provision was so clear that the (mis)interpretation may have been reached deliberately in order to prevent charges being laid against the Goss Cabinet and certain senior bureaucrats.

As for criticising Bronwyn, why don’t you do yourself a favour and read her report. It is a solid report.

She found that Queensland’s entire public administration may have been corrupted and recommended that a Special Prosecutor be appointed as the judges later concurred with to investigate the entire scandal.

iansand says:

09:04pm | 07/10/09

OK robbie.  Identify the “wrong”.  You may be right.  I don’t know.  But so far here there has been a lot of froth, bubble and “everyone knows” and no substance.  That is thre stock in trade of politicians who operate on prejudice, not fact.  Those politicians are contemptible scum, and should not be voted for regardless of from which partisan sewer they crawl.

Somebody has dragged this up.  Let them make their case.

Robbie says:

10:08pm | 07/10/09

The base line “wrong” is destroying evidence which “is or may be” required in evidence in judicial proceedings - civil or criminal proceedings.

If you are incapable of accepting that base line truth on the incontestable evidence on the public record regarding the Heiner Affair then you are not being intellectually honest.

The second line “wrong” is that the Government knew that the contents of the Heiner Inquiry documents concerned the unresolved abuse of children in State care.

iansand says:

07:28am | 08/10/09

One problem I have is that the documents are not the evidence.  They are records of the evidence, and would not even be admissible in a trial.

Apart from a real concern about the degree of knowledge of the likelihood of judicial proceedings.  What stage had those proceedings, or even the preparation for those proceedings progressed?  Were they imminent?  Likely?  Possible?  Are the potential proceedings a product of partisan imaginings?

Denny says:

08:21am | 08/10/09

It’s remarkable how certain people seem to believe that the achieving of justice after suffering an injustice has a timeframe to it even when the alleged offence committed has no timeframe attached to it.

As Judge Barry O’Keefe QC told 4BC on 1 October when questioned about the Heiner Affair, the cover-up was arguably worse than the original offence.
So the notion that justice has to be won within a certain timeframe or otherwise one should give it away, is purile nonsense.

There also seems to be a belief that the ALP is not capable of engaging in a systemic cover-up where a coterie of mates working within the system can keep a lid on everything. Queensland is still “Hillbilly Country” just as it was under Sir Joh, but even worse nowadays because there is now a certain sophistication about it, like it now drives in flash cars and lives in bigger houses.

Corruption is corruption is corruption.

Bronwyn was right to investigate the matter in 2003/04, just as Whistleblowers Australia was right to present her with the award of Whistleblower Supporter of the Year because she did a sterling job against considerable obstruction from her fellow ALP members, Messrs Sciacca, McClelland, and Kerr, all of whom resigned rather than support her report but then failed to hand down a dissenting report because they obviously knew that they could not find credible evidence (or the law) to support the shredding.

Al says:

09:53am | 08/10/09

@iansand - The matter for which these documents was required was not a criminal matter you goose - it was a civil matter, therefore the crown was on notice.

Maybe you should arm yourself with the facts before shooting your mouth off and attempting to ridicule your betters.

iansand says:

10:35am | 08/10/09

Hey All@9:53, what does this “it was a civil matter, therefore the crown was on notice.” mean?  How was “the crown” on notice?  Why?

You are perfectly correct.  I do not know “the facts”.  Unfortunately no one here is helping me.  This leads me to certain conclusions which may, or may not, be erroneous.

A couple of simple questions - what was the level of knowledge?  How does that level of knowledge mesh with the Enderbey decision?

Al says:

11:39am | 08/10/09

@iansand - The abridged version is as follows:

The crown was notified by a solicitor and two trade unions that preperations were underway for a defamation action and that these documents in question were required as evidence.

They were further advised that if the documents were not provided legal action (probably by way of a declaration) would be taken to force their discovery.

The crown deliberately moved the document from the department to cabinet to try and protect them with the cabinet in confidence rule.

Crown law advice showed that the evidence would still be discoverable.

A cabinet submission was prepared which outlined the case and a erroneous crown law advice was given that the documents could be shredded (this advice is irrelevent but it is what the politicians in question have relied upon).

Knowing an action was pending (i.e. being on notice) the Cabinet decided to shred the documents - thereby committing an offence.

These actions are in fact a more significant breach of the section than those in Ensbey because the crown had been unambigiously informed that an action was afoot. In Ensby there was only a hint of a possible action.

iansand says:

11:49am | 08/10/09

You see that wasn’t so hard.

Al says:

12:12pm | 08/10/09

@ iansand you were the one arguing without having informed yoursel of the facts.

BTW, in response to an earlier comment by you about barely competent lawyers, a competent lawyer quotes the ratio decidendi, not irrelevencies - which is what I did with paragraph 15.

iansand says:

02:24pm | 08/10/09

Oh dear.  Read the whole of paragraph 15 again.  It was a summary of a concession by counsel.  I don’t know which law school you went to, but that sure ain’t no ratio, decidendi or othewrwise.

In fact, read this whole thing again.  I have never argued a thing.  I have expressed scepticism which, given the party political nature of Mrs Bishop’s piece, was and is entirely reasonable.

Al says:

02:49pm | 08/10/09

@iansand sentence three of paragraph 15 per Davies JA - “In my opinion his concession was correctly made.”

The rest of paragraph 15 per Davies JA:

“It was not necessary that the appellant knew that the diary notes would be used in a legal proceeding or that a legal proceeding be in existence or even a likely occurrence at the time the offence was committed. It was sufficient that the appellant believed that the diary notes might be required in evidence in a possible future proceeding against B, that he wilfully rendered them illegible or indecipherable and that his intent was to prevent them being used for that purpose.”

Looks like ratio to me.

Try again - you haven’t been close to touching me so far.

I went to QUT. Which law school did you go to?

Reggie says:

03:08pm | 08/10/09

Don’t let the politics blind you, either by favourable or adverse bias.

The facts in the Heiner Affair are incontestable.

The simple truth is that when an ordinary engaged in the same shredding conduct, he had the book thrown at him - successfully and rightly - by Queensland law enforcement authorities so but when ministers of the crown and senior bueacrats do it, they escaped prosecution by the law being erroneously interpreted.

It’s an affront to the democratic principle of equality before the law in Australia. That’s what upset the judges.

Interestingly, Italy’s PM has now been brought back to earth with a thud in a recent Supreme Court ruling by declaring his own self-serving immunity from prosecution legislation unconstitutional because it impugned this equality before the law principle. 

Why not do the right thing, ring Bronnie up and congratulate her, She would be so chuffed!

iansand says:

03:34pm | 08/10/09

A real one.

Al says:

03:50pm | 08/10/09

You obviously didn’t learn much there.

If you are telling the truth (and by your numerous and obvious errors I have my doubts), I guess you must be practicing conveyancing in the suburbs somewhere.

Hope that’s working out for you.

I have wasted enough time on your facile arguments and pathetic attempts to ‘shoot me down’; unfortunately when I start a debate I have trouble letting it go and end wasting my time on crap.

Goodbye.

iansand says:

05:42pm | 08/10/09

Oh dear.  Let me explain it to you.  The case was decided on the basis of whether a jury should, or could, have drawn an inference consistent with innocence from the evidence presented.  That decision was made on the basis of counsel’s concession.  What the judge is doing in paragraph 15 is commentary on that concession.  That commentary does not form the basis of the decision because of the concession.  Therefore it cannot be the ratio decidendi.

How are you enjoying working at McDonalds?

Legal Observer says:

07:43pm | 08/10/09

Paragraph 15 plainly goes to the core of the rationality upon which the (guilty) decision was made. Put simply, it was sufficient that the shredder should have a reasonable expectation and/or possess a reasonable probability that the documents he/she was destroy might be required in a future judicial proceedings and was destroying them to prevent their use as evidence in those proceedings.

In Heiner, for years the authorities argued that the relevant judicial proceedings had to be on foot before section 129 could be triggered.  This view was fostered despite ample case law existing long before 1990 to demonstrate the unsoundness of such an interpretation.

However, on any reasonable examination of section 129, it is clear that the word “knowing” went to a “realistic possibility” and that is what Davies J was pointing to in R v Ensbey. In short, the interpretation of section 129 used in Heiner was never reasonable or open to any competent lawyer to reach.

Such a view would have crippled the administration of justice to the core. Plainly paragraph was a core aspect of the Appeal Court decision.

Jennifer Nash says:

08:22am | 09/10/09

It’s good to see Bronwyn Bishop speaking out about the Heiner Affair.  I am hoping she might consider giving attention to our case too.  Particularly as ours has been covered up from here to Timbuktu and is being suppressed and denied any advocacy and coverage.

I am also seeking justice for an ignored and forgotten victim of corruption, neglect and high level political cover-up.  My teenage son was severely bullied at school and had to leave school in grade 7 because of it. 

I complained to the Queensland Anti Discrimination Tribunal and the Supreme Court about the school bullying and education discrimination.  However, unlike many other children and even adults, my son was repeatedly denied legal representation in breach of the Rights of the Child and the ICCPR.

The courtroom audiotapes and transcripts in the Tribunal and Supreme Court hearings were severely edited to pervert the course of justice and to deny us the evidence of the harrowing abuse we endured.  My son was never equal in front of the courts and the law to other children and adults.

“Judicial corruption means the voice of the innocent goes unheard, while the guilty act with impunity. Equal treatment before the law is a pillar of democratic societies. When courts are corrupted by greed or political expediency, the scales of justice are tipped, and ordinary people suffer,” said Huguette Labelle, Chair of Transparency International.

When we could no longer tolerate the harrowing abuse and did not return to the Tribunal for further abuse, my juvenile son’s case was dismissed and he was ordered to pay Education Queensland more than $ 28,000 in legal costs based on the 1851 (eighteen fifty one) Infants Law Act, which is an error in law. 

It’s no doubt also a red herring to divert attention from the fact that the actual school bullying complaint was never remedied and never heard and instead buried under a growing paper mountain.

My allegations are corroborated by the signed and sworn Statutory Declaration of a retired court reporter. I detailed the abuse on radio 4BC to former presenter Chuck Brooks but the government has refused to comment on my allegations and simply pretends we don’t exist.  Click to listen: https://publish.indymedia.org.uk/media/2009/08/435571.mp3 

The Wall Street Journal and many others have published several of my citizen journalist’s articles in this matter.  The Australian media however has inexplicably suppressed our story and the legal community has remained silent.

It seems like we can talk about child rape, child sexual abuse, illegal shredding of important documents and all sorts of unpleasant topics, but the topic of judicial abuse and judicial corruption against a bullied schoolboy is clearly taboo and just too hot a topic to touch. 

Why exactly is that?  Is it because the judiciary is politically appointed in Australia?  In most other countries judicial corruption is a topic which can be discussed, even in the developing world.  Why not Australia?

“Government stacking the courts with political favourites is the main evil in the administration of justice in Australia” retired Brisbane Supreme Court Judge Geoff Davies QC (Courier Mail September 1, 2006).

I so hope Bronwyn Bishop will speak out on this too, because ignoring it also sets “a most dangerous precedent” to use her own words.

Further details and coverage:

Governor of Queensland’s charade and judicial corruption denial continues
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/8/21/770060/-Governor-of-Queenslands-charade-and-judicial-corruption-denial-continues-

How the Federal Court of Australia selectively denies The Rights Of The Child https://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/05/430998.html

iansand says:

08:48am | 09/10/09

Legal Observer - If that was a matter that was seriously in dispute (as opposed to a concession) most Appeal Court justices would have devoted more than half a paragraph to analysis of the issue.  If Davies J had stopped his remarks at “that concession was properly made” (or whatever his actual words were) the judgment would have rolled along without any problems.

Carl Palmer says:

11:43am | 09/10/09

@ Reggie says: 03:08pm | 08/10/09
Perfectly summarised – as they say, if you can’t explain something in simple terms, then you don’t understand it yourself.

lance says:

12:09pm | 23/10/09

why don’t all the protagonists including akerman and bishop
knock on the door of the aborigional victim (of the heiner affair)
stating they will present a pro bono case on her behalf
if they were genuinely concerned for her
that should at least get the matter mentioned

Lennie says:

09:22am | 26/10/09

The sexual assault victim has legal representation already. The issue which everyone dodges because of its political ramifications is the illegal shredding of evidence authorised by the Goss Cabinet, aided and abetted by certain senior bureaucrats who knew what the same facts were.

Mrs Bishop rightly, according to law, advised that they were open to a criminal charge under section 129. There is no statute of limitations.

You may kick her, and Akerman, as much as you like, but be honest and try to explain away that charge on the facts and law before you continue in such a vindicative vendetta.