Investigations into Queensland Law from a Scientific Perspective

This paper incorporates an investigation of the Fitzgerald Enquiry 1987ff, (see section three).

1. The Sirens of the Surf Meet the Boys of the Bench

Note to the viewer: The Paula McGrath links are here by necessity, not choice. They are not recommended for viewing.

The author of this little digression into matters judicial is Philip Bruce Heywood B.Sc. (hons), ex. Geological Survey of Queensland and internet publisher for Science. (CreationTheory). I became involved in science publishing almost against my will. I initially assumed there would be people who would handle the matters which had come to my attention, and I set out to notify them of those matters. It was a lost cause. I now find myself in a similar position with regard to some legal tangles here in the sunshine State of Queensland, Australia. From the Australian High Court, the Qld Supreme Court, and the Qld Parliament, right down to District Court level - bureaucracy in self-initiated gridlock! There are academic professions in this world that with all the best intentions in the world and the best personnel in the world, have a penchant for tying themselves in knots! There are governments and arms of government in this world that seem to have a self-appointed mission of ensuring that those knots get tied, and remain tied!

I have been in a Queensland court myself - on the wrong side - and my very limited experience told me that the magistrate was a gentleman and a scholar, and my lawyer was a man of courage (that's no exaggeration - R. Parks ran in a dangerous wife-killer on his own initiative once he saw the police wouldn't act -endangering his own life!) I hold a high view - as do we all - of the judiciary, the police, and lawyers who are professional and honest. I became (unwillingly) involved in this present scenario through the following chain of events.

On New Year's Day 2006, a Mr J.P. Pretorius went swimming in high, turbulent, crowded surf on a Qld beach. This gentleman is a South African citizen, an electrical engineer who speaks four or five languages, of which English is not his best. He has five children, a happy marriage, and no criminal record - excepting his recently acquired criminal record of sexual assault, the outcome of the judicial fiasco which we are now examining . He is a trusted officer at an industrial enterprise some five hours road travel from the scene of these New Year's Day events. He lives with his family near the site of his employment. He had been staying with friends in the vicinity of this beach for less than a day prior to New Year's Day, and travelled to his home the following day. (These travel movements were associated with a visit to South Africa from which he and his family had been returning - not all on the same flight.) So, he was in the vicinity of his proposed 'crime' for less than a day prior to its execution, and he departed for his (australian) home the following day. He was driven to and from the beach by his friend, a Mr. Saayman, in company with that gentleman's wife and two children, in a middle-of-the-range, common make of motor vehicle, a 5-seat Toyota Camry sedan. Their departure was not quite as their arrival, because it was marred and indeed hastened - for reasons of conflict minimization - by the orchestrated carryings-on of two self-proclaimed outraged women, accompanied by and apparently seconded by another woman and a male surf lifesaver. The two star performers in this midsummers day's tryst (a one-sided tryst, if that's possible) were no less than a 34 yr wannabee media personality, officially listed as an actor, and her 63 yr mother. The hot chick, in her past, stunned us with blockbusters of barrelhouse via the radio and t.v. - that's after she emigrated from the U.K., where she was a 'singer and dancer' -- and followed it up with a blockbuster of something more like madhouse in three district court trials, where she passed herself off as, quote, a 'music manager'. The old hen, it seems, is camera-shy regarding this new-fangled internet, but doesn't come a whit behind her daughter in acting talent, where she shines right through the entire proceedings - right down to the nicety of offhandedly temporarily forgetting the name of the surf lifesaver who was part of the cast (lest she appear to be too familiar with this remarkably cooperative gentleman). If you wish to become more acquainted, search under: Speak of the Devil + Paula McGrath. The episode of Speak of the Devil that I witnessed was little more than an interview with a male regarding his proposed three testacles, not omitting reference to childhood erections. The visuals, I suspect, were an attempt at animated vomit. In between episodes of Speak of the Devil, this australian media personality has been known to patronise events such as the Nude Launch of 'The Australian Youth Hotel'. More about the woeful 'Crown' team anon; but why did I unwillingly find myself involved?

I am some 3hrs by road from the Pretorius' australian dwelling. I am what could be classed as an arm's length acquaintance of the family. My daughter had stayed over with the family several times. Shortly after his first district court trial, Sept. '07, held near the scene of the dramatic New Year's Day idyll, out of sight and out of mind, I was startled by news that he had been found guilty of some sort of sexual crime. (You will understand that Afrikanders/Boers tend to keep their private affairs and their personal worries to themselves.)

Knowing the admonition that 'he who stands take heed lest he fall', along with, 'There, but for the grace of God, etc.' and having lived in a State in which one leader of the (Labour) Opposition had been run in for rape and a deputy leader of the same Opposition had been run in for raping a primary school girl in front of the class he was teaching- plus other oddities and assortments - (our State has an ongoing crime wave amongst its politicians, Labour particularly) -- and knowing that 'The imagination of Man's heart is only evil, continually', and Man is ME, personally - I 'phoned up Pretorius in something of a dither with the ultimate intent of making him understand that I and my daughter in particular couldn't comfortably associate with him.

I held and still hold a high view both of femininity and of Queensland Law. Certain facts and impressions from the past nevertheless stuck in my mind. For example, I knew that prosecutions of certain types of crimes, if held in an atmosphere of public outcry against that category of crime, were by definition susceptible to a 'lynch mob' or 'witch hunt' mentality. The Watergate Prosecutions were a case in point. At least one man (Colson) went to jail to satiate public, media-enhanced expectations. By definition, any conviction in an overexcited, irrational atmosphere, unless patently transparent, is suspect. An analogous situation arose here in Queensland a decade or two past. The then conservative government hit a snag when it was revealed that the police vice squad had been getting a little too comfortable with the ladies with whom their job description required them to get comfortable to prove that they were practicing prostitution. This caught fire nicely when it was revealed that beyond doubt, a few government ministers had been taking home marginally more than that to which they were entitled. Immediately that entire government was suspect, and prosecutions began. And, likewise immediately, their enemies and some elements of the media went into lynch mob mode. So convenient was this to the political opposition, that in mid- 2009, more than a decade later, the Qld Labour Premier, "Ms Bligh", publicly stated that that former conservative Premier, a man with a spotless personal record, and an administrative record that outshines her own as the sun outshines the stars, was, quote, 'a corrupt Premier' (ABC News).

As with the Watergate outcomes, no conviction procured under the shadow of such public 'groupthink' or witch-hunt mentality can be believed unless it is transparent. This is self-evident.

There was another matter that pricked away for years at the subconscious. I had compelling reasons to believe that the rape conviction of the former Labour Opposition leader was sound. Besides, in Australia, this party (along with a few minor parties) invariably legislates in favour of open display of pornography and other forms of sexual aberration/temptation. To see their parliamentary representatives convicted along those lines was not altogether surprising. But it never rang true that their one-time deputy leader, when a teacher, raped a primary-school girl while she sat on his knee, in front of his class. I assumed that this was a 'wink-wink-nudge-nudge' way of the law court and the media telling the public that this man was bad news with little girls. I knew, as does any reader who is beyond the years of his minority, that for this to be true it had to be a figure of speech. I wondered at this figure of speech the legal people had utilized, but not at the truth of the conviction.

To ensure that I had received correct information regarding Mr. Pretorius, I first spoke for ten minutes to one of his associates. I then spoke to the newly convicted man himself - the language barrier is real but not prohibitive - and promptly forgot about saying anything about my daughter. My education in one area of Qld Law had begun.

Years ago I read a lengthy account (I think it was titled Spycatcher Omnibus) written by a man, whose task it had been to question arrivals in the U.K. during war time, so as to screen out potential spies. This man had carte blanche with his questioning, excepting that no physical persuasion was used. It was in the interests of the people being questioned to answer. No lawyers and no legal argument interfered with the proceedings. This was war. It has always remained in my memory that this man successfully got to the bottom of those people's stories in every case, without strong-arm techniques. Many of the people were from foreign lands, so their former associates were unavailable. Some stories seemed highly suspect and there was much inconvenience and delay -- but no spy deceived him and no innocent person was condemned.

Sir Edward Carson, British law advocate a century ago, had a policy of working for justice and therefore of championing the cause of the innocent. How did he determine innocence? In some instances, he could determine it within minutes, by firing, in military terms, a bracket of questions. There is nothing mysterious about guilt or innocence. We can experiment ourselves. Try to get someone to deceive you over some action they have taken. Ask them questions and keep doing so. The process may take time. It will be helpful if there is no great cultural or language barrier. One person may be better able to deceive than another. Nevertheless, give it sufficient time, and, as someone has phrased it in everyday terminology: "the truth will out". Carson was correct. That spycatcher was correct. Guilt or innocence can be established by everyday, commonsense means. The determination of guilt or innocence, if carried out under proper conditions, is an empirical science. Law is empirical: Law is a science. Juries cannot determine guilt or innocence: the facts, properly obtained, determine whether a person is guilty or innocent. Juries are representatives of the Public whose function is to ensure that proper procedure is followed and the facts are obtained legitimately. That is what you are doing now.

In ten minutes it became startlingly obvious that the worst that the convicted man could have done was to have been clumsy or careless. Three years later, and no associate, employer, or workplace companion of his has ever heard him say or suggest anything contrary to that same conclusion that I reached in ten minutes and that any examining policeman, magistrate, or government officer could have reached in a comparable time - had any such examination ever been undertaken. (It wasn't!) Three years, and the only change to my original conclusion has been that he wasn't either clumsy or careless.

I immediately began writing letters and even telephoning State M.P.'s. Even though at that early stage I knew very little of the personalities and procedures involved, and I expected the conviction to be the product of nothing more sinister than a comedy of mistakes, I knew that an elusive strong swimmer answering the description of a possible reincarnated Elvis Presley wouldn't change into a slow swimming, gangly, 6ft 6, sandy haired boer who suddenly found a need to get a term in clink by putting his hand down an old woman's bikini bottom in front of her daughter. Whereupon the silver bikini'd beauties follow him to his getaway car and have him screeching off - when in fact it was his friend who got in the driver's seat and drove off sedately in a controlled speed car park - his friend with a full beard and him with none! At least the M.P.'s got a laugh - and every State M.P., and one or two Federal Government M.P.'s, plus other officials, received personal surface mailed letters from me, many, more than once. They knew, and they were kept informed, from the first trial onwards. They knew that this man could not possibly be guilty beyond reasonable doubt and they therefore knew that their justice system was trying a man contrary to 'British' Law - or any rational Law. They declined to act.

To get more of the picture, click here. This is the e-mail, with the others that follow it, that went to all M.P's in Eastern Australia, after no fewer than three District Courts, one Appeals Court, and the Queensland Supreme Court itself had done their dash. (We may now include the Australian High Court in this woeful tally!) There was only one bright spot in all that rout - Judge Rafter SC, presiding over the second District Court Trial. From what I can make of it, his conduct was worth mentioning. (The Appeals Court, incidentally, did grant an appeal, on one grounds only, when it should have granted all five - so what does the Prosecution do, but re-run the first D.C. trial without allowing introduction of anything new, utilizing exactly the same phoney evidence the Appeals Court ruled was inconclusive!)

Lest the gentle reader suspect me of exaggeration: this prosecution rested solely, entirely, and one hundred percent, on visual identification of the offender. No-one troubled themselves to get any professional evaluation of the people and the circumstances involved. Non-one even thought to consult a swimming expert to discover whether or not the cuddly bedroom scenes the lovely ladies so lusciously describe - they get more cuddly, as the statements and trials progress - were physically possible in calm water, leave alone violent surf (they aren't). No-one enquired as to whether the convicted man is a sufficiently strong swimmer to have done what is claimed. No-one thought it necessary to check on the character and history of anyone. The entire proceedings rested solely on a description by this female journalist which could have been of Elvis himself - if Elvis had/(has?) a hairy back - muddled with a description half resembling Mr. Pretorius by the hen and the chick. And that pair named a fully bearded man as the clean-shaven Mr. Pretorius and gave him dark blue swimming shorts when he was wearing light olive-green. All this is with witnesses, in writing, and, like the perjury, the defamation, and the collusion employed by all and sundry excepting the Defence, is published fact. The hen and the chick came up with testimony that is word for word, whilst one of them was in Singapore and the other was in Australia! The Prosecution, having no new evidence and in fact no evidence at all, resorted to blatant character defamation by claiming that Mr Pretorius, a man whom the judge himself states has exceptional character references and no history of sexual misconduct, conspired with Mr. Saayman, a man of similar attributes, and with Mr. Saayman's wife and two sons, not only to fool Australia regarding the colour of the convicted man's swimwear, but to conspire to deceive regarding the true driver of the getaway vehicle!

Both McGraths testified that Mr. Pretorius was the driver of the getaway vehicle. Pamela McGrath testified, "I saw that there was a female person in the front passenger side of the vehicle, two children and the other male person in the rear of the vehicle. I saw the male person drive the vehicle off frantically and hurriedly." Paula McGrath said she was "100% sure" and "wasn't mistaken" that the man who assaulted her drove the car (source: Statement and Court Records). Having considered the above stat. dec. in combination with Mr. Saayman's assurance in court that he was the driver -- and he has a full beard whilst Mr. Pretorius had none -- what do we make of this direct quote from the ruling of the Queensland Supreme Court "The jury were entitled to prefer the evidence of [the McGraths] as to the identity of the driver over that of the appellant's friend [Mr. Saayman, his wife, and his two sons (aged 10 and 13)]."

It is the opinion of this writer that this statement of the Supreme Court is an announcement that Queensland Justice is hanging out the white flag of surrender.

These South African emigrees cooked up these conspiracies, no doubt, as part of their fiendish plot to stalk the 92nd sexiest woman in Aus., relying on a timely diversion by the King of rock and roll. With a hairy back - that's important. It's the single item of agreement between the descriptions handed in by the three complainants. A hairy back. These descriptions are so meaningless that the learned QC Peter Callaghan could not pick out his client in a small gathering, and expressed complete surprise when introduced to him! Yet the entire case rests solely on visual identification. By definition, by precedent, by logic, by every rule, these proceedings are criminal, they involve criminal negligence at the very least, and they strike a blow against Justice itself. Guilt, innocence, rationality, proper practice - all cast away and trodden underfoot. A justice system openly allowing these practices is not sustainable. Sir Matthew Hale, humble 'father' of British Justice, blows a raspberry at these jests. Sir Edward Carson, in Archer-Shee vs the Admiralty, summarily dismisses this amateurism- gone- to- seed. One conclusion is clear - if the Public via juries is to keep the judicial process from becoming an engine of obfuscation, it's time to get a jury system. Whatever sat over these fiascos, it can't have been an informed Public.

This is a sobering case, yet, as Sherlock Holmes observes, it has its points of interest. I touch on the question of motive in the letters to parliamentarians. It is by no means clear. I personally lean towards some bad headaches precipitating some bad decisions after the long night/week before. Once committed, they couldn't back out without losing face. Since writing the accompanying letters to parliamentarians it has been suggested to me that a payment of perhaps $50thousand might have been obtainable from the convicted man, had a conviction been secured within two years of the supposed offence. This is by no means certain. The woman in the other case that is linked to below tried (unsuccesfully) for $250,000. It has also been suggested to me that the legal people are employing this method to help genuine female clients get alimony from recalcitrant males. This is conjecture. We can say that so far, this fiasco has cost the convicted man his property and only by something approaching a miracle has it not cost him his family and his health. They have needed the assistance of professional medical help.

Below is an example of some of the worst journalism we are likely to see, taken from probably one of the better newspapers in Australia. The t.v. stations were worse. This extract from the S.C.D. was published 3/01/06, within 48 hrs of the midsummer day's digression. Other pertinent extracts are linked to below. Note in particular that journalist Angela Kay, co-complainant with the McGraths, is identified as the major contributor. It is my considered opinion that if this 37 yr single parent was not intoxicated at the time, she was in fact grabbed by the leg, arm, and about the waist, as she later describes in court. Unfortunately for her testimony, the part of her leg that was grabbed seemed to get higher up with the telling. In her initial statement it could have been her ankle, but by the third trial it was near the groin. Be this as it may, this woman has been a schoolteacher, she attempted to give a consistent description of the man she believes attacked her, and she does so in a way that is credible. (The man she describes is nothing like the convicted man - and this, in itself, suggests to us that this woman was not out to frame him.) She is not to be confused with the McGraths. It seems highly likely that she was confused by the McGraths. This extract shows that confusion - she herself did not hear her attacker speak, nor could she have the slightest notion of his nationality or travel itinerary. Most of this newspaper article is unreliable. Obviously, a document such as this, which effectively names Mr. Pretorius as an habitual woman molester and a notorious public enemy, once taken as factual by the t.v stations, the prosecution, and by the Supreme and High Court judges in particular, incites lynch mob attitudes. Criminal defamation by journalism aside: it is my considered opinion that this woman, if attacked, was attacked by someone who was intoxicated, or who recognized her by sight, or both. I find no motive for him to grab her in the way described, other than something approaching intoxication; or recognition.

SCD EXTRACT

Groper shocks women in surf
8:00a.m. 3rd January 2006

IT wasnt a shark scaring women from the water at Alexandra Headland beach on New Years Day but a man groping them in the surf.

Lifesavers called police when three women made hasty exits to report the man touching them while swimming about 4.30pm.

But a lack of power to restrain suspected offenders meant the man was able to walk away.

Daily reporter Angie Kay said she was distressed to see in the new year with a beach swim only to be groped by a predator in the surf.

He swam into me three times, once grabbing my leg, then my arm and then my waist, she said.

When I walked up to the patrol captain on the beach to report the man, two other women were standing there lodging their own complaints about the same guy.

We stood there and watched him. He would line up a woman and then bodysurf straight into her.

One of the women who made a complaint said the man had stuck his hand inside the back of her togs.

A lack of power to restrain suspected offenders meant the patrol captain had no choice but to watch the man leave the beach.

The captain engaged him in conversation for as long as he could ... but the man grew suspicious and fled, Ms Kay said.

He told the patrol captain that he was flying back to South Africa the next day and would not be on the beach again.

The concern I have, and share with the other women violated by this creep, is that he could be operating on other beaches on the Coast.

Two women noted the mans car number plate, which was handed to police.

Lifesaver duty officer David McLean said groping was not a regular problem on Sunshine Coast beaches but urged swimmers to alert lifesavers immediately.

Thats under police jurisdiction, we're not beach police, he said.

People should report such behaviour immediately to lifesavers who can contact police and they can take appropriate action.

They should get a good description of the person, which direction they went and the vehicle number.

The man is about 1.8m tall, medium build, in his mid to late 40s and was wearing black togs with a yellow V on the back and stripe down the side.

He spoke with a South African accent and was wearing a gold wedding band.

Call Crime Stoppers on 1800 333 000.

This was a definitive newspaper report. It was followed by others in sequence, which, in company with saturation t.v. publicity, were as misguided and misguiding as the first.

http://www.thedaily.com.au/news/2006/jan/05/scd-police-said-to-be-closing-in-on-alleged-new-ye/

http://www.thedaily.com.au/news/2006/jul/22/scd-alleged-groper-faces-hearing/

http://www.thedaily.com.au/news/2007/aug/21/alleged-beach-groper-set-face-trial/

http://www.thedaily.com.au/news/2007/sep/05/alleged-beach-groper-faces-court/

We come to the first District Court Trial itself. (Contrary to proper procedure, all these trials were held in the same place where this media misinformation had been published).

SCD EXTRACT

Guilty Sunshine Coast groper faints
5:36p.m. 6th September 2007 | By Rae Wilson

A jury has convicted a Yeppoon man of indecently groping three women in the surf at Alexandra Headland beach on New Year’s Day last year.

But Johannes Petrus Pretorius, 46, fainted while he was being sentenced in Maroochydore District Court and was taken to hospital by ambulance.

He told a policeman he was going to pass out, turned grey and then slumped in the prisoner’s dock for about 15 seconds.

His wife ran from the back of the court, suspecting Mr Pretorius has suffered a heart attack because he had an existing heart condition.

The jury had taken just 50 minutes to find him guilty of three counts of sexual assault after a two-day trial.

Before he passed out, prosecutor Anna Smith had asked the court to consider a 12 to 18-month jail sentence and argued his behaviour warranted actual custody.

“(The assaults were) all in a public place at a beach. (The women) were all vulnerable swimming in big waves in deep water,” she said.

“It occurred out of the blue. They wouldn’t have expected a sexual attack in that environment.

“They tried on a number of occasions to pull away, yet he pursued them.”

Ms Smith said two victims had talked about the fear of being pulled under the water by the man and one victim had been unable to swim at the beach since the assaults.

“Every person has the right to enjoy public places without fear of being subjected to random acts of sexual assault from strangers,” she said.

Barrister Danielle Lynas Torr asked the court to consider the family hardship if her client went to jail because he had five children aged two to 18 years who were at private school and his wife did not work.

“He is the sole breadwinner in the family,” she said.

Judge John Robertson said Mr Pretorius “clearly has no insight into the serious nature of what he did” but was unable to sentence him before he collapsed.

He adjourned his decision until Tuesday and had Mr Pretorius’ legal team surrender his passport.

Outside court, the victims said they were relieved by the guilty verdict.

A 35-year-old victim said “I feel good, I was really happy to hear guilty, guilty, guilty”.

“It’s good to know the public, the jury, know who was telling the truth and that another potential predator has been (convicted),” she said.

Her mother, 64, said she had moved on with her life and “it was awful having to relive it, dragging in it all up ... in a public forum”.

A 38-year-old mum said she felt “palpable relief” that the court case was finally over.

“What he did will impact on me for years to come and I can only hope it has been enough to make him think twice before groping other women in the surf again,” she said.

Near the top of this page are details of publications relating to the '35 yr old victim' who rejoices in the 'guilty guilty guilty' verdict against a foreign visitor with language difficulties, who collapses in court from the shock and whose family and finances are as like to be destroyed. The woman who advizes an infantile duped media that truth has triumphed, vice and evil and bad behaviour have been checked, and now the Sunshine Coast, Queensland, is a better place! Here, to save the reader long searches, is a tiny extract from the pre-trial Committal, in which she stars. The cross examiner is a Mr. Davis SC.

Was it a bump? 'No.' Was it his....? 'It was a touch' Just describe it. Was it his hand? Did you feel his hand? 'Yes'. Okay. You didn't feel both hands, obviously, though? 'No.' No. All right. Why did you say in your statement then, 'I felt his hands touch me?' 'Well, I don't know. I think it was his hand or a hand. It was just a touch and a hand, I would say, hand, at that time.' Well, something touched you. Some part of his...? 'It was definitely a hand' Right. Well, how do you know that? 'It wasn't a foot. It wasn't...' Well, how do you know that?...'an elbow. It was...' Well, I'm just asking you to describe what you felt, so how do you know it was his hand? 'Because you can feel fingers. You feel it' Ok. Well, that's your answer. You felt his fingers? 'That's my answer. Yes.' Ok, but only, contrary to what you say in your statement, it was only one hand touch? 'I...I'm not 100% sure. But I think it might have been a hand or hands. I don't know. It was just...' I thought you said a moment ago it was a hand. '...fingers. It was fingers, so, you know, you don't know if you've been touched-it was a quick...' I thought you said a moment ago that you were sure that it was one hand? ' Well, I'm... ok. I don't recall exactly. I remember a hand: a hand, fingers.' So, hand, fingers, two hands, could be anything. Is that what you are saying? 'No, it couldn't be anything. It was a hand.' Now, where did the hand touch you? 'That time, on my leg.' Where on your leg, upper leg, or lower leg? 'Probably calf' And were you actually swimming as in horizontal at that point or not? 'Yes, diving through and past.' Ok. So, you were horizontal, roughly. 'Yes." And you don't know what he was? You don't know whether he was...? 'To the right still.' But you don't know whether he was actually swimming or horizontal, or what he was? 'No, but I looked, but he was not swimming anywhere.' So, he was standing...? 'He wasn't swimming.' He was standing, was he? ' Could have been standing. I don't recall if he was standing.' So, you've swum very close to him then, if he's standing? 'No. He must have reached out and-with his arm.' Well, if he's standing-he's standing and you're swimming, you've swum...? ' I don't know--.... I don't know exactly how he reached out and touched me, no I don't. Well, you say you felt that it wasn't an accident and you felt that it was his hands touch you? 'Definitely didn't feel like an accident' But you can't really explain much by way of detail as to the circumstances in which it actually occurred, can you? 'Well, I can. I can totally act it out for you, if you wanted me to. I can remember it precisely and...' No. I haven't asked you to act it out, have I? I've asked you to describe it. 'Well, I'm trying to describe it' Very well. All right. So, the best you can do, it seems, is you were swimming so you were horizontal: a hands or hands have touched you? 'Touched my leg, yes' Somewhere on your leg, probably your calf? 'yes' But you-and he was probably standing. Is that about...? 'I don't know if he was standing or not, or treading water, I don't know.'

So, when this second incident occurred, there's you and your mother together, is that right? 'Yes'............. Well, so you're there while he actually swims towards you, is that right? 'Yes. We were sought of just...' Why didn't you swim away? 'Because...I did swim away when he came too close, I did swim away, but you just chat-Mum was over there, we're chatting, we're heading out to the buoys.' But here's somebody, here's somebody swimming towards you, who on your story, has assaulted you indecently a very short time previously? 'Yes, well I really thought it was very odd, him coming towards me, I did.' That's not the question I'm asking. Why didn't you just distance yourself? 'I kept swimming away and he kept coming. Wherever I swam he kept coming.' All right, what happened then? 'Then I felt a touch on my back, so that's when I realised ,ok, he's......' Yes, what did you realise then? 'Well, that wasn't an accident before or it.... So, it was in your mind that the first incident could have been an accident? 'Well, I didn't think it was at the time, but....' That's why you didn't tell your mother? 'I didn't say....' That's right, isn't it? 'No, no, no, It's not why, no' All right, now where did he touch you on the back? 'Just on my back, on the small of my back.' Very well, and what are we talking about here? Hands, feet? 'That was hands' Hands-two hands or one or don't you know? 'Well...' Just fingers? 'It was a hand-definitely a hand or hands-it was-it was an intentional touch.' Was it a grabbing? 'Yes' Well, describe it? 'It was-it was like a reach out-and-- and touch, go to touch my lower back and I swam off.' So it's not a grabbing, just a touching? 'Oh, a fondling. I don't....' Well, he wasn't trying to restrain you, was he? It wasn't that sort of grab was it? '....Then, no.' So it's a touching as like a patting or....? 'No, it wasn't a patting.' ......A stroking? Well, describe it? 'It was like a caressing.' Caressing, that's the first time you've used an expression like that, isn't it? 'Well, you're asking me....' All you've said-all you've said is...? '....And I'm trying to think of words....' All you've said in your statement is touch my back, so it's just a touch isn't it? 'Ok, well it was-he just came and touched my back then, it was....' So, is that your evidence now? 'No, I am not changing my evidence'....................... Where's your mother at this point? 'She was to the right of me' So, she's passed you now has she 'No, I think she was sort of more level with me.............'

And what does-what do you see him do, anything? 'Come towards me.' Why didn't you just swim away? 'I was moving away at the time when he was coming towards me' But somehow he catches you is that right?.... 'Yes, I wasn't swimming like my normal free-style, full pelt......' You've got-you say that he-he rubbed his hands on your chest? 'Yes, around me, around my body from behind.' So, you were swimming, were you, so you would have been horizontal or are you vertical at this point? 'I was moving away, like treading water, like moving away.'

Obviously the full dress rehearsal was having a few hiccups with physics, gravity, hydrodynamics, and keeping a straight face. Come the day of the real performance, the full-on bedroom scenes were described without re-enactment in the court and without any need for prompting. The laws of physics and of truth were forgotten in the warmth of the actors' charms.

Channel V lost talent when it parted with this lot.

Afterwards, Mum (Pam.) thanked, with a witness, the knight in shining armour the surf lifesaver -- presumably for rescuing the trembling violets (his 'eyewitness' account was an unrelenting, sickening ultra-violet). Then, having assisted Paula in assuring the media and a grateful world in general that Queensland was now a safer place and truth had triumphed, exited with a style concordant with the passing around of pumpkin scones preparatory to a temperance meeting.

Music managing must provide a useful income! The managers didn't walk to court in rags. Neither did they explain their income. Meanwhile, an entire democratic parliament sat on its hands and watched as the play went on. The play isn't amusing, for people such as the Pretorius family. It can scarcely be amusing for anyone. Whilst an arm of the government, and quite a few well-intended citizens besides, were being managed by music managers, the Premier of the State brought to our attention the unequal status of surrogate mothers, same-sex couples and everyone else we can think of. Her party machine and one or two of its parliamentary representatives stretched the limit of the law under 'political privilege' with some mud-slinging that was denounced even by Labour supporters. We were advised by the Premier herself (in the context of a low-key discussion relating to stem cells) that 'the end justifies the means' (ABC news). Was it Uncle Joe, the fuehrer himself, or grandfather Karl who coined that phrase? High words about justice and equity flew in all directions. An Aboriginal girl died, under non-suspicious circumstances, in a hospital, and we were one-fifth of the way back to holding another Royal Commission. (I am approximately one-twentieth aboriginal myself, although you would have to look twice to see it). One of the Government parliamentarians was run in for something like $60,000 corruption, and even though I didn't vote for him, I don't necessarily put faith in the convictions.

The former conservative Premier, the one under whom several ministers took home more pay than was appropriate, when (unsuccessfully) prosecuted in a witch-hunt, 'clean up' context, observed that you feed ice-cream in at one end of it and get meat pies out the other. Since then, we have had one chief magistrate jailed on a genuine, but weird matter, her real crime being taking on a job that was completely beyond her. She was the victim of (Labour) government interference in the legal system-forced gender equality. She was freed on a technicality, handsomly compensated, and put straight back into a similar job! Hard on the heels of this we had an unusual female M.P. jailed, then totally exonerated -- she was supposed to have employed fraudulent methods in setting up a political party. In both these cases, no new information was fed into the system at any time. Therefore someone must have made rather serious errors, since the same information convicted them whilst it exonerated them! Then, of course we have the aboriginal policing question-wisely side-stepped by administrators of yesteryear-but now addressed by sending in volunteer officers, whilst the government funds the troublemakers! If you are amongst certain groups of these people and you happen to be associated with a death or serious injury-often the case with police-you might find yourself on the receiving end of endless litigation. Claiming aboriginal blood has got people off the hook for serious crimes. This helps no one, aboriginals least of all, and tends to wedge a double-standard into the system. These are incidentals. The 'meat pies in one end and ice cream out the other' is not incidental. Meat pies turning into ice cream through an effect of smoke and mirrors is not an outcome of bleeding-heart bleatings along the lines of race, feminism, greenism, or any other 'ism'. It is an outcome of smoke and mirrors.

When this former conservative Premier was near the end of his term, he became disillusioned with his own Party, which seemed to him to have no positive agenda, other than weird causes such as 'sex education.' Even under the conservative government the education system was encountering crippling difficulties. The need to obtain a system that could actually fulfill its purpose of training and educating, rendered peripheral details such as 'sex education' irrelevant. But given what follows, perhaps they needed more of this sort of education? Where were the birds and the bees when Queensland Justice went to school? What they needed was Paula and Pam!

2. Strange Ruminations Emanating From The Central Queensland Scrub

Palaeocene? Eocene? Oligocene?-What Can Be Done In The Past If Only It Is Far Enough Away.

This gets weirder!

As the reader may have discovered by reading through these correspondences to M.P's etc : no sooner did this Pretorius business get thoroughly jammed in the one-way no-safety-release system (which seems to rely on some principle halfway between the infallibility of the medieval popes and the divine right of the Stuart Kings), than I was startled yet again by the discovery that Mr. Pretorius is definitely not alone. The question of the number of his companions will require time to be answered. We all hope the number is small and the contagion hasn't spread to other fields of jurisprudence. Any person with a legitimate documented or documentable case may try contacting me. The case must be such that the publication of the facts of itself proves beyond reasonable doubt the innocence of the person concerned. At the same time, cases in which a person who was obviously and provably guilty but who was not properly prosecuted may also be considered.

Mr. Pretorius's suddenly discovered companion is, as you may have surmised, the one-time deputy (Labour) Opposition Leader. Just as it is patently obvious that conventional bedroom scenes cannot be enacted in surf whipped up by half a force ten gale (leave alone in a dead calm - especially if one party is in fear of its life and its sanctity), so it is that the claims made in the Opposition Deputy's prosecution are a physical impossibility crossed with a blathering absurdity. Your girl goes off to school, gets raped in front of the class by the teacher, and neither yourself nor any other parent hears or suspects anything for the next 35-odd years. The teacher, of course, does it in front of the class in preference to the surrounding 20 thousand hectares of bushland. The media never questions it, but pursues the creep of a teacher mindlessly, without reason and without remorse.

The courageous people who are publishing on his behalf tell their own story.

I take the liberty of adding a statement, and an observation. The statement: I live a day's road journey from the site of Mr. D'Arcy's incarceration, but, as circumstances would have it, at about the same time as I (recently) learned the facts of his case, I discovered that I was acquainted with a male person who did time in the same jail as him, for a lesser but similar offence. This person could conceivably be willing to tell an honest enquirer, under proper circumstances, what, without doubt or hesitation, he told me. "D'Arcy is innocent". (I happened to be discussing these perplexing cases in his hearing.) That statement from a convicted criminal who served time with D'arcy, is crowning proof. Crim.'s know crim.'s.

Proceeding to the observation: As with the Pretorius case, criminality was involved somewhere, although not on the part of the 'criminal'. The investigators looked for the crime in the wrong place. Let us consider D'Arcy's case a moment. It is a recovered memories case. That implies that some health care professional or some counsellor or some concerned person brought to the attention of police a woman who was seeking or who had been diagnosed as requiring some sort of personal psychiatric help. It would have gone on from there, link by link in some sort of chain, perceived or real. Finally it took in some or all of the ex-students of a one-teacher school, plus oddities from elsewhere. All these complaints can be debunked by a human behaviour expert as easily as they can be engendered by a human behaviour expert. Let us concentrate on the one-teacher school - that tiny institution with its fictional hole in the wall and its unmentionable and unthinkable behaviour, almost half a century ago. Did something untoward of a sexual nature happen there? Was the woman a victim? And if this female plus others are now so definite that something was amiss, sickeningly amiss - could something have been amiss, and what might it have been? I am essentially a naive person, but I am utterly shocked when I look into my own self. I sometimes listen to australian news broadcasts, and place some credence in some of the stories - including the ones we none of us wish to hear. Without prejudicing or pre-judging in any way - could there be a basis to those recovered memory claims? What sort of a scenario from the distant past could be the engine, driving them on? I am confident the reader does not habitually wear rose-tinted glasses. If the police need a criminal in this ancient case, there will be candidates above and besides the teacher. One would think the police of all people would have seen enough of the low side of life to cause them to cast about a little more widely. The simple facts are, there are societies (if we can call them that), there are settings, in Australia and out, where this sort of thing goes on. Perhaps the most disturbing facet of the D'arcy prosecution is that it was done with smoke and mirrors, and like some gruesome fairy-tale that lingers to haunt the Public, we may never know whether or not it had any basis in possibility. The victims thus become not only the wrongly convicted man and all his associates, but the shielded and secretive complainants and all their associates - along with all of Queensland, every arm of the Queensland Government, and Government itself.

My suggestion to the senior judges who oversaw the fiascos outlined above: provide now to this site an appropriate cross-section of your rulings in language a man can comprehend, to reassure us that you are indeed capable of judgement and this system is something other than a mutual self-help society for perpetuating expensive pagefill. At the same time it would be good policy to show that decisions are not being made in Queensland courts on the basis of the said golden-priced verbiage in combination with some sort of lottery system or some sort of 'meet the media expectation' system. You might also care to explain how it is that lawyers and judges alike witnessed crimes in front of their own eyes during these false proceedings, yet, like the members of the State Parliament, they neither reported it nor acted on it? Also, when it was obvious to a juvenile that the system had taken in something in indigestible form, and was coughing out hokums and superstitions, why was there no corrective mechanism in place? Are you infallible? How can any system such as this be sustainable?

Thousands of convicts were transported to Australia under a justice system that far pre-dates ours. Some tend to look upon that justice system as primitive, even backward. I have insufficient knowledge to be able to cast an opinion. Under that system - British Justice - Mr. Pretorius would presumably have received a substantial number of lashes, and Mr. D'arcy would have been hung. As I have mentioned, a crim. knows a crim., and even a crim. knows an honest man. In the process of time, guilt or innocence can ultimately be discerned, given proper methods. An innocent man with the ability and opportunity to communicate can ultimately get his message out, so that at least his posterity can know of it. I have read accounts by men who were judged guilty - usually through dishonest/incompetent police work - and within the first page it becomes apparent that they are innocent. The point being: justice is an empirical process. The balance that Justice holds in her hand is a scientific measuring device, not a roulette wheel. The blindfold signifies impartiality, not a closed- circuit t.v. connected to the latest public opinion readout. As mentioned previously: a jury ideally should not need to be required to make a decision regarding guilt or innocence. The facts make the decision, and unmistakeably tip the balance. The jury represents the Public, giving approval to the procedure. How any thinking man could give approval to the procedures mentioned above defeats me, unless the man has been placed in a false position and bamboozled with dollar-a-minute jargon whilst being drugged by crowd mentality or distracted with vaudeville.

Of all the convicts transported here, I have never found a single non-fiction account of a false conviction. That doesn't mean there were none. Perhaps I am naive in assuming that a judicial system can go within an ace of being infallible (provided it begins from the premise that it is fallible) and we should be able to rely upon such a system. Or should we dispense with penalties altogether, on the premise that there really is something mysterious about whether a person is innocent or guilty?

In conclusion let me say something in defence of all the people who were involved on the side of Queensland Justice. If these people are required to read and to rely upon the documents and methods that I saw, then they must be absolute geniuses. I have seldom encountered such obfuscationist humbug. Is this a setup designed to torment the people - many of them undoubtedly sincere and honest - who wish to practice Law?

3. Does the Moon Ever Set on Queensland Law?

and

Does the Light Ever Dawn on the Australian Media?

Wizard of ID cartoons by Parker & Hart, The Australian Newspaper 1970

Introduction to the Fitzgerald inquiry -- publication of the Queensland Crime and Misconduct Commission.

How does an inquiry go for two years?

If it:
covers 238 sitting days
hears 339 witnesses
produces 21 504 pages of transcript
receives 2304 exhibits
results in 10 indemnities against prosecution.

The report itself contained 630 pages and over 100 recommendations, which were grouped under three major categories covering the establishment of the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission (EARC), the establishment of the CJC, and reform of the then-named Queensland Police Force.

The extensive holdings of the inquiry took up over 250 linear metres in the CMC's Records Management's large registry. They included not only documents but also some memorable items such as Terry Lewis's now famous diaries and notebooks, Col Dillon's bottle of Chivas Regal and some interesting property seized from various houses of ill repute. The majority of these holdings are now with Queensland State Archives.

This enquiry was set up in 1987 by a nominally 'conservative' State Government as the ultimate solution to a police corruption problem that had been ongoing ever since the Conservatives took over from Labour more than a quarter of a century before. This corruption problem had resisted the efforts of experienced police investigators specially brought in from the U.K., and had seen the resignation of one police commissioner who had attempted to tackle it. This commissioner had seen his own Criminal Investigation Unit more-or-less 'laughed out of court.'

The suddenly appointed government trouble-shooter, Mr. Fitzgerald QC, with Royal Commission powers, was determined not to be laughed out of court. The media, and the people of Queensland, expected a result.

A number of police who simply couldn't have got away with it this time, turned Queen's Evidence --the Prosecution gained some slick, slippery, court-wise operators for their team.

One ex-Premier - Bjelke Petersen - was driven to poverty and effectively slandered, without a conviction or any telling evidence. Several of his Cabinet went to jail, over supposed infringements that were a fraction of the monetary cost of running their own trials. One was an ex-policeman, so the Prosecution laboured long into the night to make him the 'bag-man' for the Cabinet. None of these investigations uncovered any link between these prosecuted parliamentarians and police corruption!

Sir Joh Bjelke Petersen, (ABC News): "Fitzgerald 'did' Queensland for millions of dollars." ($Hundreds of millions, in fact -- Author.)

Again quoting this long-serving Qld Premier (the Australian Broadcasting Commission's Background Briefing Programme 16th May 1999). "I want this recorded and I want it broadcast : the four years that I was being investigated for nothing cost me an awful lot of money and a lot of property, but there's nothing, absolutely nothing, there is nothing and I repeat that [that] will ever restore my confidence in the justice system. After I saw that exercise and what happened to me, as I saw and experienced [it], sat in that dock and sat and was questioned and investigated ...... there's absolutely nothing, and in that you ask many a policeman [who] was tossed out on the rubbish heap, same as I was, after a long period of being investigated and all the rest of it: [there's absolutely nothing that will ever restore my confidence in the justice system.] " The bracketed editing is for clarity and does not alter the intended meaning.

Sir Joh here was speaking not for himself, but for all Queenslanders irrespective of their political leaning. He was speaking for Lois D'Arcy, wife of the innocent Labour Parliamentarian, mentioned above: "Lois D'Arcy slams government, judicial system and media ....". He was certainly speaking for Pauline Hanson, jailed, exonerated founder of the One Nation Party, who was guilty only of being politically and verbally awkward. He may even have been speaking for Merri Rose, jailed Labour MP, who, in light of her personal problems, should not have been in parliament in the first place. He was certainly speaking for people such as J.P. Pretorius: and more significantly, he was speaking especially for those who have no voice. Not only was he speaking for those innocents who were wrongly found guilty; but for the many others who are victims of provable crimes which were never properly prosecuted - cases in which the guilty were found innocent. All done at criminal expense!

It is not often in the history of any State that its justice system is experienced 'hands-on' by its own leaders. Such leaders can speak and are qualified to speak, when they have themselves sat in the dock. "Ice-cream in at one end, meat pies out at the other" (Joh. Bjelke-Petersen, ABC News).

We need not become overly alarmed by these forthright comments. The very fact that we are free to read them is reassuring. Many people in Law and the Media have good intentions. Free speech is a sign of life. And intelligent, lawful use of free speech will ultimately be a way out of the dilemma. Our aim here is not to find fault but to find a way out.

Over time, we aim to go into more depth in these and other judicial matters; in the interim, I here introduce a case I personally encountered a short time past when incidentally speaking with a few of this gentleman's acquaintances. He himself would not speak to me, not wishing to re-open old wounds nor to criticize an arm of government of which he himself was an honourable part. He followed the guidelines as he was introduced to them when he entered parliament; every expense item was allowed by the relevant departmental staff; he co-operated fully with the investigation: he was sent for a year to the jails he once administered with the government owing him money and not vice-versa. The big question: why was he singled out for prosecution?

Geoffrey Hugh Muntz. B.11/7/38, Beenleigh, QLD: married 27/2/60 Beenleigh, Jean Saverin: Uniting Church.

Educated Pimpama state school, QLD Agricultural College: Brisbane Tech. College; western farming expert; inspector State Lands Department 1961-64; disctrict manager State Agricultural Bank '64-79; partner in real-estate; valuer; AAIV; president and director Mackay Rotary; president parents and citizens school associations; organiser combined service clubs activites; youth group leader; member Red Shield and Life-Line committes; secretary Blue Nursing Service.

Minister for Enviroment, Conservation and Tourism from 1987. Minister for Tourism, Nation Parks and Sport 1986-1987. Minister for Corrective Services, Administrative Services and Valuation 1986. Minister for Welfare Services, Youth and Ethnic Affairs, 1984-1986. Member, Select Committee of Subordinate Legislation, 1983. Previously served on the following committees:-- Primary Industries; Lands and Forestry; Northern Development and Maritime Services; Tourism; National Parks, Sport and the arts.

This gentleman was sent to jail for supposedly missappropriating something like $5,000. The same method of prosecution would condemn anyone who has ever done business and especially paid tax. In time, we shall investigate his trial. In the interim we take the liberty of quoting from the following: Report on an Investigation into Possible Misuse of Parliamentary Travel Entitlements by Members of the 1986-1989 Queensland Legislative Assembly. -- 1991. This investigation was headed by Sir Max Bingham of the CJC, the 'watchdog' body which evolved to become the CMC. I personally regard Sir Max's conclusions as erring on the side of harshness towards MPs --even though he prosecuted none! -- but his report is professional, and accurate.

Quoting Sir Max's report, "On 10 October 1990 the Courier-Mail newspaper published a report entitled "Auditor reveals misuse of funds" and "MP's in holiday scandal." The Article began: "Queensland politicans misused travel and other entitlements to take private holidays that cost tax-payers nearly $500,000 in 1987-88. The MP's-- including serving Labour Members reportedly in senior positions-- took holidays over the Christmas--New Year period under the guise of doing 'parliamentary business'. Although holiday travel was expressly forbidden under the guidelines at the time, the politicians tripped around Australia and New Zeland at tax-payers expense............ The two (Members' entitlements) schemes are used in combination to fund travel which, by virtue of destinations, timing and nature, appears in many cases to be vacational and is devoid of any evidence of relationship with Members' official responsibilities". Following publication of the article the Criminal Justice Commision (CJC) obtained a copy......and confirmed that the information contained in the Courier-Mail arcticle was accurate."

Geoff Muntz was sent to jail in 1991 over less than $5,000, all of which was disputable. Max Bingham's CJC report of the same year investigated a possible $500,000 misappropriation of travel expenses. No-one was prosecuted. The CJC investigation did result in the resignation of several labour ministers. The Fitzgerald prosecutors had the option of prosecuting any parliamentarian whom they chose. They did not prosecute a single labour parliamentarian. They were supposed to be eradicating corruption, especially from the police force, yet they found no link between the parliamentarians whom they prosecuted and corrupt police. In due course we shall investigate their unsuccesful attempts to attach police corruption to the parliamentarians whom they did prosecute. The simple facts are that the Fitzgerald prosecutors and those who took their lead from them had the option of prosecuting - and thereby defaming -- any parliamentarian whom they chose. 'Straight shooters' such as Muntz and Bjelke Petersen were the easiest to prosecute because they covered up nothing. Muntz for example volunteered his personal diary. And people of the calibre of Muntz might just be dangerous -- if they got their hands on someone who was crooked!

The following item of information would have been quite surprising before I encountered the Pretorius case. Quoting Background Briefing, ABC Radio National (16 May 1999): Interviewer: "Integrity testing appals the police union. They've even co-opted the language of civil libertarians, branding it 'entrapment'. I put it to the union's Merv Bainbridge that there was a fear of police corruption reappearing without covert testing." Bainbridge, for the Police Union: "That fear only comes I think from probably certain solicitors and members of the legal profession, the civil libertarians etc. You know, I just point out to people if they'd like to check and find the number of police officers that are currently in prison for matters of corruption and the number of solicitors that are in, they'll find that there are many, many times more solicitors either being investigated in our prisons for matters of corruption, than police officers. And for calls to come from the legal fraternity for this is, I think, totally hypocritical. To set out to entrap police officers I think is totally distasteful and should be avoided at all costs."

Police are no more likely to be dishonest than are lawyers. In fact, because people such as police and parliamentarians must every day confront the public, 'one-on-one', they can hide very little. They are obliged to give an account of their actions. To whom do modern lawyers answer, in their cossetted world of near infallibility? And why is it that police get a reputation for deviousness? Could it have anything to do with the methods they are obliged to employ -- in court, in the place where truth is supposed to reside?

The legal people and to some extent the media were inadequate to the task of tackling the obvious problems of the Queensland Police Force. The failure occurred to great extent in law courts. The legal fraternity knew something was amiss, yet failed to act. When at last they had no choice but to act -- ?

We have already deduced that there is nothing complicated about justice. Justice is a science, an empirical method. The Fitzgerald Enquiry ran to tens of thousands of pages, which are overviewed by the CMC publication available via the link at the beginning of this treatise. The overview, as the author (Fitzgerald himself?) confesses, is a procession of, quote 'homilies' - short sermons! - which can readily be seen to have something to do with religion(!), something to do with history, more to do with politics, yet more to do with the self-opinionations of the author, and very little to do with getting a lawful, useful result! The CMC's introduction to the Fitzgerald Enquiry, given in red, at the beginning of this treatise, 'tells the story' - in a handful of paragraphs. Those with a penchant for 'homilies' may wish to struggle through the full enquiry overview - its history component does have commendable aspects - but we are here investigating matters empirical, so the introductory paragraphs in red, given above, will suffice as a springboard to our analysis.

This enquiry was set up under knee-jerk circumstances under a 'johnny-come-lately' state Premier who was a 'johnny-go-quickly' administrative dropout. He simply handed his problems unthinkingly and unreservedly to untested legal practitioners and gave them powers over and above those of parliament itself. He was no friend of his former boss, Bjelke Petersen, and Bjelke Petersen himself, after years of good service, was fully overdue for retirement . To put it bluntly - it was only because of his own misjudgement that he remained Premier when this trouble arose. Bjelke Petersen was an unusual man, a determined, forthright man originating in the netherlands region of mainland western Europe. He managed well to communicate despite suffering from a form of dyslexia. He was ultimately the victim of alzheimers. His english expression could come across as indicating duplicity. He could easily be misunderstood. On the part of his idealogical enemies he was deliberately misunderstood . Under those circumstances the judge called in as arbiter and umpire would best be a man of caution, wisdom, and probity. Knee-jerk was bad enough on the part of the nervous replacement Premier, leave alone the judiciary.

The enquiry was triggered because of ongoing police corruption having to do with protection of illegal brothels and betting. Certain police were giving select, smooth practitioners of the old familiar vices an easy road. Those same vices are now technically not criminal in this State. So it could be argued that the reason the conservative government never shook off the corruption problem it inherited from its Labour predecessor was because it attempted to suppress vice!

Several matters raised in the red lettered introduction to the Enquiry are worthy of attention. We shall begin by eliminating a major anomaly. This anomaly relates to something that is not the province of a criminal court, nor yet of a royal commission acting as a criminal court, nor yet of any court other than the Constitution and the people of Queensland. In this red lettered introduction we read of a submission by this Enquiry having to do with 'electoral and administrative review'. Admittedly this was a recommendation only, but under the circumstances it carried weight far beyond any similar recommendation made by any other single citizen of this state at that time. It effectively means that Mr. Fitzgerald QC was arrogating to himself and to a criminal investigation, powers entirely outside his brief and his proper interest. He was either ignorant of political/democratic science and procedure, or he was blatantly furthering a personal political agenda. He linked his investigation of police misconduct to the electoral boundaries of Queensland, knowing full well that by a circumstance of history those boundaries happened currently to favour one party over another. He did this at a time when police misconduct was a public embarrassment, when people were demanding that the problems be solved, when many people felt that those who had been in high places were possibly involved, and when it would be very easy to imply that one political party in particular was responsible. This unwarranted deviation into questions of electoral distribution speaks volumes. (His recommendations, incidentally, were enacted, with the inevitable result -- government in Qld was not improved, people in major population centres remained electorally advantaged, whilst those living outside the populated zones became more disenfranchised than ever.)

Fitzgerald along with anyone evaluating his report or considering putting it into effect, knew that electoral boundaries are not linked to corruption in Queensland. If the Queensland electoral system was an engine of corruption, Australia as a whole is corrupt. Australian states are far from equal in population, yet each state has equal representation in the Senate - and the Senate has powers in the same league as those of the House of Representatives. (Queensland, unlike the Commonwealth, has no upper house - which by precedent/comparison means that it is entitled to an electoral system based upon the location of the population as well as population per se. The scenario post-Fitzgerald - 'one vote, one value' - is a gerrymander. But we could discuss electoral science forever and get little closer to a failsafe formula. Democracy depends upon people caring for people, systems and formulae notwithstanding. But if Judge Fitzgerald QC didn't understand common everyday matters of democracy and political science, why was he giving recommendations in those fields?)

Not only does this enquiry break out from its proper bounds in relation to questions of electoral distribution: it displays such ignorance in the matter of political party donations that it disqualifies itself! We may assume that somewhere tucked away in those 'electoral and administrative review commission' recommendations are all sorts of proposed regulations relating to funding of political parties. These will stem from the assumption that politicians and Bjelke Petersen in particular criminally accepted monies for political purposes. There is an entry under his name currently on Wikipedia, presumably with Fitzgerald as its inspiration, naming a sum of $6 million in that regard. Why these closet political defamers didn't settle on $6 billion is purely a matter of convenience. To anyone remotely acquainted with the facts, the larger figment of imagination would be merely - a larger figment of imagination.

Australia was originally divided into states and was electorally biased towards sparsely populated regions for good and necessary reasons. It is only in recent times that regions such as Western Australia and Northern Queensland have ceased actively lobbying for separation/special statehood status, due to their perceived geographic isolation. Vastly improved travel and communications facilities have 'brought Australians together'. Whereas originally Australia was a commonwealth of states all too ready to go their separate ways, Australia is now an established nation with a left-over anachronism - states! And just as the meaning and purpose of the commonwealth and state governments has evolved over time, so too have funding procedures and other procedures for those who stand for high office, evolved.

Within my lifetime the status of shire councilors (local government) went from honorary, expenses paid, to fully paid. Needless to say, those standing for local government before the days of full pay, were either financially established persons, or persons with a mission. When a position of shire councilor became vacant, the community looked about for someone who was sufficiently established to be able to give of his time. It was a good rule of thumb that someone who could fund himself to take time out to run the shire, should know something about running the shire! And if he did get the odd advantage - real or perceived - because of his position - well, at least he could be outed at the next election - and aren't people who don't get paid in line for some sort of honours? But the simple facts were, it was generally understood that if an honest man took on the position, an honest man could be trusted in that position. Honest men are honest men. Honest and capable men are the ones we need in high office. No matter what regulations are enforced, regulations cannot of themselves make a bad operator a good operator and they cannot create integrity. Integrity comes with the person, not the regulations.

Within the lifetime of people before our time, the status of some parliamentarians in Australia went from honorary, expenses paid, to fully paid. We can imagine that those who gave time and effort with no large salary were well established, well trusted, or highly motivated! It tended to weed out the nonperformers and the incompetents! Of course, it can equally be argued that it opened the way for buying of influence. We could argue for eternity over the rights and wrongs of funding M.P.'s and political parties. In Australia today, thanks to a Federal Labour Decision, a gun is held at every taxpayer's head and he funds political parties without any option. Some would say that it is illegal to force anyone to fund any politician. They argue that this availability of taxpayer funds allows every incompetent and every snake-oil merchant to make it into parliament. On the other hand, there are those who argue that blanket taxpayer funding means no temptation to grant special favours to select persons.

Personally I don't have a strong opinion, other than that honest men are honest men and I would much rather have a good unregulated man than a regulated failure.

The Fitzgerald Enquiry labored to make Bjelke Petersen corrupt because he openly and unashamedly accepted large political donations. Personally, when I heard that he was on trial for perjury, at the time I assumed it was because he had assured Queensland that he was going to go to Canberra (as a federal politician) and he blatantly went back on his word and remained on - very unwisely - as Premier. Embezzling money or taking what amounts to bribes wasn't within his character. It never crossed my mind that anyone would be so blind as to accuse him of such behavior. And accepting money for political purposes in the way he did, although probably quite unwise if not naïve (he never 'understood' money!) was not unlawful. At least it saved the taxpayer from the need to donate!

The 'electoral and administrative review commission' recommendations have nothing whatsoever to do with Fitzgerald's appointed task of rooting out endemic police corruption. They are outside his brief and outside his field. Without taking more time than is necessary we shall also dismiss other obfuscating details and defects from this Enquiry. Fitzgerald very nearly accuses the Bjelke Petersen Government of political and religious persecution -- even of robbing people of their civil liberties. Wade through the 'homilies' in the Enquiry Report - go waffle surfing! Find all this discrimination and persecution! He discriminated against public servants if they were Labour Party Members! (you can get a person in high office to say and do almost anything, with hindsight, by taking him out of context!). He brutalized the downtrodden demonstrators and took away their rights! (He stopped the 'rent-a-crowd' mob from blocking the taxpayer's roads at times when the taxpayers wished to drive on them - that's the long and short of the civil liberties deprivation.) He took no notice of certain church men! (These were the church men who had got to a definition of Jesus Christ as somewhere between a black activist in southern Africa crossed with the lesbian activist Germaine Greer, and were busy doing a thesis on whether or not Jesus Christ was a Christian. Their gospel has liberated Zimbabwe, other parts of Africa, and australian family life. On this matter of ignoring certain church men - Bjelke Petersen did once advize the Archbishop of Canterbury to 'go home'. At one stage during this era a wife of an Archbishop of Canterbury was bored and got herself photographed reclining atop a piano. I never saw the photographs but I suspect she was in some sort of mildly scandalous outfit. When a church official saw the photograph he exclaimed, 'Good heavens! That's the piano at the Palace!' I have sometimes wondered whether our ex-Premier was advising the good archbishop to go home and see what was on his piano.)

What then did the Fitzgerald Enquiry achieve? We deduce, from the red introduction, TEN indemnities from prosecution; a supposedly improved police force; the diaries and notes of the arch bad guy himself, Sir Terence Lewis, holder of bravery and other awards and not likely to have donated compromising diaries and notes if he was really as crooked as everyone made out: Col. Dillon's bottle of Chivas Regal; and assorted items from various houses of ill repute. Those assorted items are to keep the imagination running hot and to sustain a level of interest right through the report's never-ending dissertations, to the end. I know nothing about Chivas Regal but you'll need something like a bottle of rum (medicinal purposes only) if you wish to remain sane whilst reading all that Report. Or you might finish at the Palace, reclining on the grand piano. This enquiry taxes the comprehension. To try to explain it to thinking people, I employ a term which I hope gives no-one offence. This term renders further explanation unnecessary for those who understand its implications. This enquiry was an 'irish joke'.

There are as many if not more Irishmen in Australia today, than in (Southern) Ireland. I might be one of them. "Look to the rock from whence ye are hewn"- and learn from it. No, improve on it. As an example: Labour politicians/lawyers Gough Whitlam and Lionel Murphy, plus a few others, mostly ethnic catholic Irish, ran the risk of undermining the Australian State back in 1975. It was more troublesome than gun-slinging republican bushranger Kelly's little attempted reign in the Wombat Ranges, a century previously. Whether sacked Prime Minister Whitlam's paddy was temporary or not, if it had got up a greater head of steam, it could have necessitated citizens taking up arms to defend australian democracy. One innocent man was injured by a bomb. Quite a few policemen were severly tested (police horses had marbles thrown undert their hooves etc) and the rage continued against the Governor General and thence the Australian State itself for some time. 'Labour lawyers' and others including parliamentarians were verbally attacking the constituted Australian State for years afterwards. Murphy seemed bent on contradicting everything he could in the High Court. 'Murphy's Law' took on a whole new meaning. For a little while, Australia looked faintly like Eamon de Valera's Ireland. There are people on this earth who can't seem to pursue politics and/or religion without becoming criminal. Some of them came out here in chains in sailing ships. Others followed of their own free will, perhaps to avoid difficulties related to the I.R.A.. It wasn't all because of the potato famine. We don't need that sort of politics, we don't need that mindless self-contradiction, we don't need any sort of law other than pure, sensible, non-political Law. We don't need Kelly's law, Murphy's law, shariah law, or any law other than the genuine, guileless, benign article. Proper law walks hand in hand with democracy and personal freedoms. It stands independent of politics and all the various 'isms'and mutant ideologies. It is harmless. It sides with good government and strengthens leadership whilst bringing down crooks and deceivers, and reining in all self-appointed false messiahs and fanatics. "First of all ……supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men; for kings and all who are in high positions; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way ….. '1 Tim. 2:1. Good government is a gift from Above.

If, as section 2.1 of the enquiry report intriguingly suggests, the 'green mafia', meaning, something reminiscent of good old Southern Ireland, was operative, then, figuratively, certain unwanted aspects of police behaviour were being developed after hours, down at the Shamrock Hotel. What we need to deduce is whether or not certain unwarranted aspects of Queensland judicial practice aren't figuratively being developed, after hours, at the same establishment.

Our compliments to the management of that quality catering establishment. We are being figurative.

This enquiry involved ten indemnities from prosecution. Does this mean ten seasoned deceivers, void of personal integrity, now potentially siding with the Crown's team? We shall investigate this matter of confidence men and the legal people, from the record itself, when opportunity arises.

In the interim we shall leave aside the bottle of Chivas Regal (and the rum - or should it be the irish whisky?) and concentrate on its worthy owner and the matter of 'whistleblowing'. There was a range of whistleblowers associated with these events, and there are whistleblowers, today, involved with the aftermath of these events. It is essential to understand something of what it means to attempt to do something about a problem in a bureaucracy -- especially if one is an employee thereof.

I once read a real life account of a blackmailing crime, written by a top English detective. I don't remember his name but his account was of sufficient interest and quality to get into the Reader's Digest . He had good reasons for getting the story published. He was a top policeman. The blackmailer was extorting money from a food manufacturer by poisoning food products or something such. The police were arranging for payments to be made to the blackmailer, but time and again the blackmailer failed to collect his money at those places where the police were watching (he had devised a clever optional pickup scheme). At last, this top detective deduced that the blackmailer must have access to the police office from which he was conducting the investigation.

Put yourself in the shoes of that detective. If the blackmailer is one of his acquaintances, a fellow officer, that fellow officer can simply claim that he was collecting the money for the detective. He may be able to turn Queen's evidence, get the detective charged with the crime or at least with being involved in the crime - and destroy that detective's career or even send him to jail.

The detective finally nailed the blackmailer - he was a fellow police officer - but to catch him he set up an entirely new investigation outside the original investigation, whilst maintaining the original investigation.

He ran great risks. Should his methods have failed, he could have found himself in the dock, accused of the crime he was investigating.

According to the historical accounts, especially sections 2.2.4 to 2.2.7 in this Fitzgerald Enquiry Report (the history aspect of this report has its strong points) something along those lines was occurring in the police force. Certain unscrupulous officers were not beyond ruining the careers of other officers. Prosecutions failed in court. If we are to take this enquiry seriously, it appears to say that the one-time chief prosecutor of Queensland, Desmond Sturgess QC, an experienced and respected criminal lawyer, was completely taken in by his one-time client, police officer Herbert, and turned to Hebert for advice on eliminating police corruption sections 2.2.4,5&7! If you are confused, so am I! And what would the Queensland Cabinet have been? And if Tony Fitzgerald QC is correct regarding Herbert, whilst his higher-ranking colleague, Desmond Sturgess QC , was totally deceived by his own one-time client - so much so as to call upon him to help eliminate police corruption -where does that leave you, me, the official investigator Desmond Sturgess QC, the police commissioner, reason, innocence, guilt, and all the rest of it? Herbert must have been able to sell coal to Newcastle --if he was a bad guy -which on the balance of probability seems likely- and the others weren't the bad guys? Small wonder the legal profession became concerned. Small wonder there was deadlock and the Cabinet shrugged at Commissioner Whitrod's resignation and tried for someone who seemed able to talk sense! And what could his replacement, Sir Terrence Lewis do? Much more than he did, some would say. But the top prosecution lawyer of Queensland had been conned by one of the supposedly crooked cops! The police force's own Criminal Investigation Unit had been tarnished by accusations of malpractice and had failed in court! The Commissioner who was attempting to clean out the rotten apples had resigned. There was disarray, mystification, and divided loyalties. Was Lewis the victim or the partial cause of these unfortunate, criminal events?

If Lewis himself knew of or had a hand in the tarnishing, the character assassination, and the intrigue, and especially if he at some stage profited financially from it, he was guilty as charged. We look to this enquiry for solid proof of his complicity. I for one have yet to find it - unless seemingly endless history lectures and some questionable inferences about a possibly sinister code section 2.2.11 and hurried transfer of a house section 2.3.6, qualify as allowable evidence? This is not to deny that Lewis has questions to answer. The biggest questions he has to answer are, firstly, Was he aware of the extent of the corruption? Secondly, Did he comprehend that this corruption - assuming he personally was aware of it - could be tackled? Lastly, If the answer to the first two questions is in the affirmative, why did not he as a trusted confidant of the Premier, use that trust to convince his Superior to act on police corruption?

Somewhere, also tucked away in these lectures section 2.2.7 is an implicit criticism of Bjelke Petersen, claiming by inference that because the Premier deferred to police advice rather than Sturgess's advice and did not immediately make tape recording of police interviews compulsory, as suggested at the time by Sturgess, he was in some way to blame for something. How's that for self-contradictory reasoning? Fitzgerald, we suppose, thinks that Sturgess QC, Chief Prosecutor, would not have been conned - if he was conned - by Herbert - if a tape recorder was involved, perhaps? What was the government and indeed anyone else of that day, to believe? Why shouldn't the Premier have followed the line of reasoning put to him by the police force?

However, if the advice he received from the police in this matter of tape recording came via Lewis, and his Commissioner was being devious in this matter for some reason or purpose? - but innuendo and speculation alone do not stand as evidence.

Those upon whom men such as Bjelke Petersen relied to know the truth, were unable or unwilling to internally investigate so as to arrive at the truth. The only way to surgically remove the hardened, crooked officers in scenarios such as these is for someone not working within the police force to investigate obvious offenders. Thus, no crooked officers can tamper with the investigation. The investigator, not being a policeman, cannot be accused of being part of a police conspiracy. The results of the investigation would perhaps be taken direct to reliable persons in cabinet, by-passing a baffled legal fraternity? Bjelke Petersen, strangely enough, was the sort of individualistic, slightly eccentric person who believed people rather than bureaucracies and would have accepted the testimony of a free-lance investigator once the investigator established his credentials. The media and the ABC at that time in particular had questionable credentials. The media in general does not always bring us reliable facts. It brings us something from hackneyed sources, to spin dollars and keep up its ratings.

Since a successful investigator needed to be separate from the Force - free lance - he would not have carried the authority of a policeman! Therefore, if he was to be countenanced by, say, members of cabinet, he needed indisputable evidence, and ideally he needed the backup of a reputable, believable organization. Such an organization could be, say, a media organization, or a couple of respected judges working in co-operation to privately hire private investigators, or the M.P.s whose electorates are the scene of the crimes. (These M.P.s would be unlikely to be Country Party!) It would be counter-productive to make accusations without having in hand proof that would stand up in a cabinet meeting. It would be useless to present as 'proof' something that would be handed to police for investigation, if it was possible for police to destroy the proof during their 'investigation'. To my way of thinking the obvious people to oversee and carry off such an investigation would have been the media. They would have much to gain, including honour and public acclaim. And it was elements of the media, after all, that crowed about the corruption being blatantly obvious.

Police officers themselves, although sworn to the eradication of crime, were amongst those least able to effectively tackle the crime which they witnessed in their own workplace!

Col Dillon was one officer who stood up and was counted when the opportunity arose. He wasn't the only officer and he certainly wasn't the most illustrious officer who did so but he gained acclaim because of his racial background (aboriginal blood). As officers, there was little these men could have done more than they did. We need not assume that all whistleblowers 'get it right' and we need not assume they are invariably heroes. We also need not assume that an officer who did not immediately come forward but who nevertheless knew of what was going on, was necessarily a guilty man. It is my opinion that the people with the opportunity and the tools at their disposal were in the media. As I see it, they didn't blow a whistle, they blew a golden opportunity to serve the State. Here is a copy of part of an e-mail I recently sent to a (taxpayer-funded) ABC journalist. The Four Corners program with which he was associated habitually cried wolf, invariably rubbished Bjelke Petersen, failed to produce evidence that would convict anyone in court, blamed it on the people who weren't in a position to do anything but believe the police/judiciary - the government!: and then oversaw the Fitzgerald fiasco. It is titled, The Bull in the China Shop. (Masters gets a mention in section 1.1 of the Fitzgerald Report).

Hello Mr. Masters, ..................
I delude myself that I have a dedication to scientific logic mixed with a sense of justice. I won't detain you with biographic details but I have been in Queensland over the past 50yrs. Perhaps the most important thing that I have seen is that of myself I intrinsically get things wrong. I was at uni. about when P. Beattie [recently retired Labour Premier, once an anti-apartheid demonstrator] was being civilly disobedient. I went to school with the (coloured) 'Tiger' (Harold) Bales, if you have heard of him. He was school captain and a far better person than I. I was knocking about when a group of locals including my father spent a lot of time and money getting a few of the local part-aboriginal people off the dirt floors into one or two simple weatherboard shacks. I heard about it when the ABC came to Theodore, and from what I was told, filmed the blacks sleeping crowded as was their habit in the better, locally provided housing, and used it as footage to imply discrimination by the backward, ignorant peasants of Theodore. I am such a peasant. I witnessed the ABC (I forget the name of the programme - it might not have been yours) inciting complaints by various aboriginal peoples of Australia, then utilizing the complaints for media purposes. So I comprehend the 'holier than thou', purblind element in the media. I take the liberty of using this illustration, but I could use many others. Like Sir Joh, I recognize that good men and heroic men have worked in media organizations. He looked with wondering pity on the nonsense. As a cold logician and a science fanatic, I look on it with something less charitable.

Recently I was thrown in at the deep end with Law. The address that should find it is, http://creationtheory.com/QLDLaw.html . If you follow that, you will deduce something that might surprise you. We have complete failure here in certain areas of Law. I began with Mr. Pretorius, as a novice: then, D'Arcy popped up:.... and now, Geoff Muntz has popped up. I am now beginning to look into his disturbing case. You might begin to comprehend something, bye-and-bye. You might begin to comprehend why I am not impressed. I have before me the Four Corners 20yr anniversary Fitzgerald re-union, if that's what the latest was. It includes a Huey, Prosecutor. It mentions a Judge Carter who did an investigation touching on a Luke Shaw, was it? I don't recall details. It is my task, as someone who is a) unofficial, b) not a journalist, c) not a lawyer, but who is, d) a science analyst of a sort and a person who is sometimes believed, to find out why there is a culture of blathering failure and absurdity here and there in Qld. Law. Especially, why it is that totally innocent M.P.'s are going to jail?

In doing so, I am obliged to analyze your behaviour as a reporter and to publish that analysis. I am obliged, for example, to explain why you never took the path of persisting with investigation until you got concrete evidence, then presenting that evidence to a straight shooter such as Sir Joh. Instead, Four Corners repeatedly cried wolf with all the lack of credibility and the shoddy reporting that was of the category I have given an illustration of, above. Humbug, bound to create revulsion and thereby a closed door. That is only the tip of the iceberg, the introduction to perhaps the greatest media-triggered legal fiasco in the history of this State. I will give one more illustration. I know nothing of the Carter Inquiry, but I suffered through the mention of it in this anniversary edition. I say, suffered, because I do try to be a logician and an analyst. Here we have the reporter who I am led to believe triggered this legal event and followed up on it, giving credence to this Judge Carter, who implies, in effect, "Justice in Qld is influenced by money (Joh would have been better served by hiring top of the range lawyers) and it CANNOT FUNCTION IF POLITICS IS INVOLVED (Shaw, jury foreman, reportedly a National Party supporter and thus by definition an enemy of the judicial process, in Carter's eyes)" By definition, going on that Shaw defamatory assertion - that's what it is, outright defamation, with which you concur - the whole Fitzgerald investigation was impossible. It embodied politics from go to woa. Not to mention, religion. As for law - bye and bye we might just begin to get to the bottom of how it is that at least one totally and obviously innocent parliamentarian (Muntz) went to goal, and why normal procedure such as reimbursement of costs was not followed. The glaring question of course remains: how could someone claiming to be an anti-corruption campaigner be so intimately associated with miscarriage of justice/incorrect legal procedure?

As I advised all parliamentarians when the High Court rounded off the Pretorius legal fiasco here in Qld: The investigation can now begin. If you are at all inclined to co-operate, you might begin with everything you know about Huey, thence going on to the matter of the relationship between the Prosecution and the crown witnesses - - notably, the sharpies the scheming, subtle confidence men. Remember, I am coming from a background of having seen collusion in this very area, and prosecution malpractice.

Yours etc,

P. Heywood.

This moonlit bull was too occupied with breaking china, to respond. The ghouls devising these programs are so accustomed to sifting through moral and physical corpses that they don't take cognizance of anything that has a prospect of being restored to life. Other journalists such as Phil Dickie (ex. Courier Mail) took a more considered approach. At the time of the setting up of the enquiry, and in the years following, he attempted to do something about the mess almost literally at his doorstep. If any media personalities are worthy of commendation as whistleblowers in relation to this affair, he could be in their ranks.

It is my opinion that Fitzgerald was a classic media-legal foul-up in the tradition of the others mentioned on this site. The media fed the enquiry, and the enquiry fed the media, in a classic revolving door scenario. Neither of these bodies - the legal and the media - will openly admit a mistake. If they acknowledge serious error, and give an impression of unreliability, who will buy their product? They are both big, big business. Big business! (Without pointing a finger at this particular legal co-operative, it is a fact that troublemakers are mounting fictitious cases, obliging their victims either to settle for something out of court or go the whole way as did Pretorius in the Sirens of the Surf. Legal businesses such as this, which are advertized at considerable expense state-wide, would be wise to demonstrate that they are not part of these rackets.)

In the midst of this big $business - media $business merging in with legal $business -- with some 'whistleblowers' ready to step forward on behalf of the police - do we have any whistleblowers ready to step forward on behalf of the legal people, and call foul-ups such as Pretorius, D'Arcy, and Fitzgerald, for what they are: criminal at worst; mistakes at best? Who answers the challenge to duty? Does justice in Queensland have any reputable spokesmen and any defenders in its ranks? Or is it only police and a select few parliamentarians (and how many parliamentarians are lawyers themselves, with vested interests in maintaining jobs for the boys?) who will stand up?

It is encouraging to know that people from the legal profession and the media have expressed concern over aspects of australian justice. Fitzgerald himself records, in relation to the failure to successfully prosecute corrupt police, "the bar association became concerned". But did anyone from that bar association have the courage to say something about the behavior of one of its own - namely, Tony Fitzgerald QC - when he failed to follow correct procedure in attempting to prosecute the handfull of really corrupt police? Will anyone stand up for Queensland in this matter?

Perhaps, in a remote way, yes! This oversize leprechaun (he could be a Scottish leprechaun), after a lifetime of mystifying us with seemingly impenetrable mists of blarney and blather, supposedly relating to something he terms, 'civil liberties', found the ethics to publicly call Fitzgerald for refusing to compensate an uncondemned ex-Premier for his legal costs. This publication -- ABC 7:30 Report 13/01/2004 -- in which he calls foul on Fitzgerald, is perhaps worth a glance.

In perusing this ABC program which quotes our life-size leprechaun, observe how the media avoids at all costs stating the cold, bare-faced truth. They scour the countryside for an articulate academic who will deny common practice and common law (would you believe, an Irishman co-incidentally with the name of Fitzgerald!) and give him the final word. The female journalist with the first entry of this 7:30 Report giving the final word to irish academic Ross Fitzgerald, incidentally, went on into politics full time and is currently a cabinet minister in the federal Labour government. But, blarney and bellicose blather aside, O'Gorman, for one, stood up for Law. There are people with ethics; give them the opportunity and the appropriate setting and common sense and justice will win out. This is the way forward - intelligent application of free speech.

The reader may be inquisitive as to whether I approached the ethical and articulate Mr. O'Gorman and his Council of Civil Liberties in relation to Pretorius? Yes: the outcome was resounding silence. I suspect this is because solid facts put a pin in a hot air balloon. And remember, these people are lawyers, and they make a living from the very System that is called into question by Pretorius, D'Arcy, and similar cases!

We might now proceed to set aside our blather-o-meters and blarney barometers, cease from pricking balloons, scratch 'Civil Libertarian' from this serious race, and settle in for a scotsman's preference - a thumping, tightly reasoned, extended discourse. We have got to the 'meat' of whistleblowing.

A genuine whistleblower takes his career, his finances, and in extreme cases his life, in his hands, and puts them on the line for the sake of truth and honesty. There is no point in his doing so if pursuit of this truth and honesty cannot generate a useful outcome. If he has his wits about him and if he has good fortune he may obtain sound evidence which prospers in the hands of reliable people, thereby openly justifying his cause. All too often the cause of a genuine whistleblower founders on the many and various reefs and rocks which his ship of progress is likely to encounter, and only eternity sees the outcome of his lonely endeavours. Many whistleblowers are such in name only, and are as likely to be malcontents, mistaken, mental cases or simply, muddled. It is essential that they be carefully evaluated. And unless they gather evidence that is technically useful to those in authority as distinct from nit-picking and frustrating to those in authority, they would be better to remain silent.

Several reliable police officers were ready to step forward at the initiation of the Fitzgerald Enquiry. Whether they held in their possession at that stage evidence that could lead to convictions, we cannot say. Whether the legal system had the capability of properly employing whatever evidence they may have held, we cannot judge.

It is unwise to repeat the mistakes of the past and wise to learn from the past. Police officers of the special Criminal Investigation Unit in 1975 failed to nail down corruption and had the tables turned upon themselves - assuming they were the 'straight' policemen! - leading ultimately perhaps to the 1987 Fitzgerald event. The police force is now different, but whistleblowing is still whistleblowing and humans are still humans. Let us put forward a question. Since 1987, has there been any cut-and-dried whistleblowing by policemen so as to produce tangible results that cannot be denied, and what was the response of the relevant authorities?

The answer is in the affirmative! There is at least one case. This case is open and free to be researched by all, even though its outcome hangs in limbo. The relevant authorities, as high up as the australian Senate, have not at this stage seen fit to act upon it. The two whistleblowers, members of the Queensland Police Force, took their reputations in their hands and according to believable sources went to the edge of bankruptcy. They subsequently left the Force. Their names are Reynolds and Harris. Harris is today a family law partner practicing in Brisbane, Australia. I have spoken with this gentleman.

Here is their internet published story. I temporarily omit the name of the detective whom they successfully proved to have falsified evidence in the 1980's.

Published 24/09/1995 in The Sunday Mail author, CHRIS GRIFFITH

A controversial Senate committee inquiry into unresolved Queensland whistleblower cases could recommend that the Goss government [1989-1996] compensate some whistleblowers, according to the committee's chairman, Senator Shayne Murphy.

Senator Murphy (ALP, Tas) said there should be one set of whistleblower protection laws operating across Australia. A ministerial council-type meeting, involving state and federal ministers and departmental officers would be appropriate to achieve uniform laws, he said.

"A separate independent agency is one of the mechanisms that will provide the greatest surety that people will be treated fairly and equitably."

Senator Murphy, who chairs the Senate Select Committee on Unresolved Whistleblower Cases, said the committee's report, originally due on June 5th, would now not be released until around October 18th.

He refused to support speculation that the existing draft report produced by the committee's secretariat, which has not been made public, could soon undergo a major rewrite.

He said the Queensland government may not be obliged legally to implement the committee's recommendations, but he was concerned about the personal circumstances of several Queensland whisteblowers who took part in the inquiry.

The committee's delving into Queensland affairs represents a head-on clash between the Senate, the Goss government, and the CJC.

Its investigation began last year when Premier Wayne Goss refused point-blank to carry out a recommendation of the now-defunct Senate Committee on Public Sector Whistleblowing, namely that the state government establish "an independent investigation" into the unresolved Queensland cases.

After Mr Goss refused this request, the Senate formed the current committee.

It has since examined several cases including the alleged victimisation of former detectives Gordon Harris and John Reynolds, who attempted to prosecute --N-[a police detective/prosecutor].

It has also examined the plight of former union official Kevin Lindeberg who opposed state cabinet's decision to shred documents wanted for legal action by former public servant Peter Coyne.

The committee in particular honed in on the CJC's role in investigating these complaints.

Whistleblowers claimed the Queensland authorities had a conflict of interest or a vested interest against investigating their concerns thoroughly.

Senator Murphy said he personally believed Gordon Harris and John Reynolds were "the victim of circumstances". "It's hard to see why they would have pursued the --N- diaries issue for any other reason than to highlight the alleged wrongdoing by that person, and I think the system to some degree let them down," he said.

"Kevin Lindeberg likewise pursued his case on the basis he thought he was doing the right thing. He wasn't doing it for financial gain or anything else."

"I don't think that there was any conspiratorial objective in the government's action that led to the shredding of the documents. I think they just did it on the basis of making a judgment, maybe they didn't handle it very well."

He said the committee reviewed the first four chapters of its seven chapter draft report on Monday. The committee would reconvene tomorrow (subs Monday).

Extract from NEWS OF THE DAY , an australian internet newspaper, 11/09/1997

The alleged corruption of power in Queensland at the highest levels in government under ALP State Premier Wayne Goss [1989-1996] has once again raised its ugly head. The case outlined below was covered in great detail by today's Courier Mail - without the newspaper once making reference to the role of the Goss government.

Although not as serious as the well documented shredding of court document case, the outcome for the "whistleblowers" has been the same. Both men have been driven to the point of bankruptcy in their conviction to see justice done.

They have been fighting an entrenched and self-seeking bureaucratic system which was allowed to flourish under Goss' leadership.

In this case the Connolly-Ryan inquiry revealed that the Criminal Justice Commission (CJC) followed up on a minor illegal firearm possession allegation by a former policeman, Gordon Harris, who blew the whistle on one of his more senior colleagues. Although the charges against Harris were eventually dropped, his charges that his superior officer--N--, fabricated evidence, were never followed up. His charges against --N-- were supported by another police officer John Reynolds.

The charges were serious - it was alleged that --N-- had fabricated evidence and perjured himself during the trial of a tow truck operator in the early 1980s. --N- had charged the operator, former police officer, Matthew Ready, over a fraudulent insurance claim. Ready was found not guilty by the courts.

Ready was able to produce a tape recording of a discussion with --N- which allegedly raised doubts about --N-'s evidence to the court.
Reynolds and Harris decided to investigate whether --N-- had fabricated evidence and in 1990 charged --N- with the offence of fabricating evidence - a crime which carries up to a seven year jail sentence.

---N-, when confronted refused to accept the summonses on this and another matter relating to his work with the [title temporarily withheld] Enquiry. At this point Harris and Reynolds took the evidence to the CJC and lodged an official complaint against --N- with complaints section head David Bevan and Commander Carl Mengler the senior police officer attached to the CJC.

Following the submission to the CJC the summons against --N-- was withdrawn by the crown prosecutor. Six days later the two detectives were transferred back into uniform at the instruction of -N-.

Both Reynolds and Harris subsequently left the police force. Harris leaving after he was once again pursued by the CJC following a charge that he had breached the Police Administration Act.

This all came about when, following Harris' initial charge against -N- being looked over, he was transferred to the police property holding section where he found -N-'s diaries which supported his allegations against -N-.
Harris allegedly photocopied the diaries and gave the copies to his lawyer. A television station obtained copies and ran a story alleging a cover up.

The CJC then again pursued Harris on the old illegal firearm allegation with a CJC file note dated March 19, 1991 authored by CJC director of operations Carl Mengler referring to a discussion that he had with assistant commissioner Neil Comrie. Mengler says in the note that he interpreted Mengler's comments as, "what have you done with the complaints file (about the firearm), you have had it for some considerable time and you know full well that Harris is a problem and that we need all the help that we can in relation to him, although he did not say it in those words.

"I think he (Comrie) has a point, we do know, and have known for some time that the Harris issue would raise its head again and may I suggest that we do something about finalising this complaint if at all possible."

Another file note records that the CJC decided to charge Harris for breaching the Police Administration Act by copying the documents despite Harris taking out a civil action attempting to "restrain the CJC official misconduct director from proceeding with investigative hearing".

The CJC legal officer Forbes Smith says in another note, "It is the view of the director (Mark Le Grand) that the Commission should no longer allow the investigation to be delayed by the application (by Harris) which is currently before the court.

"I recently advised that the director wanted a brief for prosecution completed in the near future and that this would be irrespective of any developments insofar as the Supreme Court application is concerned.

"The director has again aken the matter up with me and has stated that in his view and the chairman's the brief should be completed as soon as possible."

In 1995 a Senate Select Committee on unresolved "whistleblower cases" expressed surprise at the "vehemence with which various authorities pursued Harris".

Following this two barristers conducted an independent action finding that there had been no impropriety over the decision not to charge -N-.

Today [1997] Harris is president of the Queensland Whistleblowers Action Group.

 

We have introduced ourselves to two policemen displaying the features of the genuine article. They obtained undeniable evidence. They suffered demotion and counter-attack. They were willing to go to the point of bankruptcy to see justice done. The australian Senate, whilst not advocating further action on their behalf at the time, affirmed their actions, specifically noting that there was no logical motive for them to fabricate their evidence. They put their reputations and livelihoods on the line. One of them at least is available to be interviewed today, should it be proper for him to grant an interview. These officers came up with 'the goods'. Falsification of evidence is no joke and rightly can lead to a substantial jail sentence. Their whistleblowing proves that falsification of evidence was happening in the Qld justice system in the early 1980's.

It is now appropriate to return to the Muntz case. We shall then return to these whistleblowers!

Muntz's charge was that he misappropriated travel expense money. As we have already learned, the real travel expense rort - if it ever existed - was examined by Sir Max Bingham QC, not Tony Fitzgerald QC, and is detailed in a CJC report of 1991. For reasons which I do not comprehend, Fitzgerald, with this information presumably at his fingertips, presumably ignored it. It possibly involved substantial sums, and tended to involve Labour parliamentarians over and above the Conservatives.

The Fitzgerald Enquiry prosecutors knew of parliamentary travel entitlements, and knew that parliamentarians far, far, removed from being Conservative Cabinet Ministers were under a cloud in relation thereto. Unless they were derelict in their research they should have known something along the lines of the following: Quoting again from Sir Max's 1991 Report on an Investigation into Possible Misuse of Parliamentary Travel Entitlements by Members of the 1986-1989 Queensland Legislative Assembly (available from the Qld Crime and Misconduct Commission): "The guidelines which regulated the payment of daily travelling allowance were grossly inadequate. …………..It is the Commission's view that there are substantial evidentiary hurdles which make prosecution action unavailable in the vast majority of cases, and tenuous, unsatisfactory and unfair in the remainder. The reasons are many but primarily relate to poor guidelines in place at the relevant time together with the absence of any requirement for members to report on the parliamentary business undertaken by them during their travel. This latter consideration meant that there was very little information available to the Commission which could be investigated …… The majority of members chose not to provide information …… absence of documentation …….. Further information was sought from some fifteen Members ……… almost half those Members when called objected, pursuant to Section 3.24 of the Act …. on the ground that such disclosures may tend to incriminate."

Geoff Muntz objected to nothing. His defence simply rested on the documentation he himself provided and his straightforward assertion that to his knowledge, under the guidelines, and with all circumstances taken into account, he owed the people of Queensland nothing and he had a clear conscience in the matter.

Whether he had a clear conscience or no, the District Court judge, presumably acting under the influence of the Fitzgerald Enquiry special prosecutor(s), had no clear picture, found cases to answer whilst his Superior, Sir Max Bingham of the CJC, concurrently found no cases to answer, then threw the can of worms into the lap of a mystified jury.

Quoting from Muntz's 1991 trial (for supposedly misappropriating travel entitlements): Mr. Griffin (Prosecution): "Your Honour. I would ask for a ruling on parliamentary entitlements. It was a matter which was debated before your Honour. Because your Honour found that there was a case to answer on all 30 counts, it was unnecessary for your Honour in announcing that decision to deal specifically with the argument in connection with the application to the effect that there was no case to answer on particular counts. However, we now come to the addresses and for the purposes of the addresses it is necessary for counsel on both sides to know exactly what your Honour's ruling is in relation to parliamentary entitlements. His Honour Judge McGuire: It is not a statutory document, is it? It is not a matter of statutory interpretation. Judge Boyce took the view that the jury could see the document and determine it for themselves. You have seen his view expressed in his summing up? Griffin: Yes. His Honour Judge McGuire: I don't know that I should be forced into giving a ruling on it. I have expressed a view. It is a bit different. I think Judge Boyce emphasized it was a matter for them. It is not a matter of statutory interpretation. He offered them guidance and his guidance was along the lines that the expense still had to be for public purpose. He thought there was little assistance to be derived from that documentation. Griffin: Is your Honour proposing then to direct the jury in accordance with …….. His Honour Judge McGuire: I am, as at present advised, inclined to Judge Boyce's point of view. Griffin: Yes. His Honour Judge McGuire: It seems to me that the effect of the Cabinet Minute dated 4/06/84 is to expressly exclude ministers of the Crown and the Speaker from the provisions of S.S.3 and 7(b) of the Members' Entitlement Booklet. Paragraph 5 of the submission affords a Minister unlimited air travel to be paid from the ministerial vote, that is the departmental budget allocation. The costs are to be included in the ministerial expenses tabled in Parliament. I only express an opinion. I think each counsel is entitled to argue it, as Judge Boyce allowed, before the jury. I give this as my opinion. I think the jury does need some guidance. I intend to adopt the attitude adopted by Judge Boyce of saying it is for them, but to offer my own advice…………. In the end it is for the jury to put their own interpretation on it in the context of the case……. ."

Here are some of the hamburgers and the small change that came to the attention of the Special Prosecutor(s), who attacked corruption in Queensland by bringing charges against people such as Muntz - and getting them put in their own jails! Only people such as political candidates, relying on uncountable unpaid help from family and others about them, endeavouring to maintain some sort of sanity and some sort of family life whilst 'staying in touch' with people on the street; spending months away from home and with no certainty of a job tomorrow, could fully understand how absurd were these charges.

Charge: 30 counts of fraud misappropriation under s 409C of the CC. Pleaded not guilty for all of them. That on or about the 22'nd day of April 1985 at Brisbane you dishonestly applied to your own use to the extent of $100 property being a thing in action belonging to the Crown (the State of Qld). Further: that on or about the 22nd day of April 1985 you dishonestly applied to your own $200.55 property being a thing in act.
Further 2nd of August 1985 $114.80
Further 29th July 1985 $75
Further 2nd of August 1985 $444.80- plea not guilty
16 Dec 1985 $100.05ng
12Jan 1986 $53.25
20th Dec 1985 $261.90
17 Dec 1985 $239.10
16th Dec 1985 $99.10
17th Dec 1985 239.10
14th April 1986 $40.00
21 Feb 1986 $240.00
28th June 1986 $299.00
22nd July 1986 $545.97
22nd July 1986 $1,208.61
27th Feb 1987 $103
11 Aug 1987 $139.80
24th Aug 1987 $212
6th Oct 1987 $55.20
1st March 1988 $ 109.80
1st March 1988 $179
16 Feb 1988 $352
16 Feb 1988 $422
18th Feb 1988 $94
16th Feb 1988 $176
25th Feb 1988 1,144.40
14th April 1988 $190.58
14th April 1988 $176
14th April 1988 $341

Mr Griffin for the Prosecution literally spent days reciting to the jury all the sins of Geoff Muntz. He made him the world's worst serial hamburger heister. He implied that Muntz corrupted his family and he corrupted the whole State! The record is available at the Supreme Court, Brisbane. Muntz was painted as a despicable thief who schemed, colluded, and simply could not be trusted. To put it bluntly - if Griffin actually believed a tenth of the spiel that came out of his own mouth, he would have checked his pockets every time he went near the accused. Especially if he was carrying hamburgers!

The Prosecution found abundant witnesses who had seen Muntz spending taxpayers' money.

The Defence easily showed that there was not a single case that could be proved beyond reasonable doubt. And the judge was either incompetent or he knew it. Yet he allowed the charges. The Defence barrister had the ring of truth. The sample provided below is not the fabrications of a liar. It illustrates the duplicity of the Prosecution's methods. The jury, having a seemingly endless list of charges presented before them, even though they deduced that many were doubtful, assumed they couldn't be dealing with a totally innocent man and judged accordingly. It wasn't their proper role to be judge. We know that according to the head of the CJC himself, Sir Max Bingham, the guidelines regarding travel entitlements were not specific. In other words, travel entitlements were an honour system - it boiled down to one question. The question: "Is the accused a kleptomaniac or no?" And, as with pedaeophiles, kleptomaniacs habitually re-offend. But such widely known technical facts spoil the play - and the play must go on.

MR. TAEFFE: Well. The trial is now into its final week and this is the first time, really, that anyone is going to say something nice about Geoff Muntz. Someone is not going to call him a liar, a thief, a man who deliberately takes public money, a man who has got his hand in the till. Ladies and gentlemen, I don't want your sympathy. I am not asking you to acquit the man because you have sympathy for him. I want you to look closely at the evidence and apply the law that is applicable in the circumstances of this case. This is not a game conducted between my learned friend and myself here. I call him my learned friend but you probably couldn't help but notice during the trial we were friends. We have been friends for many years. We are not going to come in here and bicker with each other during the course of the trial because we happen to be on opposite sides. But there are certain things which he said in the course of the trial, in the course of the addresses to you, that I must comment on and I must bring him to task for.

You have listened for two and a bit days. You have heard him talk of many witnesses. You have heard him challenge me, challenge me to answer three specific areas: one, this morning, one in relation to Queens Beach, and one in relation to some other matter than escapes me at the moment, but I will take up the challenge

Did you hear him refer to one witness, or one person who hasn't been called, where a challenge was thrown down fairly and squarely to the Crown very, very early in the piece? Do you remember that the very first witness called by the Crown-and he knows what I am talking about-the challenge was thrown down. My neck was stuck out here. The Crown could have chopped it right off if they had evidence to do so. Maybe I am speaking in riddles. Maybe you have forgotten. Maybe you didn't understand the significance of it at the time, so I will read the evidence to you, and his Honour will tell you, in relation to matters put to a witness, of the duty that a barrister has in that regard. We don't go off in frolics of our own. When we put something to the witness His Honour will tell you that that is based on instructions.

A very, very serious matter was put and it is in relation to that trip to Sydney for what we have called the bicentennial weekend. You see, my client gave an answer in relation to that weekend which is clearly wrong, and I will deal with these explanations in more detail at a later time to show you how they came into existence. They are not only his. You will see there has been a Pot Pouri of various persons contributing to that. The explanation he gave was that there was a formal invitation from the Prime Minister to all Cabinet Ministers. Now, it is quite clear there wasn't a formal invitation. It is quite clear that the man would have to be a complete and utter fool to provide the explanation if he didn't believe it at the time. If he knew at the time, or he believed at the time, that there was no formal invitation, then he is a complete fool to put that in there because it could be so easily checked out and proven to be false. This is the evidence that I have referred to: p.64, Mr. James, and I will read it in its entirety.

"I put this to you, that my client went to Sydney"- this is for that weekend-"with the express permission and in the full knowledge of the Premier of Queensland, Mr.Mike Ahern." "I put this to you"-"I put it"-and his Honour will tell you what that means when a barrister "puts it". He's not on a frolic of his own. "…my client went to Sydney with express permission and in the full knowledge of the then Premier of Queensland, Mr.Mike Ahern. Mr. Griffin: I object. That is outside knowledge of the witness." I said, "there's no-one else I can put it to. I'm putting ----- His Honour: One moment, there's an objection. What is the basis of that? Mr.Griffin: The question is whether he went there with full knowledge of the then Premier of Queensland. This witness cannot tell us what the then Premier of Queensland knew. His Honour: Well, I should not have thought so. On what basis do you say it be allowed?" My response: "There will be no-one else called, as I understand this, from the Special Prosecutor's office that I can put this to. I have to put it to someone. This is the neatest witness I can put it to. The Crown is aware of this matter that I am putting it and can do with it what they will. It is a very relevant matter."- and this is very, very relevant for you people. It is a very relevant matter whether my client went there on a frolic of his own to a wedding or with the permission of the then Premier Ahern and with Ahern having full knowledge of the trip. "His Honour: Yes, but what do you suggest the source of the man's information would be ?" "He is an investigator. He is aware of the Crown's allegation that my client attended there on the frolic of his own to attend a wedding. I want to put to him that it is not so. " His Honour: I will allow the question. Taeffe: You see, I put it to you that my client, with the permission of the Premier, attended and with the Premier having knowledge of the trip. I will go further. Perhaps I will give you the opportunity to comment on this; if I put the details to you and then you can comment at the end- that after the final Cabinet meeting of 1987 Muntz approached Ahern about going down to Sydney as a representative of the Government for the Bicentennial celebrations which included the Tall Ships. He says he was quite easy about whether he could go or not and asked what Ahern thought about it. He declared the fact that there was a private---- His Honour: "Just a moment, what is the question?" "I am putting to this witness, to give him the opportunity to comment on it." "Let him answer the question first." "The question was that he went with the knowledge and authority of the then Premier, Mr. Ahern. What is your answer to that?" Answer, " I am simply not in a position to know whether it is so or not." "Well, did you interview Ahern?" "Oh, no." "Ahern has been interviewed by an officer of the Special Prosecutors office; isn't that so?" Answer, "I imagine during the course of ministerial investigations, yes, he was, but not by me." "You see, you appreciate the opportunity I am giving you to have the matters that I am putting to be checked out- confirmed or totally branded as lies; isn't that so? You appreciate that?" Jones: "I can see what you are doing, but I'm just not able to comment on the veracity of this statement or not. "You realize that Mr.Muntz was Tourism Minister at the time?" "Yes, I believe he was." "You see, I put this to you, that Ahern said to Muntz- I'm sorry Muntz said to Ahern- do you want me to attend or should I not?' His Honour: He has answered the question. He has no knowledge of the matter. What are you trying to get evidence from the bar table for? Taeffe: I am not trying to get any evidence from the bar table. I am putting the matter to a witness. I'm sticking my neck right out so it can be either disproved or proved. I can do it though no other witness and that is the reason I am doing it."

Now, the challenge was handed down at p.64 of the 700 or 800 page transcript. Ahern- you might have noticed early in the trial at about this time a photograph appearing on "The Courier-Mail"-the front page- of Mr.Ahern and his two children- giving evidence here in this very complex within 100 meters of you; and the challenge was given- and this is terribly important because these things- you must see the two sides to things, ladies and gentlemen. The challenge was given that Ahern was there- that Ahern gave- that he went there with Ahern's approval, permission and full knowledge. My learned friend didn't overlook that. He didn't overlook it in his address. He didn't forget about it. He deliberately avoided it; and the reason that he deliberately avoided it was that it was unanswerable. The only answer that can be given is this- that we had the opportunity to call Ahern; we could have called Ahern. We could have called Jones. We could have called Wilcox- and that's very, very right, but that would have had one effect on the way this case was conducted, one very serious affect. If I call a witness, if I tender a statement, if I tender a document, if I tender the merest scrap - two words on a piece of paper, of evidence- I go first and the Crown goes second. In some jurisdictions the defense always goes last; and you may well think that's an extraordinary advantage and a huge advantage to go second, particularly in the trial where there's not a great deal of challenge, if any, to the witnesses. So don't, when you go to that jury room, please, go with this thought in mind: "Well, he threw down the challenge all right but the Crown- he could have called Ahern." You see, in any criminal trial the Crown has to prove its case. They have got to prove the guilt of Geoffrey Muntz, the man they call the accused. They've got to prove the guilt; and there was a specific matter put in relation to that Sydney count, specifically put down there as Tourism Minister to see the Bicentennial celebration, culminating in the Tall Ships.

My learned friend has told you of the huge resources of the Crown. Well, I am not going to say to you- I wouldn't have said to you the Crown has huge resources, although I'm appreciative of the fact- it's not the Crown, of course. The Crown doesn't have huge resources. He is referring to the Special Prosecutor, the Special Prosecutor's office when he says that. It is not the State Crown that prosecutes trivial matters like murder and armed robbery and rapes and unlawfully doing grievous-bodily-harms and that type of offence; but it doesn't take huge resources to get Ahern into the witness box when the challenge is made, and why wasn't he called? There can only be one answer for that. There can only be one answer and if there only is one answer for that then you might see things a little differently to what you've been seeing them perhaps over the last two days. When you have heard the Queens Counsel, one of the most senior lawyers in the State talking to you about this, you may well think, yes, there's merit in what he says, but I will be taking a couple of other things that were said and you might say to yourself. "Well, by jove, there's another side to things. Maybe there is a side we didn't think of." When you come to consider those counts, that's 23-29 and you've probably got all this in your heads anyway, generally-when you come to consider that, just ask yourself that. Just say, "Well, we didn't hear from Ahern when the challenge was fairly and squarely put over the objection"- over objection, fairly and squarely put . You see, just ask yourself one thing- and I'm going to have to go through those counts and I'm going to be some time. Unfortunately for you, you are a captive audience and you can't do very much about it. The only thing you can do is, when you retire and consider your verdict, you can pay us back by staying out as long as you like and we can't do a thing about that. We've just got to sit here and wait, and that's the only chance you get. I hope you don't take me up seriously on that, but anyway, when you look at those-23 to 29 - say, "Let's take the wedding out. Put that to one side. What's left?"- Minister for Tourism- attending at Sydney on the biggest weekend in Australia's 200 years of white settlement- a big display of Tall Ships- about 30, I think--Expo coming up here in April- goes to the Q.T.T.C, spends an hour and a half to two hours there. What's wrong with that? Takes his son down, but doesn't charge anyone for the son. The son doesn't stay at the hotel with him. His explanation is the lad stayed with friends and that's perfectly consistent because he comes back on his own. So you have a minister for Tourism going down - a minister for Tourism who has a fetish about looking after things for himself- - goes to Sydney- as I said, visits the office there- looks at what's going on in the Tourism world and comes back in time for the Cabinet meeting. Would the Crown say that's a miss-use of funds? He's entitled to take his wife with him. The Crown haven't disputed that he's there on any sort of official business. Would the Crown really be saying to you seriously, "The man is dipping into public funds." And the answer to that is "No." Put the wedding in and does that make it different because the wedding is in. Does it make it dishonest?

If a Crown Prosecutor was invited to a wedding at Mackay, we will say, and he's invited to a wedding at Mackay and on the 15th-16th-16th April, the day after tomorrow, and he lives there in Brisbane, so he's got to get up there for that wedding and he's up for an air trip, airfare, and accommodation; but it just so happens there's a circuit on in Mackay at the same time as the wedding was on, but he's not the prosecutor to prosecute the circuit. Another prosecutor from Brisbane has been assigned to go up there to prosecute, and this Crown Prosecutor goes to that other Crown Prosecutor and says, "Listen, how about swapping with me? I'll do the Mackay circuit and you do the Mt. Isa circuit that I'm going to do?" There has to be a Crown Prosecutor who goes up there. It doesn't matter two hoots which one goes, so the Crown Prosecutor goes up and attends the wedding and we pay for the airfare and we pay for his accommodation and if he gets a room only accommodation- a room that's charged only on a room rate- and takes his wife up with him and pays for her airfare up, puts her in the same accommodation, and if he's got a travel allowance $x a day, he might even buy a meal for her out of the travel allowance. Is he dishonest? Would you expect Mr. Griffin would be in here prosecuting a Crown Prosecutor who did that? The answer to that is a resounding "No"- but Geoff Muntz has to be perfect. That's what the Crown has you believe. He has to be perfect, and I simply used that analogy to say there is no reason you can't mix business with pleasure. If he is down there as I have suggested to you, why not then take up this invitation to go to a wedding- for however long we don't know.

So when I come to those counts I won't take a great deal of your time. You see, look at other things- and you've got to be so careful about things that are prejudicial, and I'll come to this at a later time; but you heard the Crown in his final address say, "Well, the silver BMW- it didn't matter much what it was." But the evidence was a silver BMW- looks bad. It looks as if the Minister is going up-market. Well, you heard the evidence in relation to that from the Budget man, but I am digressing and I will come back to that later.

Another advantage of having the final address is this: that it gives you the opportunity to comment on matters which might have some appeal to you. Remember in relation to Dillies Restaurant- that's count 21- Dillies Seafood Restaurant at Margate. I will just deal with a submission that was put to you there. Remember in cross-examination I asked Mrs. Callanan "Did Mr. Muntz"-"Was Mr. Muntz a courteous fellow?" She said "Yes." I said, "Did he-- Would you have expected he would have introduced his son to you?" and she said, "Yes." Now, the Crown Prosecutor said "Well, why wouldn't he introduce his son?" Well, put to one side how busy Mrs. Callanan was, but Muntz was pretty devious, according to the Crown. He was aware when he went there he would be paying for lunch with his Amex card and therefore he couldn't introduce his lad to Mrs. Callanan because she would think- she would rationalize, "Hey, that's his son. He's paying with his Amex card. There's something shonky going on here." Now, just think that through for a minute because you might say - and it was put to you that it was the day after Danny's birthday- well, let's think that through because what's going to happen is this: I can't comment on everything that's said by the Crown and I can't comment on the evidence and I don't know what you are thinking and I don't know what you regard as important, but I can at least put some of these things to you and say, "Look, please, when you go out there to consider your verdict please think of these matters and look at the evidence in the light of some of the things that have been raised." Because what follows if Muntz is clever enough to do this - he's clever enough to think through, "Well, she'll know I pay on the government card and therefore I can't introduce Danny." - and that's what the Crown say- it's Danny. We say "rubbish" to that. But if the Crown contention is true what must follow? Danny must be told something, mustn't he, by his father before he goes into the restaurant. He must he told something. He must be told, "Don't call me Dad." He must be told, "Don't call me 'Mum'." The other person who is there, a friend of Danny's, must be told, "Don't call him 'Danny'." There has to be a conspiracy among those four people to get a free lunch. A great birthday celebration isn't it? That's what the Crown says- it's to celebrate his birthday. I mean, I might be embarrassing my friend here now with these things, but they have to be said. What a great birthday celebration. "Don't dare call me 'Dad' because we're going down there to rip the government off. Don't you dare call your Mum 'Mum'. Don't you dare call him 'Danny'. Now, let's go and have a great birthday." Wonderful birthday; sort of thing you would love to do every day of your life.

So, you see, ladies and gentlemen, all is not what it appears at face value and remember the challenge that was thrown down on the Queens Beach week-end to see if I change my stance- where the Crown says, "Have a look at his deliberate lies when he says, 'These dinners were probably lunches'." "These dinners were probably lunches." - and the Crown says other people had dinners there that evening- Danny and his mates. That's what the Crown says, and that's why the accused deliberately lied on that. When you saw the picture slides on the wall did you pick up a perfectly logical explanation for him believing that those dinners were lunches? I'll show them to you later. Maybe someone picked up the perfectly logical explanation in relation to the legend that occurred on that docket and the numbers that occurred- that were written or printed in relation to the legend. If you did spot it, you don't get a prize for it, unfortunately. You can be applauded, perhaps, for seeing what the Crown didn't see. We will come to that later. We will have a look at the pictures if Mr. Peebles would be good enough to do that for me at a later time, and I will just show it to you. It is pretty simple. It is a simple mistake, as simple as that. What he has done is looked at that docket, he has seen the number 2 beside "Lunches" on the left hand side, the number 3, which is dinner I think, is on the far right-hand side and it is written 90 degrees or it is printed, I think- no, I might be wrong there myself. I am sorry, I have got it the wrong way around. Maybe I am being dishonest. "3" Is "Lunch" and "2" is "Dinner", but we will have a look at the picture show and see if we can say, "the Crown says a deliberate lie; very simple to see a mistake."

Again, ladies and gentlemen, talking about these general things and about the general submissions that have been made to you, what about Count 30, just as a simple illustration? I am taking these out of sequence just to point out to you some of the things that were said. Count 30, the Clarks: you will remember Mr. Clark well, a man very interested in his work, you might think, a love for music, did thousands of hours of work, then used a smoke screen by Geoff Muntz- a smoke screen, a façade adopted by Muntz to get a free meal, to justify a meal- that is what the Crown says- because very shortly before the prosecutor had made that submission to you about my client effectively looking around to see who he could spot- "You'll do, the lady in the back of the court there. I know you."- in fact I do know her, but, "You'll do. Come over here. Have a meal with me. Haven't seen her for a few years- "Have a meal with me and we'll talk for an hour"-"Don't have a meal, just have a bit of dessert and then we'll talk for an hour to an hour and a half on matters that you are concerned with, tourism and music" -"talk for an hour to an hour and a hour and half and I'll put that"-"that will enable me to put a legitimate claim in or a bodgey claim in to legitimize it because I have got you over there." That is the submission. The other submission is, "Do you know why Geoff Muntz got away with all of this? Because the public servants just rubber stamped it. He said, 'Here is a meal for official purposes'. Bang. The rubber stamp went on and it was paid and he was to do nothing more and nothing less than that." That is what you are told in one breath and two minutes later you are told that the man has gone to devious trouble to put up that smoke screen. It doesn't stand together. The two can't stand together.

Well, now ladies and gentlemen, they are just a few preliminary things………….. .

Cooly analyzing these events from a distance, we see the confusion and concurrently we are tempted to search for a pattern and perhaps a motive underneath the chaos. Is there a purpose and an underlying motive? Were these prosecutions the work of lost lawyers, or louts? If the latter, what purpose or motive? Was it the work of a serial parliamentarian jailer? Has the justice system taken on aspects of Jekyll and Hyde? Is there an element of psychopathy? Should we be looking about for criminals?

Someone ready to send parliamentarians to jail without compunction, by his own admission, could be the Enquiry Head, himself. He has become notorious in Australia for repeatedly lashing out at our elected representatives. These are the words of a man eminently unfitted to sitting in judgment: "……. the main political parties have largely abandoned the ethics of government and practice pervasive deception …. " (The Age, 29/06/04, an article by Michelle Gattan).

Fitzgerald QC, by his own admission, regards all politicians as guilty persons practicing "pervasive deception".

But he couldn't have engineered such a full-scale departure from Law, unassisted.

He had as confidants and media assistants the taxpayer funded Four Corners team and others - all fully convinced that this was a legitimate enquiry. It had to be - it was their very own baby!

Regarding criminal input -- there was a ready supply in those who turned Queen's evidence. According to the enquiry head himself, they were able to deceive the best. One almost gains an impression that he admired them. We don't hear overmuch of what punishment they received, despite being the root of the trouble.

We have the man at the top a potential serial M.P. 'pincher'.

He is spurred on by the media.

He may well have had some inveterate liars turned crown witnesses on his team.

There is yet one piece of the puzzle missing. The missing piece is a prosecution team ready to employ shoddy evidence, or perhaps falsify evidence. We have seen it in the cases of Pretorius and D'Arcy. Is there any pre-existing record of it in persons attached to this enquiry?

Quoting Four Corners, 4/09/09. (We may note here that Chris Masters/Four Corners seldom passed up an opportunity to deride Bjelke Petersen, nevertheless, give them another fifty years of reporting, they could graduate into the real world? Masters, if you read his entire program, is beginning to comprehend?)

"Masters, to John Huey: 'Looking back now, do you consider that Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen was corrupt?'

Huey: 'Yes. Yes, I do.'

Masters: '…. A Singapore businessman, Robert Sng, visited the Premier and handed him a brown paper bag. Sng, who was seeking approval for a hotel development , donated $300,000 to the National Party …… .'

John Huey: 'I said to Robert Sng, Well what did Sir Joh say to you when you gave him this large sum of money? And he said, All he said was, Thank you, Thank you, Thank you.'

Masters: 'The … account set up ….. to assure Joh's financial clout within the party received close to $900,000. ….'

Masters, to John Huey: 'Any evidence that the money was used by Sir Joh for his personal interests?'

Huey: 'Well as I understand it and I have seen through the … records, no.'

Masters: 'Fitzgerald enquirers would find that Russell Hinze [long-serving conservative Cabinet Minister who died before being convicted of anything] received as much as $4 million in loans from developers.'

Huey: 'They must have had a dozen briefs of evidence of corruption, you know amounts $50,000, $100,000, $200,000, all going to Hinze …..'

How's that for trial by media and slander by inference? But who and what is this mysterious John Huey?

In our attempt to explain the mystifying, nonsensical results of this enquiry, we speculate upon such matters as the loathing for politicians expressed by its head, the naivety of the media, the shady history of some of the witnesses….. and, lastly, the proclivity of the prosecution for turning up non-existent evidence.

Huey was a police prosecutor strongly linked to this enquiry. You may already have deduced that his is the missing name in the whistleblower case outlined previously. And Fitzgerald is the unnamed enquiry, in that same whistleblower case.

But running in yet more public servants for proven offenses which might be a product of their work environment rather than their own natural character is surely an empty pursuit? On the Senate-accepted evidence of two police detectives, Huey broke the law by falsifying evidence against a tow-truck driver (who happened to be an ex-policeman). On the evidence of these same detectives, Huey was in some measure habituated to such evidence-enhancement, and his habit was not under control at the Fitzgerald Enquiry. We have seen the evidence of his habit in the extracts from the Four Corners interview, above. Presumably his influence and example had its effect on Queensland Justice. But was he inherently prone to such behavior, or did his work environment harden him to it? Could he simply be an honest policeman, habituated to employing devious methods to counter devious methods? Could he have picked up some of those methods from 'civil libertarians' and blarney merchants - or plain loutish lawyers? I suspect that the lesson to be learned runs deep.

How do we as members of a (hopefully) just society approach such questions? How do we tackle the problems and get the ship on an even keel?

Could we start by asking a parliamentarian?

Turning again to Sir Max's 1991 Enquiry into Parliamentary Travel Entitlements etc: someone had hired a car and driven to Darwin when he might have flown:

"One of the problems with the previous government was they were waited on hand and foot and they wouldn't - didn't know anything else but the smell of ministerial leather, but yet that's ok to go on money, but when you drive yourself, when you drive yourself and you get your brother to take his holidays off to help you go around, and you scratch a bit of time with your kids to come along with you when the rest of the time you're away, and when you go around and do it like the ordinary people do, there's something wrong with it, but when you fly around first class and get waited on hand and foot, and the police in the local town drive out to meet you and protect you, that's ok , but when you do it as the ordinary people do, and I happen to be a Labour Member of Parliament, and I wanted to do it the way the ordinary people do it and see it out that way, I get dragged up here before this ….. . Because I go and mix with them and talk to them and listen to their 'phone calls, and so on, and when you go out and do these things and you go unannounced, is when you discover what's going on, but when you go into a town announced, the red carpet is laid out, the streets are clean, everyone is spit and polished, but when you go into a place and you get around the back blocks and see it for what it really is …. because I can't -I don't come back with a stack of papers saying I've been somewhere that I flash in Caucus and table in Parliament …….. when I drive around and get my brother to help me out, I'm questioned."

Those in public office - police, judges, commissioners, right up to parliamentarians -- are never off-duty. For those in highest places of public scrutiny their day-to-day progress is akin to riding a tiger. Many of those who attained to high office finished by being carried out on a figurative stretcher. The stresses are merciless. Ways must be provided to escape the stress. Personally I concur with Sir Max's decision not to prosecute these parliamentarians whom he investigated in relation to travel expenses. Several of those investigated were obliged to resign under instructions from their own (Labour) Premier. In their cases we are not speaking merely of hamburgers and small change.

This makes a total mockery of most if not all the Fitzgerald jailing of parliamentarians. It makes the prosecution of Geoff Muntz and almost certainly of one or two others, Leisha Harvey probably included, a crime in itself. But this quote from Sir Max's report contains another message.

If this parliamentarian who so succinctly states his case regarding his 'working man's holiday' with his children had accidentally been a fly on the wall at the Pretorius trials, and no-one knew his status - we might hope that the parliament would now be a little wiser regarding the activities of the legal profession.

We might add to this: it is the right of every citizen to be able to evaluate the law courts he funds. It is every citizen's right to be able within reason to evaluate the cases heard in the courts. So there is nothing to stop parliamentarians under proper circumstances from interviewing the accused persons and the accusing persons, and formulating an opinion for themselves. This was the procedure in days gone by. Sir Matthew Hale, for instance, presumably travelled the country in company with a small company of armed men, literally sat on a public bench, and at minimal cost enabled people to state their case or have their case stated by an advocate whilst the public was free to understand and evaluate. There would have been precious little secrecy and golden priced verbiage, and his judgments would have been freely discussed, being freely understood. He was, of course, the ideal lawyer, and lesser men would have been less well received.

Putting this in simple terms: what you are seeing now and doing now, is indicative of what might have happened: bare-faced facts, researched, and free of legalspeak. Keep it simple, keep it affordable, get rid of the play acting, lying, and blather, and simply evaluate the case as any man called in off the street would expect. We have the internet and modern communications.

If $costs, witch hunts, and play acting begin to be exposed along with the forgery, we have a chance. If men such as Pretorius and D'Arcy are accused by women, let the character references of those women be permitted to be understood by all concerned. The police and legal people are held hostage by serial complainers - let such people publicly establish their credentials. The sexual assault industry is ranking with the aboriginal industry, the equality industry, the animal rights industry, the injured person's industry, and the other partly questionable legal 'industries'. As yet another example I now discover that I am acquainted with a young gentleman who was accused by a secretary at his work site - this female had a history, the police didn't proceed, she complained higher up, the case began, then stagnated, the police discerned her motive was revenge over a perceived insult by this man's uncle, relating to her being investigated for cattle stealing! - such was the female's record of accusing males for money or revenge, her dissatisfied employer hired a female specially to sack her! There are now arms of government that are acting little better than this female. Many of these accusations must be defended in court and they cost money. The quasi-superstition of fanatical 'environmentalism' and simple devilry/anarchy of all shades is attracted to the prospect of rigid regulations governing perceived targets. As with Bjelke Petersen - it's 'user pays'. Accuse, force them to defend themselves, then shrug and walk away.

Parliamentarians are elected on behalf of the people and it is absolutely the right of the people to know what is going on in the courts. Further to this, it is the duty of the elected representatives to know what is going on in courts and to see justice done. Further yet, the public and the parliament have a right to a legal system whose proceedings are not a crime in themselves. If we expose what is going on, we might find a few remarkable items, as Henry the Eighth found in the secretive cloisters of the secretive religious institutions of his day. Whatever purpose those items may have served, it had little to do with the supposed purpose of those secretive, privileged institutions. It had a lot to do with making money. If Henry had been a fanatically religious man, he would not have cleaned out the religious houses of vice. If those in parliament are fanatically minded towards attributing infallibility to all legal processes, they will not clean out the rubbish from the houses of Law. Law is common sense predicated on absolute truth and deviation into expensive falsities is a crime in itself. A system which entertains falsities turns honest people into unwilling and eventually unwitting perjurors . This may explain why so many police officers and lawyers in Queensland are having difficulty with misconduct. To 'survive' in court it is helpful to stretch the truth a little! The stretching becomes second nature. It is questionable whether anyone other than the one or two hardened cases who turned Queen's evidence were worthy of prosecution in the Fitzgerald Affair. Any person who is providing a living for himself and who is put into circumstances where lying becomes mandatory as part of his work, can scarcely be in the same category as an habitual criminal.

We have hypothesized that the way forward out of the legal system's failures and excesses is essentially to return to the simple public 'bench' system where within reason everything is open to scrutiny and there are no exhorbitant costs and exhorbitant verbiage. It can only work if at the first sign of filibustering, pettifogging, and deception, there are figurative howls that can be heard where they need to be heard. I suggest that the internet could figure largely in any such reform. Already in Queensland we have one or two passably reliable internet sites which are following that approach. The conventional media appears to be locked onto its fixed sources, gendering its expected outcomes - the revolving door principle. Fact by popularity poll - the public buys what it wishes to hear. The media researches what the public wishes to hear, then ensures that it hears it. Key in the required inputs so as to generate the expected outcomes. Legal proceedings are not classed as crime scenes so why trouble the public by investigating them as possible crime scenes? Who would buy a media publication which investigates institutions of justice as institutions of injustice? Who wishes to hear about the deception that might be involved in bringing to the reader that which he has always regarded as the facts? People need sources of information which gender trust and a feeling of comfort. Rule #1 of the media is to make the reader/viewer feel good, feel knowledgeable, feel powerful, feel justified. Never mind reality.

Having just now upbraided Tony Fitzgerald for running a kangaroo court without proper method, we may benefit through revisiting him. I am not satisfied that we have got to the full implications of this Queensland Law business. There was trouble in the school yard and the investigator 'tore it into' the one or two highest profile prefects who had/have tried to do something about it. The finger has not been put on the real troublemaking. Somewhere there is something out of place. We do not have closure. This judge slogged through day after day of 'homilies', with an expectant media urgently waiting for results, a bunch of crown witnesses some of whom were fresh out of the rogues' gallery, and a prosecution team amenable to making things up as they went along. He was reporting to a new and soon to disappear Premier who didn't seem to be able to locate himself. The one bunch of people that perhaps he could have relied on was the old Premier and part of his cabinet, and he chose to disbelieve them. In the case of the increasingly eccentric and temporarily questionable old Premier, he had cogent reasons for his disbelief. That's a lonely road for any judge. His technical results were questionable and obviously one-sided. And he, along with other operatives including some in the judiciary and media, came out of it, personally disillusioned.

ABC News, 29/07/09, reported, "Tony Fitzgerald has given a scathing assessment of the culture of Queensland politics and he has savaged the actions of former Labour Premier Peter Beattie."

To single out this Premier was no more reasonable than singling out Bjelke Petersen. We shall learn why this is so: but is there a basis in truth in what this judge keeps saying? Is misbehaviour at high levels in Queensland, somehow a product of existing abuse of the legal system/legal practices? Is there a link in this State between Law and crime-the wrong sort of link? Is judge Fitzgerald actually calling for help, and in some feverish outbreak, pinching and clawing at the two people who in the back of his mind are strong and willing to act, and therefore, by default, responsible -- Bjelke Petersen and the man from the other Party whom Bjelke Petersen meaningfully endorsed when he finally won the top office - Peter Beattie?

THE AGE, 12/09/07, part of an article by Brian Costar.

WHILE few would deny that Peter Beattie was one of the most successful and politically talented of the contemporary crop of Premiers, had some senior members of the Queensland Labor Party had their way he would never have been elected to Parliament let alone occupy the top job for nearly nine years.

The serial electoral incompetence of the party junta produced a reaction by rank-and-file members that by 1978 had crystallised into the Reform Group led by the late Dr Denis Murphy. Beattie was an eager and active member. For his trouble he was suspended from party membership in a hamfisted ploy to deny him parliamentary preselection.

Beattie turned the tables on his party foes and contributed to the executive dissolving and reconstructing the Queensland branch in 1981.

The corruption and sleaze exposed at the Fitzgerald inquiry snuffed out the National Party government and Labor, led by Wayne Goss, won the 1989 election in a landslide and Peter Beattie was elected to the inner-metropolitan seat of Brisbane.

Party secretaries make enemies as well as friends and Beattie was decidedly out of favour with Goss and the policy wonks who surrounded him. Instead of the ministry to which he was eminently qualified, Beattie was given the poisoned chalice of parliamentary chair of the Criminal Justice Commission where he made more enemies by acting in a non-partisan manner.

It wasn't until July 1995 that Beattie entered the cabinet as health minister. He was to serve only six months until the fall of the Goss government in February 1996, when he was elected leader of the Opposition. Assisted by the ineptitude of the Borbidge Coalition government and the eruption of One Nation, Beattie became Premier and leader of a minority government on June 26, 1998.

It had taken him 17 years to rise from party secretary to Premier and his need to overcome almost insurmountable obstacles toughened him as a politician. Beattie was a Premier who appreciated that good public policy needed to be supported by good political management. He needed all his political skills when it was discovered in 2000 that AWU faction members had corrupted the electoral roll when branch-stacking preselection ballots and that the practice had been going on for years.

Beattie acted decisively by insisting on the resignation of Labor members of parliament - including the deputy Premier - and went on to win the election handsomely.

As we have learned, the 'corruption and sleaze exposed at the Fitzgerald Enquiry' that 'snuffed out the National Party Government' was not the creation of that Government. And despite the ineptitude of that Enquiry, it was the National Party that finally wrote its own electoral demise. Upon Bjelke Petersen's wandering off (supposedly to go to Canberra) there was a vacuum of leadership, and this arguably did as much damage as the hamfisted Enquiry. Such is politics. Our leaders, irrespective of party, need all the assistance we can give them! (As an aside; there possibly were causes of failure much deeper than these 'political' superficialities. It is my contention that the Conservatives sat on their hands whilst the State School System 'lost the plot'. At their inauguration there did exist a functional State School System: at their dismissal there was an expensive white elephant incapable of ensuring proper behaviour, leave alone proper learning. Students standing on desks and swearing at teachers, and sometimes, vice-versa, is not recommended procedure in any institute of learning. Whether it was or was not practical in the long-term to continue on with State Schools: the Conservatives to my way of thinking never comprehended education…….... . I suspect the most telling factor in their fall from grace was the loss of the moral high-ground. Bjelke Petersen, a leader who often pleaded for better quality candidates to stand for parliament, came to the point of publicly disowning his own party. The particular point of contention on that occasion was that the only item about which the party was motivated was 'sex education'….. . It wasn't 'sex education' alone that led to his party losing moral ground----- delete 'education'. The overwhelming majority of conservative parliamentarians were straight as a die in this regard, with the Premier the straightest of all: but apples can be 'off', and a few rotten apples can taint the whole barrel. The business of cabinet ministers touring the countryside in the company of a female secretary in preference to a male or his own wife is doubtful at the best of times. In this case it was doubtful, tending to diabolical, and nauseous. The female and her family struck us as innocent -- and trapped. The minister was something of an expert at law, technically correct, technically un-corrupt, and in my opinion in line for something between a 'dressing down' and a public whipping. The media stayed shy of it --one case in which a little scandal-mongering might have done the country some good. But the minister was legally on safe ground. I do not know whether there were others like him. Parties may 'lose the plot' with education, but parties claiming to have moral high ground need to be on that high ground. Sickening, publicly - known exploitation of innocent females by only one man in a position of trust, combined with loss of moral and intellectual leadership ......... . In understanding these matters, we might cast our thoughts for a moment towards the Old Testament. The unexpected, unheralded, one-off fall of the man after God's own heart (David), with its subsequent publication and public repentance, is something we can understand even though it gives us deep unease. The persistent weaknesses of a Samson, with its tragic outcome and its triumphant finale, we can accommodate. "Let him who stands take heed lest he fall." But the exploitation of a well-intended female in a way that gives sexual exploitation insidious approval-- this sticks in the craw. Mistakes we comprehend: a deliberate ongoing mindset we condemn. We touch again on this unpleasant topic subsequently in relation to other, higher profile parliamentarians. Proverbs 31:3 " Give not thy strength unto women, nor thy ways to that which destroyeth kings.")

Returning to the (1998-2007) labour Premier Beattie, a man who was deliberately congratulated by Bjelke Petersen when elected to office.

Beattie was not in the same league as Bjelke Petersen, for reasons which history will show and with which we need not now detain ourselves. Howbeit, as the biographical fragment above suggests, he made a determined effort to improve his side of politics. He retired with a measure of honour, as the unashamed husband of one wife, and in spite of Fitzgerald's vitriol, an unashamed reformer of the major and majority political Party of Queensland. As such he has a place in history.

Let us now refresh our minds regarding the way in which unscrupulous and smooth operators take control of various bodies and organizations, especially those with compulsorily collected monies. The AWU mentioned above in Beattie's biographical extract is a trade union, and unions can be a handy illustration. When I attended university, the hard-working parents/providers were obliged as part of the fees to pay a small student union levy. This theoretically covered the cost of some minor, necessary, apolitical facilities. These monies were administered by students who were nominally voted in by the students. Scratch the apolitical. We witnessed legalized academic thuggery reminiscent of fascism/bolshevism. Of course the running of the union was not a matter of significance or relevance to those who wished to become engineers or doctors. It was irrelevant. Whoever was behind it knew precisely where the legal boundaries stood. They presumably had legal advice. The method, which the reader probably already has encountered, was to slander and destroy the personal character and credibility of any potentially uncooperative students standing for student union positions, using any falsification whatsoever. This was pursued by any means which would not lead to the slanderers/academic thugs actually becoming liable for prosecution under the law. Knowledgeable legal people must have been involved. Whilst I was at university, this student's union was seldom anything but the playtoy of corrupters. Their flavour at that time was left wing, but I am confident that the reader understands that a thug is a thug irrespective of the political colour with which he paints himself. The genuine political idealogues whom these slick, law-savvy operators relied upon, and hid themselves amongst, of course, were expendable stepping-stones to the one universal goal - money/power. These operators were smarter than nazis and possibly even in the same league as Lenin or Stalin.

The undeniable history of Queensland - Beattie's biography above being an extract - includes the history of such activity in and on behalf of political parties, especially the ALP. That is one reason behind that Party's loss to the Conservatives, mid- 20th Century. The ALP was 'on the nose'. When Fitzgerald complains to the reader via his enquiry report that Bjelke Petersen was wary of ALP affiliation in people in sensitive public service positions such as the police force - we may rest assured that this Premier was guided by hard-earned experience. The ALP was in some measure a criminal organization. To get to that woeful state, 'labour lawyers' must have been involved, pushing the boundaries and subtly twisting the meaning and purpose of the law.

It is not difficult for unscrupulous, legal-savvy power-seekers to employ technically 'legal' processes to trap, annoy, impoverish, or defame honest citizens. For a refresher course, we could re-read Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Achipeligo, or by way of variety go back to Hitler's Mein Kampf. Man, the fighting animal, in whose struggle for supremecy the end justifies the the means! Law is a tool, an expendable stepping stone in that merciless struggle for supremacy!

These are extremes -- but they started somewhere, and they started in nominally civilized, westernized societies.

It is self-evident that if deception is going on every day amongst the legal profession as a supposedly necessary part of justice, and these legal practitioners go on to influence or even to become parliamentarians; we have a problem. Are investigator Fitzgerald's assertions and protests telling us something?

Let's run an elementary check on dates and events - and look for possible back-room manipulation/collusion. Such collusion might have involved certain minority elements of the legal profession, police force, public service, political parties, and the media. Let's do for a moment what the Fitzgerald Enquiry did to its high profile victims. Trial by association, innuendo, and assumption of conspiracy.

The enquiry was set up in1987 under a temporary Premier who made irrational ad hoc decisions, and publicly committed himself to doing whatever the Enquirer recommended, lock, stock and barrel. He put non-elected persons, (solicitors etc), in charge of a democracy. Labour congratulated him as he was carried out on a figurative stretcher. They found no difficulty in following him in his carte blanche commitment to the recommendations of the enquiry - especially the aspects that were electorally in their favour - which were most or all of them!

Before listing the events in sequence we might take a quick glance into what in 1987 was still the future.

Quoting the ABC's Four Corners program, 03/03/08:

Wayne Goss [solicitor and first Labour Premier after 32 years]: 'December the 2nd, 1989, is the end of the Bjelke-Petersen era!' Cheers from audience.

Chris Masters: 'A young Director-General of the cabinet office, Kevin Rudd, took to the task of rebuilding governance with enough zeal for him to be dubbed Doctor Death.'

N. Harper, ex. Attorney General: 'I don't know how much is known of this but so many public servants were just put away into a hole. The whole of my personal staff were put in a basement room not even with a typewriter.'

The enquiry was promptly got underway in 1987 with the result that Police Commissioner Lewis and ex-Transport Minister (and ex-policeman) Lane were in jail by 1990 and a couple more ministers (Austin and Harvey) were in jail or on their way to it during that same year. . There is no question that Lane and probably Austin as well did appropriate at least some small monies illegally - Lane admitted it -- and there is no question that Lewis rightly came under suspicion. There is also no question that it was right and proper for some investigation to be made into other parliamentarians such as Bjelke Petersen. His investigation, followed by a trial, sputtered on until 1993, when it was called off, leaving the man accused of $millions in corruption financially ruined. To my knowledge there was never a red cent of corruption money or tangible proof thereof presented in court in the cases of Bjelke Petersen, Lewis, or the soon to be deceased, thus untried, Hinze.

Whilst these prosecutions were underway there was nauseating, seemingly non-stop media coverage of corruption, corruption, corruption - with some brothelesque events thrown in by way of light relief. Queenslanders were mindsoaked in the idea of corruption in high places. The high places as publicized were exclusively Conservative. Every trial was conducted in this poisoned atmosphere.

Most if not all Fitzgerald recommendations were soon enacted. The 'watchdog' Criminal Justice Commission under Sir Max Bingham - a widely respected and highly recommended lawyer - was in action by 1990. Respected policemen were brought in from elsewhere to take high positions, including that of Police Commissioner.

This experiment with the police force and CJC was a rough ride for some of the appointees. The new police commissioner for one departed under acrimonious circumstances and element(s) of the Goss Cabinet rightly or wrongly were involved in the dismissals/resignations.

In a surprisingly short time, even the unbiased, highly recommended Sir Max Bingham left the CJC for less stressful pastures. He didn't leave before handing down his Report on Parliamentary Travel Entitlements, etc. This 1991 report, without fear or favour, revealed that members of the then Labour Cabinet could have been individually in debt to the Queensland taxpayer by tens of thousands of dollars. The true amount will never be known. Family holidays aren't cheap. Here was real money, real evidence, real indication of real malpractice.

These travel entitlement queries were originally raised by the Auditor-General in October,1988. The possibility of criminal prosecution of Labour Cabinet Ministers could therefore have been known to those ministers or their associates/supporters (via relevant informers) in 1988. The travel entitlements in contention, under the Fitzgerald rule of thumb for jail sentencing, could have led to years in prison for those cabinet ministers.

Peter Beattie, solicitor/Labour parliamentarian, was chairman of the CJC at the time of the Travel Entitlements Investigation. John Costar's authoritative biographical note (above) informs us that Beattie was resented by some from his side of politics because he conducted himself in a non-partisan manner whilst chairing that investigative body.

1990. Reynolds and Harris 'sprung' Huey. Their detective work revealed enhancement/falsification of evidence and clearly points to the possibility that the Fitzgerald Enqiry as a criminal prosecution was unreliable.

1990. Keith Wright, former leader of the Labour Opposition, was convicted of raping an 11yr old girl. This conviction was not based entirely on fiction. Wright by his own confession had a liason with a minor. (His story is available on the 'Net.)

1991. The dying embers of Fitzgerald were stirred up and Muntz, arguably of the same high personal morality as Bjelke Petersen, arguably the most honest man in the parliament and one-time minister for prisons, was sent to his prisons on concocted evidence. The few dollars they did manage to lay on him did not warrant imprisonment. Meanwhile, figures in the realm of tens of thousands of dollars had been mentioned in relation to travel entitlements centering on Labour cabinet ministers, and, quite rightly, no charges were laid by Sir Max and the CJC.

Let us interrupt the narrative to consider: why was Muntz - and for that matter, Leisha Harvey, prosecuted? Could it have been to keep the public focus on the Conservatives and their supposed corruption? Could it have been deliberately initiated to draw away fire? Or were Fitzgerald and his prosecutors merely blinded by hunter's adreniline?

As the '90's progressed the Goss Cabinet rejected calls to do something about unresolved whistleblower cases. It fought against the australian Senate's non-partisan attempts to get an outcome in this area. It resorted to solicitor's tricks and verbal abuse. (Chis Griffith & others give a genuine account.) The Senate implicitly gave its stamp of approval to people such as Reynolds, Harris, and Lindeberg. Reynolds and Harris potentially struck at the legitimacy of the Fitzgerald Enquiry - which had indirectly handed power to the ALP.. Heiner/Lindeberg made part or all of the cabinet along with anyone else who was party to the actions of the cabinet, liable to prosecution for an offence carrying a jail sentence - destruction of evidence. The evidence was unrelated to Fitzgerald. The destruction, if an oversight or an accident, was not sinister. If the destruction was intentional - say, to help out someone in the public service who would benefit by its destruction - then we have a criminal offence. Whatever we have, the Goss Cabinet wasn't in a hurry to have it investigated, and it lies in limbo.

Goss and his cabinet and his advisors thereby struck at whistleblowing in Queensland.

Technically, Fitzgerald prosecutor Huey should have been sent to jail- where he should have enjoyed the company of the Queensland Cabinet or elements/associates thereof! Solicitors all, one suspects? Meanwhile, whistleblowers of various categories - including some from the Conservative era --went whistling in the night.

The Goss years witnessed friction in the police - CJC - cabinet triangle, which at times became a frictional quadrangle as the australian Senate, near highest court in the nation, asked questions. Goss & co. seemed content to filibuster. One man, we suspect, should know something of that era? - the Director of the Cabinet Office, Kevin Rudd. This ex-diplomat is now Prime Minister and an advocate, some have suggested, of a Bill of Rights? Read that as another layer of filibusterers! Did he at any stage begin to suspect what might have begun to become increasingly apparent, even to a layman - Fitzgerald was suspect?

1996. Goss narrowly lost the election, having seemingly lost interest, and soon quit the political landscape as though ordered or compelled to do so. (Today he haunts Brisbane Universities, perhaps in association with the abovementioned irish historian and commentator Ross Fitzgerald, and they relive the grand old days of the labour lawyers--dedicated to changing 'conservative' law. Scratch the 'conservative'. Make that, changing law, L-A-W. )

If a portion of the evidence against Goss's cabinet had been available to Tony Fitzgerald to use against Bjelke Petersen, that Worthy would certainly have gone to jail! Real, technical facts constituting proof of malpractice were all that would have been required. The Labour Cabinets of '89-'96 with Goss at their head weren't worthy of being jailed but if the evidence against them had been available to use against their predecessors ……..? A Government is evaluated by amongst other things the integrity of its policing and judicial arms.

Why did Goss depart politics with haste and finality after his extremely narrow electoral defeat in 1996? Could there have been an unpublicized reason?

Try "that which destroyeth kings".

In 1996, before Goss's failed election, I was nowhere near Brisbane and nowhere near interested in the state election nor in the players therein, but a lawyer of all people who had gotten an interest in some land somewhere (a shady deal as we interpreted it!) buttonholed me and unburdened himself of this distasteful and seemingly irrelevant information about a foal and a filly, back in Brisbane. The filly was the daughter of a cabinet minister or ex-cabinet minister and everything was under wraps but it had definitely happened. That was the gist of his terminology. As conveyed to me, it was a matter known to lawyers and others, calling for careful diplomacy. The supposed foal and filly were being well taken care of and had been kept out of view - which was about what I wished would happen to me at that moment. But this event had some sort of significance beyond political significance. I have attempted to banish this incident from the mind, but one aspect won't go away : the public and people such as myself didn't wish to know about it, but a lawyer seemed to know about it. It was either true, or someone known to a lawyer, fabricated it. We hope it was fabricated and it wasn't true. We all make mistakes. We shut it from the mind, except that it may have some technical relevance.

In 2000, Bill D'Arcy, ex. deputy Labour Opposition leader, was convicted of pedaeophilia on concocted evidence. The great crime that this man committed was in my opinion being a millionaire with a boat and all the rest of it, being photographed relaxing in this expensive boat, whilst being an M.P. - in, of all parties, the working man's or Labour Party! This sort of media image just doesn't 'travel' with the public. The pedaeophilia campaign against him was well underway by 1998. He then held a very safe Labour seat. Given his political profile and all the other factors, did he ever have a chance?

In 2000, Peter Beattie, elected Premier in 1998, completed his Labour Party 'housecleaning'. Branch stacking, fraud, factional tensions ……. it was necessary to sack the odd person along the way. In his plodding, limited way he honoured his party and he honoured Queensland. In his limited way, Bjelke Petersen honoured Beattie by congratulating him.

The mark of a statesman is the placing of the welfare of the state before fiddling politics and petty personal agendas. Bjelke Petersen cared for Queensland and for Queenslanders. As another true indicator of a statesman -- and we see the same feature in Muntz -- he bore no petty personal grudges. He freely forgave. He looked at the person, not the politics. And he saw to it that his administration payed its bills. He endeavoured to lower taxes. He wasn't the person to leave genuine whistleblowers whistling in the dark, nor to stand by whilst innocent foreigners were robbed and defamed. In terms of his administrative decisions (as distinct from some of his later contradictions) he seemed to have uncanny guidance. The State prospered under him. If his mid-life crisis or his temporary early onset of alzheimers or whatever it was, resulted in mistakes, he recovered in the end and, as usual, came back to surprise his adversaries. Today this remarkable man is speaking as it were from his grave, showing the way to improve Queensland Justice. If any one achievement would be close to his desires, it would be the provision of justice for Queenslanders. This would be a fitting monument. (We might assume it would, likewise, be a fitting monument for Beattie.)

Them that honour me, I will honour (1Sam.2:30). Observe, it does not say, them that honour human inventions, popularity polls, and run with the crowd, I will honour. It does not say, them that honour the idealogy of consensus, the United Nations, or law courts, I will honour. It says, Them that honour me. We know who Bjelke Petersen, Muntz, and others, set about to honour -- Truth and Perfect Justice, Personified. Let's re-phrase it. Them that honour truth and justice, I will honour. How much room is there in that statement, for the cost and deception that is daily a feature of our justice systems?

At considerable personal cost, Bjelke Petersen, Muntz and others, including others on the other side of the political divide, notified us of serious deficiencies in this State's legal procedures. Will we honour their efforts?

4. Why Are We Not Surprised?

Man seeks payout after sex case quashed
13 November 2009 | 05:31:53 PM | Source: AAP

The full text of the SBS news item is in heavy print below. Before perusing it we may pause to consider: this man was not present at the scene of the proposed crime; the investigators declined to ascertain whether or not he could have been at the scene of the proposed crime; a jury in a queensland court was deluded into finding him guilty of the crime!

The evidence rolls in, item after item, as the waves at Sirens' Sandbar. No sooner does the foam of one wave begin to recede than another surges around us.

Mr. Pretorius was comprehensively slandered and financially ruined by actors in a queensland court. One of his accusers has been officially listed as an australian media personality and actor. She was willing to keep her hand in by offering to act in court. Another of the accusers was this actor's mother. It wasn't only actors who decided to get in on this act. Sirens' Sandbar lies deeper than we might presently suppose. Episode two is currently being enacted. In time, it will presumably be published here. Whether it will be published as yet another crime enacted in court, or as a triumph of justice? -- watch this space.

Meanwhile, the play has been going on in other queensland courts. Financial ruin, slander, even manstealing are crimes being enacted today in the places where justice is supposed to reside.

Who wins?

We are looking at a deviant, outdated anachronism carrying little semblance to its original.

Is this the 21st Century equivalent of lining up a generation to be machine-gunned on the Somme? Who wins? If the slaughter at the Somme was Defence, then this is Justice.

The Australian Federal Police (AFP) and Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) face a multi-million dollar lawsuit following the wrongful conviction of a man charged with child sex tourism offences.

Frederic Arthur Martens, 60, of Mareeba, west of Cairns, was sentenced to five years' jail by a Queensland court in October 2006 for a 2001 sexual assault of a 14-year-old girl in Papua New Guinea.

However, Queensland's Court of Appeal on Friday quashed the conviction and set aside the jail sentence, finding there was insufficient evidence to support the charge.

From his farm in Mareeba, Mr Martens, a pilot who operated businesses out of PNG, said the actions of the AFP and DPP had destroyed his life.

He said he would be seeking compensation which would dwarf the $2.6 million paid to Australian resident Cornelia Rau following her wrongful detention in an immigration facility.

"That was only an immigration hiccup, there was no conviction," he said.

"Certainly, I have been wrongfully charged. It has caused devastation to my family and business."

Mr Martens spent almost 1,000 days in Lotus Glen prison, west of Cairns, before being released in May this year after new evidence cast doubt on his conviction.

He also blames the AFP for the death of his six-month-old daughter Stephanie, who died in PNG because his wife had no money to pay for a doctor after police froze his bank accounts.

In handing down his judgment, Justice Richard Chesterman was scathing of the AFP and DPP's handling of the case.

He was particularly critical of investigators' claims they could not find flight records which indicated Martens was not with the girl on the date of the alleged offence.

"The records are of critical importance," Justice Chesterman said.

Justice Chesterman said that ever since his arrest in 2004 Martens had requested authorities obtain the records, which he claimed would exonerate him.

But he was told they did not exist.

Mr Martens' wife Rose later obtained the documents simply by applying for them over the counter at a PNG government agency.

"(It is) a poor reflection upon the two organisations that one should have failed to find them, and denied their existence, and the other object to their use ... on the grounds that the petitioner should have obtained them earlier," Justice Chesterman wrote.

The AFP has declined to comment.

Mr Martens' solicitor Chris Rose said he believed the AFP had pursued his client because they were looking to prove the value of the federal government's sex tourism laws.

"I think they've just been completely overzealous. I think they've just closed a few eyes here and there because they were on a trail," he said.

If you can manage to read the divided queensland Supreme Court Ruling which thankfully and at long last got Mr. Martens out of the cage you are managing something that I couldn't. For the record, here it is.

If you can manage this Supreme Court Ruling, keep in mind that two of the judges (Fraser and Muir) were of the trio that listened to a twenty-minute, $18,000 presentation by J.P. Pretorius' QC, heard the DPP's representative admit that the DPP really didn't have a case, seemingly concurred with the expert advice placed before them, then turned turtle and came up with a guilty verdict. (I had an independent observer sitting in on the hearing). This time, with Chesterman's help (Fraser dissenting over some technicality) the Supreme Court managed to rule that a man who was convicted in a queensland court of a crime which the official record proves he cannot have committed, should at last be let out of the cage by the queensland Supreme Court. Any humane and logical person attempting to read this ruling might be inclined to lose their breakfast.

Who wins?

...to be continued