PART 1
PART 2 - THE LAW - FROM PROTECTOR TO
PERSECUTOR
Secrecy is not just being extended
to criminals and courts but to the actions of general law enforcement.
Any citizen can discover they have been penalised without warning for
breaking some statute. They exceeded the speed limit, or drove through a
red light, committing crimes only the robot camera noticed. The
humiliation and shame of public arrest can be earned by relaxing with
friends, one drink too many and the surprise attack of the Random Breath
detector team is sufficient. Surreptitiously the law attacks ordinary
citizens turning them into criminals without the existence of a single
victim.
Once owning your own home supplied
some kind of security, but this has been undermined by recent
interpretations of law. The ability to sue for damages under the
slightest pretext has now (circa 2000) become an industry for
unscrupulous lawyers. An associate of mine was suddenly faced (December
2000) with a judgement of $30,000 to cover the damages inflicted when
her pet dog bit a woman on her leg. The wound was not large or unusual
but only what would be expected from such a trivial incident, but this
was sufficient excuse for the victim to demand a huge
compensation. Naturally if my friend had been without property the case
would never have been brought, but because she had some property it was
worthwhile for the victim to use the law to steal this property
from my friend.
Even when injury is the fault of
the victim, the court may find the innocent property owners liable for
damages. Somehow the absent owners were deemed by a Brisbane supreme
court to be 70% responsible for their houseguest breaking his neck by
electing to dive off their fence into a shallow canal. This judgement
was quickly overturned on appeal as incomprehensible, but this
has done little to stem the growing numbers of such cases using alleged
injury as a legal excuse to steal. Naturally this trend ( to avoid
responsibility by blaming someone else ) has caused insurance premiums
to rise, and the increase is so large that the Australian Federal
government is proposing to limit such claims by legislation.
Having obtained global patents an
Australian firm based in Melbourne has won the right to dictate who
in the world studies none-coding DNA, and how much they
should pay for the privilege. The law now demands that any research done
using none-coding DNA must first be licensed by Genetic Technologies
Limited or the researcher faces being sued for breach of patent. Dr
Mervyn Jacobson, the founder and executive chairman of Genetic
Technologies is currently (2003) touring the world demanding money
with menaces. The New Zealand Health System has been given an ultimatum
to either pay Genetic Technologies a once up fee of $10 million
NZ and a annual license fee of $2 million NZ, or face a breach of
licence claim in the courts. Six prominent American firms have yielded
to similar demands with the last paying $3.2 million US.
Nothing is actually obtained by
paying the extortion demanded by Dr Jacobson, for the patent covers
knowledge that was "well known by the mid-1980's", says Professor Joe
Sambrook, author of the standard textbook on none-coding genetics. John
Mattock, the leading expert on none-coding DNA asserts the patent should
"never have been granted". Nevertheless the patent was granted and Dr
Jacobson took the prudent step of buying insurance to cover litigation
costs incurred in enforcing his patent in the courts. The law is now an
agency for a worldwide protection racket.
In contrast to this absurd legal
contriving to persecute ordinary citizens, the legal corporation now
finds ways of avoiding punishing offenders of long established laws.
According to police figures people have given up murder by poison. This
wonderful improvement in human nature has been achieved without
encouragement, and despite the increase in availability of toxic
mixtures. The obvious possibility that cremation is hiding these
homicides (see
Shipman
Case) is ignored; a failure of detection revealing either official
stupidity or callous disregard or both.
Ignoring serious crime is not the
result of official indifference but is part of a deliberate trend. On
17th December 1993 an undercover policeman who robbed banks to pay for
his heroin habit was released without penalty by the Brisbane district
court. Judge Botting declared the discomfiture that accompanies jail was
too awful for the ex-policeman, Mostafa Shehab, to endure. This is
nonsense. If an individual chooses to commit a crime it is with the
certain knowledge of the risk of prison, and as a police officer this
would have been especially clear. Shehab's chosen profession is trusted
to uphold the law, so officers must be exemplary in their general
behaviour, with any breach attracting stiffer penalty than usual, not
the reverse.
For the courts to condone this
behaviour by not imposing sentence, is lunacy. It is a contradiction of
the ostensible purpose of the courts: a glaring injustice. The lack of
any official rejection of this gross perversion of law only confirms the
absurdity of our legal bureaucracy.
In Townsville during December 1993,
a man was bound over for assaulting a child. The little hoodlum had been
constantly tormenting his dog, so he eventually chastised the culprit by
shaking him. The court could not stop the child (also see
UK
judicial impotence) but it attacked the dog-owner for protecting his
pet.
On August 3rd 1998, a schoolboy
armed with a .22 rifle attempted to hold up a grocery store in Turpin's
Road, Labrador. The shopkeeper immediately produced his own .22 rifle
and fired a shot over the shoulder of the youth, who promptly fled. The
result was that on 19th March, 1999 in a Gold Coast court, the area's
most senior judge sentenced the offender, who could not be named despite
having two prior convictions for stealing, to 50 hours community service
and two years probation during which he had to continue his schooling
and attend anger management courses. And Judge John Hanger , after
speaking sternly to the youth, refused to record a conviction.
Whereas the victim, Mr Barry James Wood, 60, was fined $250 in the
Southport's magistrates court in October 1998 for possessing an
unlicensed firearm, which he was forced to surrender.
Following the attempted robbery,
the shopkeeper who has now been publicly identified and disarmed, asked
the community just how he should defend himself against robbery, or
should he just hand over his money on demand? No answer was received
from either the local police or the judges who heard the associated
matters, a silence that emphasises the unjust and unreasonable nature of
contemporary judicial proceedings.
This immediately raises the
question of how adults can stop harassment from juveniles, even when it
may eventually lead to their death. On Boxing day, 1991 in Perth, a
pregnant mother and one year old son were killed by a young hoodlum
speeding in a stolen car. The offending under-age driver had a record of
over two hundred previous offences, demonstrating a complete disregard
for the law; a result confirming the inability of that office to control
this outlaw. The deaths of these two innocent people were the direct
result of police impotence.
Despite being unable to protect
citizens from juvenile delinquents, the authorities will attack anyone
who defends themselves. This is a repeat of the attitude of many parents
in the community who refuse to discipline their own children, despite
their crimes, while preventing anyone else from repairing this
inadequacy.
While shaking odious children is
penalised, holding a law firm captive for fifteen hours with a sawn-off
.303 in Brisbane is all right. On 11th December 1993 a magistrate's
court discontinued the prosecution of Richard Werner Stein because he
was undergoing treatment at a mental institution.
The changing emphasis in law was
dramatically demonstrated in England in late 1993 when a London court
declared a young couple were not guilty of causing the death of their
landlord. Being set upon, bound and kidnapped had caused the victim to
die from heart failure but the assailants were judged not responsible,
as this result could not be foreseen.
Sixty years previously the law was
interpreted in a very different fashion. Then anyone committing a crime
resulting in the demise of a victim was deemed a murderer. So when an
old man died in hospital from pneumonia, months after being admitted for
being struck on the head, the fatality was considered murder. The
gentleman who struck the blow was promptly promoted from thief to
murderer and hung. The two opposing decisions reflect a complete change
in attitude.
Not only do murderers no longer
suffer capital punishment, the courts search for an excuse to allow the
offenders to escape any punishment; and Australia is no exception to
this ludicrous stance.
Robyn Bella Kina, an alcoholic
prostitute already convicted for stabbing her sister, was released from
jail by a Brisbane court on 29th November 1993, despite having confessed
to murdering her common law husband. Following a fair trial and
subsequent sentence there was a belated public outcry claiming justice
had miscarried. Stabbing to death her consort was permissible because
his behaviour warranted execution— or so the court of appeal implied.
If a wife discovers married life to
be unbearable she can always desert the partnership. Staying with a
tormentor is condoning the torture, so no long-term behaviour of a
spouse should ever be used to justify murder, despite its unpleasant
nature. To allow women to kill their husbands for such reasons is to
condone divorce by murder.
Kina is a confessed murderess and
deserves the full penalty of the law. The actions she claimed caused her
to stab her partner to death were in keeping with the nature of her
marriage. It is difficult to see a clear division between events
occurring well before the homicide and the particular act used to
justify the killing. She was well aware of her partner's habits and
behaviour, yet did not avail herself of any opportunity to escape the
relationship.
To set aside a previous court
ruling for cultural, psychological and personal reasons is to ignore
centuries of legal precedent. The court is now accepting stupidity,
cowardice and superstition as justifiable excuses for breaking the law.
Releasing this convicted killer not only placed the community at risk
but condoned husband killing.
Clearly if a wife can win popular
support for resentment of her husbands activities, his life may be
forfeit. A stance that can only destabilise the institution of marriage,
if not the whole community.
In New South Wales, at Leeton
police station on 30-Nov-1988, a junior policewoman produced a pistol
and shot dead another officer. Sheree Ann Schneider claimed it was an
accident. Satisfied the pistol was unloaded, she pulled the trigger
without looking where the gun was pointed. The charge of Felonious
Assault was dismissed in the lower court on 28th July 1989 under
section 41 (vi) - the presiding officer ruled that no jury would
convict. Use Of A Firearm In Disregard For Another Persons Safety
was dismissed on 27th April 1990. The female did not even lose her job,
presumably her fellow officers hope she will be more careful in future.
It is axiomatic with all weapons
training that they never be pointed at anyone unless they are intended
to be used —even in jest. Deliberately pulling the trigger without
looking where the .38 pistol was pointed was criminal irresponsibility.
Sharon Wilson was killed as the result of criminal negligence; a failure
that should not be tolerated from any citizen, much less a police
officer. Not knowing the gun was loaded is no excuse for anyone, least
of all a trained professional. For the courts to fail to penalise this
action is to commit more crimes; the denial of the importance of duty
and the magnitude of taking a life.
Schneider escaped penalty by
adopting the infantile excuse that she was merely the hapless victim of
the inadequate police weapons training program; that this was accepted
by the authorities is not an aberration. Trial for murder is no longer a
matter of resolving fact; it has become a re-enactment of the spoilt
child caught by their indulgent parents; if the miscreant can deflect
blame while generating sympathy then all is forgiven. In 1996 in
America, a man charged with murdering his ex-wife and her lover was
acquitted despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. O.J.
Simpson persuaded jurors that the evidence of his guilt had been
manufactured by racist police, and the trial became an interrogation,
not of the accused, but of the witnesses. It was a repeat of the nursery
cry he is just saying I did it because he hates me.
Playing the role of sympathetic
mother, Judge Newton told the Southport District Court on January 6th
2000 that he would not add to the suffering of a convicted thief and
allowed him to walk free from his court. A judgement made to demonstrate
the court's sympathy for the fact that this criminal had been raped in
gaol some fourteen years ago when he was 13 years old.
The New South Wales Supreme Court
sitting in Newcastle, on 31st July 1997 found Dean Waters was not guilty
of murder, despite his confession, which was never questioned, that he
had gunned down the victim, Alan Hall, in 1988. The guilty party
identified by the court was not the killer, but his father, Ces Waters;
the deceased parent was adjudged to have brain washed his
35-year-old son into committing this dreadful act. A successful invoking
of the child's excuse he made me do it.
After a two week sitting of the
same institution, the jury took just 33 minutes on 1st August 1997 in
Darlinghurst, to acquit a former Sydney detective of murder. A decision
that ignored Said Morgan's confession that he had slaughtered the victim
on May 26th, 1995. The 31-year-old accused man repeatedly told the court
he killed the victim because that man had sexually molested his
relatives, and he would repeat his action "without a doubt" in
the same circumstances. The defence put forward for the crime of murder
was just an appeal to the jury's feelings towards children.
The judicial process is now so
unreliable as to sometimes fail to interpret the evidence correctly.
Such incompetence was revealed by two coronial enquiries concerning the
same incident, the deaths of two women at Atherton, Northern Queensland,
in July 1991. Both claimed that the evidence allowed only one verdict,
that of murder followed by suicide, but neither coroner could explain
the death scene nor how he knew that no-one else was involved; an
ignorance that immediately contradicts their verdict and demands an
"open finding".
Twelve years after the sexual
assault and murder of 17-month-old Deidre Kennedy in April 1973, Raymond
John Carroll was convicted of the crime. Central to the prosecution's
case in February 1985 was that three dental experts, using separate
methods, each claimed that the accused was the only man who could have
made the bite marks discovered on the toddler's corpse. This was one of
the very reasons that three appeal court judges subsequently ruled that
the guilty verdict be quashed and the accused acquitted. Using
compelling evidence of guilt as proof of innocence is a perversion of
justice. This judgement by justices Andrews, Kneipp, and Shepherdson
marked them as fools or knaves. (also see Mabo edict).
These demonstrations of
jurisprudence reveal the courts have become corrupted by public
selfishness and are now impotent and deluded. They no longer:
-
Protect property
-
Safeguard against tyranny
-
Ensure public peace
-
Control juvenile offenders
-
Dispense the retribution
necessary to protect life and limb
-
Clearly uphold firm notions of
right and wrong
-
Supply justice
— but merely echo the morality of
convenience that now dominates the community.
The instrument used to enforce
justice and reason in Australia, if not the Western world, has become
corrupted by delusion. This decay has robbed our community of reason and
sanity. Criminals are protected while ordinary citizens penalised. Our
executors of justice, without fear or favour, have become our deranged
persecutors, discovering and penalising imaginary crime, while
acquitting real criminals. The guilty have become innocent, and the
innocent guilty.
Philip Atkinson |