Is it just me, or does it also bother other readers that the rules change, depending upon which side of the fence one is and which day of the week it is?
I am grateful that Mr Duncan Kerr SC, MHR, ( Links on TT: HERE ) has raised this important debate. As an ‘ordinary’ person conversant with and affected by, various objectionable actions linked to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP), I have a keen interest in this battle of words as it unfolds. On my reading, the TJ Ellis SC release is an overreaction. I can’t find any Kerr tardiness in the Hansard record. Then, I am not the Tasmanian DPP.
In my view, Mr Kerr’s given intention as being to “strengthen the accountability of the legal system”, is a sound and justified incentive to raise debate. To my mind it would have been even more beneficial had Mr Kerr included in his concerns discussion about the Tasmanian Crown Law falling short in its obligation to act as the Model Litigant.
Mr Ellis writes “… there should not be individuals, groups or classes above the law, by being shielded or protected by those who administer the law”. I agree. As I read the Hansard, I don’t see that Mr Kerr is suggesting that attitude ought not prevail. Having made that observation, I am prompted by his statement to ask the Tasmanian DPP — why then in his civil defence role, is it okay for him to shield selected “individuals” involved in impropriety and wrongdoing?
My understanding is that it was perfectly legal and appropriate for Mr Kerr, MHR to raise his concern about inconsistency in the Tasmanian legal system, in the House of Representatives, yet the DPP classes it as “misuse” and an “attack”. How Mr Ellis perceives it as so terrible “to misuse his last days of access to Parliamentary Privilege for an attack” is beyond me.
Here, I use my personal experiences to add balance to the argument. When members of a Tasmanian statutory authority chose to unlawfully, invalidly and falsely instruct (interfere with and influence) a Minister of the government to “misuse” Parliamentary Privilege for an “attack” on my husband, it was then and apparently still is, reasonable for the Crown/DPP to defend them and, the public purse to fund that defence for as long as it takes. Plus, in 2001 it was okay for the then Solicitor-General to prepare a misleading and at times false, attack again on my husband for then Attorney-General Patmore to read into Hansard, in order to avoid further and proper accountability for gross and cunning impropriety and at times criminal activity. Apparently “coward’s castle” was a great asset to Crown Law on that particular day of the week.
The Ellis interpretation of Mr Kerr’s position — thinking that he “should have, for example, taken the view that Section 69 of the Criminal Code, which two of the criticized prosecutions involved, was not to be prosecuted because it did not have enough “intrinsic criminality” …” is puzzling. As a layperson, I interpreted the words to mean a lack of basic criminal intent. It appears each person construes words differently depending upon which side of the fence one is standing.
This current discussion reminds me of my ongoing uncertainty over who should and should not be or is and isn’t, prosecuted in Tasmania. I made a formal complaint to Tasmania Police “against high–profile” persons for crimes including but not limited to a breach of Section 69 of the Criminal Code. In July 2008 former Tasmanian Police Commissioner Jack Johnston deemed there was no evidence of any crime according to the law hence no charges were applicable. Importantly I add that he arrived at his decision without so much as an interview with the complainants. How’s that for a quality police investigation into most serious allegations of crime involving high profile persons including some senior public servants? Seems timely here to include that since 1984, the Crown and then since 1988, civil division of the ODPP has been defending the subjects of these complaints of crime.
Contrary to what Messrs. Johnston and Ellis may say, as I have done previously, do here and will continue to do so in the future, I reliably assure readers there are most serious crimes involved in the matters I discuss. Thus from my observation, contrary to Mr TJ Ellis SC’s standpoint, certain persons do “enjoy added immunities not enjoyed by ordinary people”.
I understand Mr Kerr’s expressed unease referring to the DPP’s “role in general civil litigation”. He says, “These balances in the Commonwealth law are sound, but Mr Ellis is not subject to them and he bears the responsibility for his own self-restraint”. That long-held concern of mine has been re-iterated frequently by various persons over several years. In particular it was identified by former Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Commissioner Dr Joscelynne Scutt, as peculiar to Tasmania where the Director Of Public Prosecutions Act 1973, provides for the DPP to act to supervise lawyers undertaking civil work and also to act as a solicitor in civil matters. She covered it well under the header Rule of Law in her final report. She wrote: – “This is an extraordinary situation that exists nowhere else in Australia, nor in the United Kingdom and it would be surprising if it exists anywhere else in the Western World. My advice is that in the United Kingdom, the situation would be regarded as unconstitutional”.
My long-standing but unanswered question is — if the DPP (for the Crown) acts in civil defence for public servants and others who at times also may have been acting criminally, who then prosecutes those offenders for their crimes — the DPP? Just why there has never been a satisfactory answer to that legitimate question remains a mystery, or is it that the answer is just too obvious? The challenge is out; perhaps Mr Duncan Kerr MHR may be able to enlighten readers on this one — if there is an answer, since I anticipate the Tasmanian DPP’s silence.
Previously I have publicly expressed concern about a criminal prosecution under the watch of Mr TJ Ellis SC, who promptly attacked me for so doing. Not surprisingly, I note when the shoe is on the other foot, the DPP is quick to loudly scream unfairness and chastise the challenger.
I pay healthy regard to Mr Kerr’s wisely expressed observation: – “Prosecutorial independence is essential, but it is not to be confused with immunity from criticism.”
Contrary to Mr. Kerr’s expressed and legitimate observation, this “private citizen” feels no disconcert whatsoever about debating matters of importance relating to the unique and it seems untouchable, role and function of the DPP. I am ready for any Ellis attack that may come my way. In fact I expect it. Over too many years, I have watched and experienced his modus operandi. I will explain further.
I refer to Mr TJ Ellis SC’s 24.08.09 critical comment about me, posted on Tasmanian Times (TT) at 2:03 pm @
http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php?/article/the-facts-of-legal-matters/
in reply to my 11.32am post #10 @
http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php?/weblog/comments/8539/
On the same link, in my 26th August 2009 reply, TT post #29 at 08:41pm, my final paragraph reads: – “For readers who are left wondering about the personal attack on me, I am preparing an open letter of reply to DPP Mr Tim Ellis SC that will be published elsewhere on Tasmania Times in due course.”
Since that is 9+ months ago, it could appear I have gone cold. In no way. The past several months for me have involved rehabilitation after an accident. Even so, recently I found the time to turn my mind to drafting that letter as I said I would. The TT published Ellis carefully worded comment raised several issues that in fair debate, required an exhaustive reply. I prepared a draft of almost 14,000 words of fact, which as you would expect is unappealing for publishing on Tasmanian Times. There are a lot of issues that need to be exposed, because in my judgment they are of immense public interest, or at least ought to be. And so, these recent articles are for me, both timely and appropriate.
Because of the length of my draft, I now anticipate that in the next few weeks, I will be able to release a greatly reduced version on TT. I digress to say I am still thinking about where my original version will wind up. For sure, it won’t be the shredder; it is far too interesting for that end.
When I read the Ellis observation that Mr. Kerr’s presentation was “lazy, self–serving, specious and elitist”, I smiled quietly to myself as I reflected on his TT reply post about me — “Mrs Geraldine Allan uses this forum to misrepresent the facts of legal matters in which she was involved”. And, his criticism of the Kerr focus claiming it was disingenuous, had me doubling over as I contemplated Mr TJ Ellis SC’s insincere concern (for attacking me) as he wrote on TT “… Although it was that deprecation of the evidence of a victim of a deplorable crime which has caused me to respond…”. I understand both these remarks to be “specious” and “self-serving” as I will demonstrate in my forthcoming letter of reply.
At times I have come across Mr TJ Ellis SC being bullying, impulsive and unprofessional in his correspondence with me, which is certainly not what is expected of one holding what is supposed to be a position of Crown repute.
In the very near future, I look forward to an opportunity where Mr Ellis and I will be equals in a evenhanded forum; that is no bench buddies, no tactics and tricks, no deals; just facts and truth. I feel confident that then and only then — I will receive a fair and long-awaited opportunity to cite evidence of questionable and shocking activities about the Tasmanian justice system, or could I be simply dreaming?
Time will tell.
