LARKEN ROSE AND MARK PASSIO INTERVIEWED BY CHARLIE MCGRATH, WIDE AWAKE RADIO - APRIL 10, 2013

J

Larken Rose's website - http://www.larkenrose.com/ 

Mark Passio's website - http://www.whatonearthishappening.com/

THE ENSLAVEMENT OF HUMANITY

LEAKED EMAIL REVEALS POLICE ORDERED TO MEET ARREST QUOTA

Doug Robertson and Ben Hyde The Advertiser November 19, 2011

The email sent to police officers by a senior officer at Holden Hill. SA Police deny officers were ordered to meet quotas and say the email was a mistake. Source: The Advertiser

POLICE were ordered to meet quotas for the number of arrests, drink driving reports, traffic and drug offences in a five-week period, an internal police email shows.

The Advertiser has obtained the email, from Holden Hill Senior Sergeant Andrew McCracken to patrol officers on July 28, which listed five benchmark categories including the number of fines, reports and arrests each officer must obtain over five weeks.
Officers who did not meet the benchmarks would be required to provide "an explanation" to Sen-Sgt McCracken and their immediate supervisor.
Senior police now say the email's directions were "outside of SAPOL's guidelines and policies" and it had been rescinded.
The five-week targets required each officer to:
MAKE five arrests and reports.
ARREST or report two drink-drivers.
MAKE nine traffic contacts, including on-the-spot fines, using mobile breath tests.
ISSUE one drug-related fine or diversion (for minor illegal drug possession).
The email also said "a minority" of officers at the station had failed to reach the targets during the previous 12 months because they had "coasted" in executing their duty.
"It is clear some of you are really great workers and there are some (the minority) that have coasted," the email said.
"Those who cannot or choose not to reach these benchmarks will need to provide an explanation to their sergeant and me.
"As stated, though, this is not hard and easily able to be reached and maintained - 99 per cent of you will have no difficulty reaching the standard and blitzing it."
The email was rescinded on August 2 when local police management were advised.
Police initially told The Advertiser  it was rescinded within 24 hours of being sent.
Opposition police spokesman David Ridgway said the email showed contradictions in the messages coming from SA Police.
"It flies in the face of what we've been told - that there aren't quotas for a whole range of activities. If police are putting these things in emails, then clearly there is a view within SA Police at certain levels that they do have quotas and that's why this person has published that," he said.
"It's certainly mixed messages coming out of SA Police."
Mr Ridgway said setting benchmarks or quotas could compromise police duties.
"I would've thought it would distract them from making sure they are providing a whole community policing approach when they are having to focus on particular benchmarks," he said.
"If they need a drug bust and they haven't had one, do they forget about every other offence and just go and look for a drug issue?
"We have record numbers of police - they should just be out in the community doing the work and there shouldn't be any expectation on the number of pinches they do."
Holden Hill local service area officer-in-charge Superintendent James Blandford said the email was a mistake.
"It is important to note the email was sent to operational staff within the Holden Hill LSA only," he said.
"The original email was sent by an officer who was relieving in a higher position. The directions given were outside of SAPOL's guidelines and policies.
"As soon as local management became aware of the email, it was rescinded." He said SA Police made no secret of the fact benchmarks were set for traffic contacts but this was in no way linked to revenue.
He said almost 30 per cent of traffic contacts ended in a caution. Police would not elaborate on exactly what other areas had set quotas.
"Benchmarks exist across SAPOL for a number policing duties, including responses to emergency calls and requests for police assistance," Supt Blandford said.
Police Association of South Australia president Mark Carroll said any confusion on quotas had to be addressed immediately.
"SAPOL management has expressed publicly that it does not have, nor does government expect, booking quotas," he said.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/leaked-email-reveals-police-ordered-to-meet-arrest-quota/story-e6frea6u-1226199485326

CHARGES AGAINST PROTESTERS DISMISSED: CHARTER RIGHTS RELEVANT IN INTERPRETING PROVISIONS OF SUMMARY OFFENCES ACT 1966

23 July 2012 

Victoria Police v Anderson & Ors (2012) Magistrates’ Court of Victoria (23 July 2012)
Summary
In the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria, Magistrate Garnett dismissed charges against the 16 accused for the offences of trespass and besetting premises under the Summary Offences Act 1966 (Vic) (the SOA) in relation to a demonstration that occurred at Max Brenner’s chocolate bar in Melbourne. Relevantly, in dismissing the charge of trespass, Magistrate Garnett took into account the protection of the rights to freedom of expression and association under sections 15 and 16 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic). This case note focuses in particular on the Charter aspects of the decision.
Facts
In this case, the 16 co-accused were charged with offences under the SOA arising out of their involvement in a pro-Palestinian demonstration at Max Brenner’s Chocolate Bar at QV Melbourne on 1 July 2011. The court heard evidence that:

• on this date, 150–200 protesters gathered in QV Square to take part in the protest;
• prior to the demonstration, members of Victoria Police, QV management and others had held a number of planning meetings, and Victoria Police had obtained legal advice as to the powers they had in relation to the protesters should certain events occur;
• on the evening of 1 July 2012, Mr Appleford, the operations manager of the QV shopping centre, made an announcement at the request of Victoria Police to the protesters purporting to revoke their licence to be on the property, which included the words “You are demonstrating disapproval of the political or social interests of a retail tenant of this shopping centre. Accordingly you are breaching an express condition of entry to this property not to perform this kind of protest activity”; and
• written notices were also placed in and around QV to this effect.

The accused were charged with wilful trespass contrary to section 9(1)(d) of the SOA, and wilfully and without lawful authority besetting premises contrary to section 52(1A) of the SOA. In addition, eight of the accused were charged with assaulting, resisting or hindering police in the execution of their duties contrary to section 52(1) of the SOA.
Decision
Besetting premises charge
Magistrate Garnett held that, on the evidence before the Court, the charges against all accused of besetting the premises was not made out, as “they did not surround the premises with hostile intent or demeanour nor did their actions obstruct, hinder or impede any member of the public who wished to enter, use or leave Max Brenner’s chocolate bar”.
Trespass charge
Relevantly, in their defence against the trespass charge, the accused submitted that it would not be compatible with the Charter rights of freedom of expression and association in sections 15 and 16 to interpret section 9(1)(d) of the SOA in the manner put forward by the prosecution so as to allow the owner/occupier of a public place the authority to revoke a licence of a person to be in that place because of an expression of political opinion that is at odds with that of the owner/occupier.
In support of this argument, the accused adverted to section 32(1) of the Charter which requires statutory provisions to be interpreted in a way that is compatible with human rights, as well as relevant Australian and United Kingdom case law including Noone (Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria) v Operation Smile (Australia) Inc & Ors [2012] VSCA 91, Momcilovic v The Queen [2011] HCA 34 and Hammond v DPP [2004] EWHC 69.
Magistrate Garnett accepted these submissions, holding that:

• the protesters did not enter QV square without lawful excuse, wilfully or without a legitimate purpose; rather, they entered for the purpose of a political demonstration and had the lawful right to enter QV Square;
• to interpret section 9(1)(d) as submitted by the prosecution would contravene the protesters’ right to freedom of expression, and a finding that a refusal to leave after being requested to do so on the basis that the protesters were “demonstrating disapproval of the political or social interests of a retail tenant of this shopping centre” constituted trespass would not be compatible with the rights to freedom of expression and association in sections 15 and 16 of the Charter; and
• while the Charter contemplates lawful restrictions on the right of freedom of expression, as provided in section 15(3), although the actions of the protesters may have caused some inconvenience to members of the public, the nature and extent of this inconvenience was not such as to warrant a prohibition of their right to demonstrate and express their political opinions.

No breach of the peace
Further, although this was not contended by the prosecution, his Honour stated in obiter that he would also not categorise the behaviour of the protesters as a significant breach of the peace or threat to public order so as to justify a lawful restriction on their human rights as contemplated by section 15(3)(b) of the Charter. His Honour referred to the decision of the New Zealand Supreme Court in Brooker v Police [2007] NZSC 30 in support of this proposition.
Application of the Victorian Charter
This decision is an example of the emerging body of case law considering the application and relevance of Charter rights in different legislative contexts, including in criminal proceedings involving the SOA. In particular, the case demonstrates that the rights of freedom of expression and association, which are protected under the Charter, will be highly relevant in cases involving demonstrations or protests.
Further, the case evinces a judicial willingness to be guided by relevant decisions from other jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom and New Zealand dealing with similar human rights legislation.
The decision can be found online at: http://www.magistratescourt.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/Publications/VPOL_v_Anderson_%26_Ors.pdf

LAW COURTS (SYDNEY) ACT 1977 NO. 22, 1977

LAW COURTS (SYDNEY) ACT 1977 No. 22 of 1977 - SECT. 1. Short title.


                        LAW  COURTS  (SYDNEY)  ACT  1977

                                 No. 22 of 1977
An Act relating to the Transfer of certain Land in Sydney to Law Courts
Limited and the exemption of that Company from certain Taxation.

  BE  IT  ENACTED by the Queen, and the Senate and House of Representatives of
the Commonwealth of Australia, as follows:-
  1. This Act may be cited as the Law Courts (Sydney) Act 1977.*1*


LAW COURTS (SYDNEY) ACT 1977 No. 22 of 1977 - SECT. 2. Commencement.


  2. This Act shall come into operation on the day on which it receives the
Royal Assent.*1*


LAW COURTS (SYDNEY) ACT 1977 No. 22 of 1977 - SECT. 3. Definition.


  3. In this Act, ''company'' means Law Courts Limited, a company incorporated
under the Companies Act, 1961, of the State of New South Wales.


LAW COURTS (SYDNEY) ACT 1977 No. 22 of 1977 - SECT. 4. Transfer of land to
company.


  4. The land described in the Schedule, being land that is vested in the
Commonwealth, may be disposed of by the Commonwealth by transfer to the
company. 


LAW COURTS (SYDNEY) ACT 1977 No. 22 of 1977 - SECT. 5. Taxation.


  5. The company is not subject to taxation under any law of the Commonwealth
or of a Territory.

                                  -----------



LAW COURTS (SYDNEY) ACT 1977 No. 22 of 1977 - SCHEDULE




                                    SCHEDULE
                                                                       Section
4 

  All that piece or parcel of land situate in the City of Sydney, Parish of
St. James and County of Cumberland, being Lot 2 in the plan known as Deposited
Plan No. 217666 and being also the whole of the land comprised in Certificate
of Title, Volume 9451 Folio 210, issued under the Real Property Act, 1900, of
the State of New South Wales.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- 



LAW COURTS (SYDNEY) ACT 1977 No. 22 of 1977 - NOTE




                                      NOTE
1.  Act No. 22, 1977; assented to 14 April 1977.

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2004A01660

 

NUMBER PLATE RECOGNITION DEVICES AID POLICE IN MASSIVE CRACKDOWN ON BAD DRIVER BEHAVIOUR AROUND CAIRNS

Anika Hume The Cairns Post October 29, 2013

PLATE CHECK: Operation Identify, which ends tomorrow, uses an Automated Number Plate Recognition device to catch out wanted vehicles. Pic: Tom Lee Source: CairnsPost

ALMOST 370 cars intercepted, 85 tickets given out, 27 unregistered vehicles caught, 24 unlicensed drivers pulled up, 21 notices to appear issued for 29 charges, four vehicles towed and three people taken in on various warrants all in three days.

The statistics speak for themselves.
There is nowhere to hide from Automated Number Plate Recognition devices, a new technology employed by Cairns police signalling the end of the line for the region's traffic offenders.
Last week the Cairns Traffic Branch began Operation Identify  the first concentrated operation specifically targeting unlicensed and unregistered drivers using the Far North's only ANPR device.
The latter results tell the tale of the operation's success in catching offenders last Friday, Saturday and Sunday alone.
A static police interception site along the Bruce Highway at Edmonton awaited all drivers identified by the device, which was stationed inside a vehicle 1km away.
Digital cameras with infrared technology for night operation scanned the numberplates of all vehicles travelling in both directions, instantaneously checking the characters on the plate against the police database at the station through a satellite connection.
Those plates carrying registration or licensing issues or linked to a vehicle or person of police interest were then flashed on a computer screen and radioed by the car's officer to the interception site, where more officers awaited to pull them over.
While older technology would have required officers to physically type the number-plate into a computer as the driver passed, the ANPR device is now the most effective tool local police have in catching offenders on the road, according to the Officer in Charge of the Cairns Road Policing Command.
"It's a very good screening device that can scan a lot of cars very quickly and pick out those that might be of interest to us without holding up others," said Acting Senior Sergeant Mark Buckman.
And it won't be long before the ANPR devices are rolled out across the Cairns police fleet, with the command's
Acting Sergeant Greg Rose saying all local police vehicles were expected to be fitted with the devices over the next year.
Operation Identify, which continues until tomorrow, is one of several similar operations to be conducted in the lead-up to stricter vehicle impoundment laws starting on November 1, when first-time burnout offenders will have their car impounded for 90 days instead of 48 hours and unlicensed or unregistered vehicle drivers caught for a second time will have their ride taken for seven days instead of just 48 hours.
But Acting Sen-Sgt Buckman reassured drivers that not everyone intercepted due to use of an ANPR device were necessarily offenders.
"The devices identify if the owner of the car is unlicensed, but that owner might not be driving, and it might say the car is unregistered but if they've paid their rego the database might not have updated yet."
"That said, it is pretty accurate," he said.
 
Friday to Sunday statistics
 369 vehicles intercepted
369 RBTs conducted
85 tickets issued
21 notices to appear issued for 29 charges
4 vehicles towed for repeat offences
3 people caught on various warrants
27 unregistered vehicles caught
24 unlicensed drivers caught

http://www.cairnspost.com.au/news/cairns/number-plate-recognition-devices-aid-police-in-massive-crackdown-on-bad-driver-behaviour-around-cairns/story-fnjpusyw-1226748742199

VICTORIA LOOKING AT WEEKEND COURT CASES

October 30, 2013 

VICTORIAN court cases are being scheduled on weekends as part of attempts to get matters dealt with as quickly as possible and tackle the problem of overcrowded remand cells.

A Melbourne magistrate has labelled the failure to bring prisoners to court because remand cells are at capacity as outrageous and beyond a joke.
Victorian Premier Denis Napthine said the government was working to boost prison bed numbers and a number of court cases were being scheduled on weekends to deal with the situation.
"We'll work with Corrections, we'll work with the court system to maximise the opportunity for people to get their court cases heard as quickly as possible," he told reporters on Wednesday.
"We are very keen to make sure that people get to justice as quickly as possible and we're also very keen to send a very strong message that we are tough on crime."
Hells Angels sergeant-at-arms Peter "Skitzo" Hewat was due to appear in the Melbourne Magistrates Court on Tuesday, but his case was adjourned when he was not brought to the building.
A number of other criminal matters have also been delayed in recent weeks because the court's police cells are operating at capacity.
Magistrate Ged Lethbridge said the situation was unacceptable.
"This is getting to be so far beyond a joke," he said.
Dr Napthine said Hewat is in custody and will be dealt with by the justice system.
"He will be dealt with appropriately by the courts, but he is in custody."
Corrections Victoria says temporary accommodation is being created at prisons to help ease the backlog and the department will try to have prisoners appear via videolink where possible.
Police say the high number of people in custody is due to more arrests being made, as well as police targeting bikie gangs and people who breach parole.
Dr Napthine said the coalition had opened 680 additional prison beds since it had been in government, with another 2500 in the pipeline.
"It's not something that can be fixed in a short space of time when you've got a huge capital build and a huge backlog in terms of numbers of prison beds."

http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/victoria-looking-at-weekend-court-cases/story-e6frfku9-1226749628934

POLICE SURVEILLANCE OF PROTESTERS NOT AN INVASION OF PRIVACY

27 September 2012 

Caripis v Victoria Police (Health and Privacy) [2012] VCAT 1472 (27 September 2012)

The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal has ruled that a protestor’s right to privacy was not violated by the Victoria Police’s retention of photographs and video footage taken during a protest. The Tribunal accepted that the records were still needed by Victoria Police for legitimate purposes including planning and briefing for further protests and therefore their retention did not violate Victorian privacy laws.
Background
Ms Caripis attended a climate change protest at Hazelwood power station in 2010, organised by the Switch Off Hazelwood Collective (of which Ms Caripis was a member). The Collective had advertised the protest to its members, and informed them that a professional photographer would attend to promote the protest internationally.
Victoria Police filmed and took photographs of the event and retained the images and video footage. Ms Caripis appears in four segments of video footage, with her image visible for less than 20 seconds. The footage and seven still photographs were retained in a locked cupboard. No record existed of the identities of the people in the footage or the photographs, not even their names.
The Claim
Ms Caripis complained to the Privacy Commissioner that the retention of the images and footage was an interference with her right to privacy and that they should be destroyed. The complaint was referred to the VCAT.
Ms Caripis’ complaint relied on the operation of the Information Privacy Act 2000 (Vic) and the section 32 requirement of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) (to interpret legislation in a manner consistent with human rights) to claim that: the video and photographs interfered with her right to privacy, were no longer required by the Victorian Police and in accordance with the Information Privacy Act, should be destroyed or de-identified.
The Information Privacy Act provides that:

• an act or practice of an organisation is an interference with the privacy of the individual if it is contrary to the Information Privacy Act’s Information Privacy Principles (section 14);
• any act or practice contrary to an Information Privacy Principle (regarding personal information) is prohibited (section 16);
• an organisation must take reasonable steps to destroy or permanently de-identify personal information if “no longer needed for any purpose” (IPP 4.2); and
• any inconsistent Act or provision prevails over the Information Privacy Act.

Victoria Police claimed that:

• the photographs and video footage did not reveal personal information nor identify Ms Caripis;
• the photographs and video footage was still needed by Victoria Police for intelligence, planning and briefing purposes; and
• the Public Records Act 1973 (Vic) requires retention of the photographs and footages as records “documenting the planned Police response to events such as demonstrations” for seven years.

Decision
Senior Member Steele accepted that the records were still needed by Victoria Police for the purposes stated above, and therefore the retention of the records was consistent with Information Privacy Principle 4.2 and not in breach of the Information Privacy Act.
Senior Member Steele found that the ordinary meaning of “needed” for the purposes of the Information Privacy provision was “useful” or “required” rather than indispensible. Senior Member Steele then went on to consider whether this construction was compatible with the human rights of Ms Caripis, specifically, the right to privacy, the right to free expression and the right to peaceful assembly, with reference to international jurisprudence.
Senior Member Steele concluded that the threat to Ms Caripis’ privacy was not of sufficient seriousness and she could not have had a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding the taking, publication and retention of images and footage for the following reasons:

• the photographs do not focus on Ms Caripis and her face is only identifiable in the video footage in two very brief segments;
• Ms Caripis knew that the protest organisers intended to take and publish images from the event;
• many other protestors took photographs of the protest and uploaded them to social media; and
• Victoria Police had obtained no data about Ms Caripis other than her image, did not know her name and had not engaged in systematic information gathering.

In relation to the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, while the Tribunal accepted Mr Caripis’ evidence of increased self-consciousness at protests, it was not persuaded that the retention of the material was inconsistent with these rights, given the extent of the recording of the protest by other individuals and the lack of other personal data collected by the Police.
In addition, Senior Member Steele also found that the retention was required for seven years under the Public Records Act and this Act prevailed over Information Privacy Principle 4.2 but, even if it did not, IPP 4.2 did not require the destruction of the footage. The Tribunal did not give any broader consideration to the Charter compatibility of the provisions of the Public Records Act.
Notably, Senior Member Steele found that the Tribunal possessed jurisdiction to consider the question of Charter unlawfulness and that, consistent with her conclusions in relation to section 32, there was no Charter unlawfulness made out on the evidence
Commentary
This case provides an illustration of the types of factors relevant to courts in determining whether an individual’s right to privacy has been violated. In this case, engaging in public acts with the full knowledge that others may be present, the existence of additional or multiple recordings of the public act, and the degree and amount of personal information collected, were all relevant in deciding whether the intrusion was of sufficient seriousness and whether Caripis had a “reasonable expectation of privacy”. It is somewhat curious that the Tribunal did not differentiate between an individual’s expectations in relation the collection of information by the protesters themselves as opposed to the collection of information by the police for a very different purpose.  While recognising that the potential “chilling” of police action on protest movements, the Tribunal dismissed Caripis’ arguments on this point with very little discussion.
It is significant that the Tribunal found it had jurisdiction to consider the question of unlawfulness under the Charter. This appears to be the first time VCAT has considered this question following the decision of Director of Housing v Sudi [2011] VSCA 266. Senior Member Steele also conducted an interesting review of the current uncertainty regarding the interplay between section 7(2) and section 32 of the Charter arising from the High Court’s decision in Momcilovic v The Queen [2011] HCA 34 and subsequent consideration by Victorian courts but ultimately considered it unnecessary to form a view on these issues.
While this decision usefully provides consideration of the meaning of the provisions of the Information Privacy Act in light of the Charter, it does not discuss the impact of the Charter on the Public Records Act.  The case highlights the tension between the retention requirements of the Public Records Act and the protection of privacy under the Information Privacy Act and the Charter.
The decision is available at: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2012/1472.html
Richard Griffin is a lawyer on secondment to the HRLC from Lander & Rogers

http://www.hrlc.org.au/police-surveillance-of-protesters-not-an-invasion-of-privacy

FUNDING CUT FOR ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER LEGAL SERVICES SHOULD BE RECONSIDERED

17 October 2013 

The Abbott Government’s $42 million funding cut over four years to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services (ATSILS) will not only make access to justice more remote for Indigenous Australians, it will exacerbate the shocking rate of Indigenous over-imprisonment.
The funding cuts were revealed in the final days of the Federal election campaign. Despite suggestions from Warren Mundine, the head of the Prime Minister’s Indigenous Advisory Council, that they would be reconsidered, a spokesperson for Treasurer Joe Hockey confirmed that the decision is not being reviewed.
The Coalition apparently believes that the cuts won’t affect “frontline services” as the funding only covers policy and law reform.
ATSILS receive around $70 million a year in Federal funding. Leaving aside the importance of law reform work for moment, stripping $10 million a year from ATSILS’ funding will go far deeper than affecting just law reform work.
These cuts will deny Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people the legal advice and representation they desperately need to deal with serious legal issues affecting them such as criminal law, family law, discrimination and tenancy issues.
Repeated parliamentary inquiries have highlighted the shortfall in funding for Indigenous legal services.
If the Abbott Government doesn’t reverse its decision, the eight ATSILS across the country will face extremely difficult choices about where to cut back already overstretched services.
ATSILS work is vital to the proper functioning of our court system. As ATSILS’ national body has said, in some areas of Australia, ATSILS are the only legal assistance service available. If funding is cut, the justice system in these areas will grind to a halt.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are already 15 times more likely to be in jail. Indigenous imprisonment rates are getting worse, increasing 52 percent over the past decade. 74 percent of Indigenous prisoners have been in jail before.
If Aboriginal people can’t access decent legal representation they are more likely to go to jail and for longer.
Aside from the rollback of stretched services, the cuts also misunderstand the vital preventative role of law reform and policy work by ATSILS.
This work is grounded in the experience of ATSILS clients. It helps Government to identify where laws or legal processes are not working and helps to improve the justice system. 
ATSILS law reform and policy work is usually in response to requests from government and other bodies on issues that directly affect their clients, such as mental health policy, family violence, police conduct and incarceration of young people. 
Given the unique problems facing many Indigenous communities, it is vital that the services working on the ground are able to share their experiences of how laws and processes are affecting their clients and where improvements are required.
In North Western Australia, for example, many Aboriginal drivers were being imprisoned for failing to have a valid driver’s license. Instead of simply representing client after client with the same problem, the Kimberley Community Legal Service and the Aboriginal Legal Service of Western Australia encouraged the State Government to fund an innovative solution – a program that increased driver training and education in regional and remote communities to reduce traffic and license offences.
In the Northern Territory, the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency operates a successful prison “throughcare” program that is helping to cut reoffending by providing support before and after release from prison for issues like housing, mental health and alcohol abuse. Program staff see the problems that lack of identification causes for Aboriginal people leaving prison in accessing social security, a bank account or a driver’s licence. NAAJA is advocating for programs that help Aboriginal people to obtain basic ID to help get their lives back on track when they leave prison.
This is the kind of preventative, cost-saving legal work that governments should be encouraging, not cutting.
Tony Abbott said he would be a Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Attorney-General George Brandis has shown he understands the problems of access to justice in Australia. Cutting legal assistance for Aboriginal people doesn’t augur well for Government matching its words with actions. The cuts should be reconsidered.
Carolyn Bond AO is the national spokesperson for the Community Law Australia campaign www.communitylawaustralia.org.au

http://www.hrlc.org.au/category/primary/opinion

CONFRONTING UN'S LATEST CAMPAIGN TO DENY ISRAEL'S RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENSE

PUBLIC SERVANT SACKED FOR TWEETS CRITICISING IMIGRATION DEPARTMENT TAKES CASE TO FAIR WORK AUSTRALIA

October 30, 2013

Public servants wishing to share their personal thoughts on their personal social media accounts during their own time are watching a case involving sacked immigration department employee Michaela Banerji with interest. Source: ThinkStock

THE case of a public servant sacked over tweets critical of the immigration department will head to Fair Work Australia.

Michaela Banerji lost her job in the public affairs section of the immigration department after tweeting comments critical of government asylum seeker policy and the department. She made the comments under the pseudonym LaLegale.
Ms Banerji had launched an appeal against a decision not to stay her sacking, but today she withdrew that Federal Court action.
The case will instead go to a conference at the Fair Work Commission in November.
Ms Banerji said she was pursuing the matter to foster a discussion about the treatment of public servants making comments in a private capacity.
"So many people do not get an opportunity to air these things, to bring these things into the open," she told reporters in Canberra.
She believed that if her sacking was upheld, that effectively meant any public servant could face dismissal if they criticised their departments in their own time.
"It seems that the government is making an example of me," she said.

http://www.news.com.au/technology/public-servant-sacked-for-tweets-criticising-immigration-department-takes-case-to-fair-work-australia/story-e6frfrnr-1226749547542

CHEAPER PENALTY OFFER FOR TRANSPORT CHEATS

October 30, 2013

FARE dodgers will be able to pay a cheaper on-the-spot fine of $75 in a crackdown on a growing army of public transport freeloaders.

The State Government says legislation being introduced to Parliament today will speed up enforcement, so ticket inspectors can catch more cheats.
Latest figures show fare evasion has spiked since the $1.5 billion myki system became the only ticket in town.
Fare evasion jumped to 11.9 per cent - an increase of 2.5 percentage points - in the most recent survey for the six months to May.
The problem costs taxpayers about $60 million a year. $60 million could buy nine new trams or four new X'Trapolis trains.
Train, tram and bus operators have been briefed on the plan, due to begin in early 2014.
Public Transport Minister Terry Mulder said the existing system required too much administration.
"Honest commuters would rather see their fellow fare cheats pay up,'' he said.
"If everyone paid their way, more money could be invested in the public transport network.
"We hope the on-the-spot fines make an impact on fare evasion because losing $60 million a year is not something our transport system can afford.''
Public Transport Victoria said last year ticket inspectors were issuing an average of only one fine per shift, and needed to be more efficient.
More than 155,000 fines were issued last year.
PTV CEO Ian Dobbs said the new approach would give inspectors greater flexibility.
It is believed it is the first time evaders have had the opportunity to pay a fine by cash on-the-spot.
"We think there are a lot of people out there who, if they've made a mistake, would much rather just deal with it and put it down to a lesson - that they really do need to make sure they touch on,'' Mr Dobbs said.
"This is another weapon in our armoury against the scourge of fare evasion.
"We need to give our staff as much opportunity as we can to reduce fare evasion,'' he said.
Under the plan, commuters who hitch a free ride would be given the option of paying a lesser $75 fine immediately by cash or credit or debit card, rather than the full $212 infringement.
A zone 1-2 daily ticket costs $11.84.
Mr Dobbs said he believed most people would pay by credit card.
Ticket inspectors would carry mobile EFTPOS terminals to gather fines.
Commuters who take the on-the-spot hit would not have to provide inspectors with their names and addresses.
The new fines would be issued only to adults and only for certain offences.
Children will continue to face the existing $72 fine. Passengers who can't or chose not to pay the on-the-spot fine face the current process and penalty.
An Auditor-General's report found fewer fines were issued in 2010 when myki was being introduced.
Fare evasion rates hit a low of 7.8 per cent in 2008 before peaking again at 13.5 per in early 2011.
amelia.harris@news.com.au

http://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/cheaper-penalty-offer-for-transport-cheats/story-fnii5sms-1226749245733

SOME DEBTORS USING FREEMAN CLAIMS 'TO EVADE OBLIGATIONS'

Although this presents as an 'article', this is actually more 'fear porn' designed to frighten and program the populace. It is also more proof that the awakening of the people is gathering speed and that the cistern is becoming more concerned about this.

Barrister Rossa Fanning

Dearbhail McDonald Legal Editor – 24 October 2013

BORROWERS relying on "Freemen of the land" style theories of law pose a serious challenge to the legal system, according to one of the country's prominent commercial lawyers.

Barrister –presented as an authority figure but is really a party with a vested interest in this situation and is therefore biased– Rossa Fanning said that while there had been some important legal disputes on points of genuine legal controversy by lay litigants resisting possession, many of the cases are not genuine but "stubborn acts of defiance by borrowers disenchanted at the unhappy change in their economic fortunes".
 
There have been more than 100 cases in the last year in which borrowers have used versions of Freemen arguments to resist possession by receivers and banks.
The Freemen claim, amongst other things, that they don't recognise the authority of the courts.
Borrowers have also sought to evade judgment or eviction –note the judgemental language employed without any attempt at providing proof– by claims that they have transferred their mortgages to secret trusts, claiming they can't be evicted from their homes or business premises. Most of you will notice that these are not 'freeman' arguments. Has the journo deliberately messed up the logic to lead the reader to a prearranged destination? Is this an attempt at social programming?
Mr Fanning said that while every case must be heard and determined carefully on its own merits, the prevalence of lay litigants defending proceedings on the basis that High Court judges are not properly appointed and don't have jurisdiction to hear cases – on the basis of "Freeman of the land" theories of law – is a serious challenge facing our legal system.
Only if the lay litigants are correct in their assertion that these judges lack the correct jurisdiction to determine matters. Otherwise it doesn't matter if 1 or 100 or 1,000 people presented the same incorrect presentment regarding the aforementioned judicial jurisdiction because they would be thrown out.
Mr Fanning, speaking at a Griffith College Dublin (GCD) conference on the legal landscape after the financial crisis, said that receivers are seeking injunctions from the courts on a daily basis. He says this like this didn't occur BEFORE the financial crisis. Also, notice that this comment has been placed after a whole pile of opinions about 'freemen and so-called mortgage debts.
"A borrower's obligations to his bank cannot be made to miraculously disappear into a puff of smoke," said Mr Fanning.
This claim is that someone is trying to 'get away' with something. Unproven and unchallenged by the journo. It also misses the freeman logic entirely which is that there is no loan to begin with, due to bankster behaviour.
"The whole point of a mortgage is that it prevents you from transferring your interest in a property until it is paid off.
Absolute bullshit. This is a 100% lie.
"These arguments constitute a threat to law and order in this society because they are being advanced by people who, being realistic about matters, are engaged in a campaign aimed at the wholesale tearing up of contractual obligations without any legal basis to support same".
More claims levied without the slightest hint of proof.
Earlier this year a High Court bench warrant was issued against Charlie Allen, the organiser of the Kilkenny based Rodolphus Allen Trust, which says it has accepted €2bn worth of assets from up to 2,000 struggling debtors.
The warrant related to the organiser's role in a standoff against IBRC (formerly Anglo) receivers in Brannockstown, Kildare, last August.
Gavin Simons, a partner in AMOSS solicitors –another so-called authority figure with a conflict of interest– who has dealt with several Freeman cases, said that "pseudo legal" advisers were doing borrowers more harm than good.
"They profess to have a secret legal remedy that the legal world knows nothing about," said Mr Simons.

"Once engaged, co-operation between bank and borrower becomes impossible.

"Ultimately, it is not in the best interests of the borrower."

Irish Independent

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/some-debtors-using-freeman-claims-to-evade-obligations-29695437.html

SUPREME COURT RULES BIKIE LAW INVALID

Posted by CLA Editorial Team on 28 September 2009  

The Supreme Court has ruled that a critical part of the “bikies law” in South Australia is invalid. The ruling forces immediate cancellation of charges against seven bikies, and calls into question similar extraordinary, draconian laws in virtually every Australian jurisdiction.

Supreme Court rules bikie laws invalid

The Supreme Court of South Australia has put the skids under the State’s bikie laws in a ruling that will reverberate throughout Australia.
The ruling late in September 2009 puts in doubt virtually all the hastily-passed, ‘me too’ bikie laws founded on the extraordinary SA legislation produced under Attorney-General Michael Atkinson*.
In a complex but finely argued judgement, the SA Supreme Court ruled by 2-1 majority  that s14 (1) of the Serious and Organised Crime (Control) Act 2008 (SA) is invalid.
In simple terms, the court ruled that:

• the legislation involves secret intelligence and secret administrative decision-making on questions which should be judicially decided – on appeal to a superior court, at the very least;
• a person accused has a right to know that he/she has been accused, and what he/she is accused of; and
• courts have the right to question whether ‘criminal intelligence’ is in fact criminal, intelligent or, most importantly, factual.

As well, the ruling raised the issue of whether provisions of the bikies law emasculated the SA courts’ authority so much that they no longer satisfied Australian Constitution rules about the distinction between judicial and administrative decision-making.
The case was Totani & Anor v The State of SA [2009] SASC 301 (see URL below for the full ruling). The Full Court comprised Justices Bleby, White and Kelly. Mr Justice Bleby wrote the key ruling, with Kelly J agreeing without comment, and White J dissenting with a lengthy and reasoned dissent.
The court ruled that one section of the legislation was invalid: the invalid section is Part 3 – Control orders:

14 – Court may make control order

(1) The Court must, on application by the Commissioner, make a control order against a person (the defendant) if the Court is satisfied that the defendant is a member of a declared organisation...(plus numerous subsidiary clauses).

Bleby J, in a fully-referenced treatise of superior quality and scholarship**, highlighted that the ‘declaring’ of an organisation was based on mere information (criminal intelligence, not evidence) assembled by the police commissioner and ruled on by the A-G. No-one was permitted to know what the criminal intelligence was, or the reason for the A-G’s ruling.
The process was legal to the stage of the A-G’s ruling, but the process became illegal if, on appeal to a court, the court was not permitted to review either the criminal intelligence or the reason for the A-G’s administrative ruling.
Equally importantly, the person appealing the ruling was not permitted to know what was alleged against him/her, and the ‘information’ provided by the police commissioner could not be tested as to accuracy by the court.
Specifically, Bleby J said:

“To hold that an application under s 14(1) must proceed without notice to the defendant is a significant denial of the defendant’s fundamental right at common law to be heard in proceedings that may adversely and significantly affect his civil liberties. It would require clear and unambiguous language in the Act if that right were to be denied. I can see no such provision in the Control Act beyond that of s 14(3) which is enabling only.”

The SA Government has threatened to appeal to the High Court. CLA hopes they do.
The immediate impact of the ruling is that charges against seven SA bikies have been dropped.
http://www.courts.sa.gov.au/judgments/Judgments2009/0925-SASC-301.htm
* Mr Atkinson is the Attorney-General who apparently doesn’t know his own defamation laws, because on his behalf the State Cabinet recently paid $211,000 in compensation to a magistrate for criticisms made by Mr Atkinson.
** The Bleby ruling makes reference to judgments of the High Court of Australia at length on key issues, and also points to recent, seminal cases from the superior courts of Canada, the USA and the UK as guidance for its ruling.

– Bill Rowlings, CEO

http://www.cla.asn.au/News/supreme-court-rules-bikie-law-invalid/

MAN FAKED SPEED LIMIT SIGN, COURT TOLD

By Staff Writers News Corp Australia network 01 October 2013

Robert Jacobs has been charged fabricating evidence after he allegedly created a fake 60km/h speed limit sign to avoid a speeding fine.

Court hears man created fake 60km/h speed limit sign to avoid fine.

A man created a fake 60km/h speed limit sign and then photographed it to use as evidence in court to avoid a speeding fine, a court has heard.
Robert Bruce Jacobs, 56, of Eden Hills, has pleaded not guilty to one count of fabricating evidence at Panorama in South Australia. He faces up to seven years' jail if found guilty.
Opening Jacobs' District Court trial, prosecutor Emma Roper said Jacobs had been pulled over by police for speeding in a 50km/h zone on Boothby St, about 4.45pm on May 18, 2009.
Ms Roper said Jacobs disputed his expiation notice, claiming it was a 60km/h zone, and took the matter to the Adelaide Magistrates Court in April 2010. She said Jacobs produced a series of photos during his trial showing a 60km/h speed limit sign on Boothby St.
"The 60km/h sign was not in fact on Boothby St at the time," she said. "The accused arranged for that 60km/h sign to be put over a bus sign at a later date." Ms Roper said Jacobs had returned to Boothby St to take photographs of the fake 60km/h sign in order to influence the outcome of his Magistrates Court trial.
She said the magistrate dismissed Jacobs' speeding charge after his photos had been tendered in court. Ms Roper told jurors police later seized Jacobs' computer and a USB device and found digital copies of the photographs, showing the fake 60km/h sign, that had been taken on February 22, 2010.
She said a Mitcham Council staff member would give evidence in the trial that the council had never erected a 60km/h speed limit sign on Boothby St. In his opening, Jacobs - who was self-represented - said he wouldn't have gone to the trouble of creating a fake sign to avoid a fine.
"I have no reason to manufacture a sign. I had no reason to get out of the (Magistrates) court hearing," he said. "I never intended to alter the outcome of the court other than hoping for a lesser fine on the day."
Giving evidence, Constable Iain Farquharson said he had never seen speed limit signs on Boothby St since he began conducting laser duties there. Const Farquharson said the only sign indicating the speed limit was a "big yellow sign" with "Remember 50km/h" on nearby Eliza Pl.
Motorist Jodie Bishop, who was also pulled over for speeding on the same day as Jacobs, gave evidence that she could not recall seeing a 60km/h speed limit sign on Boothby St. Jacobs faces a maximum seven years in prison if found guilty. The trial, before Judge Julie McIntyre and a jury, continues.

http://www.carsguide.com.au/news-and-reviews/car-news/man_faked_speed_limit_sign_court_told

AN ACT TO MAKE PROVISION FOR THE REGISTRATION OF IDENTITY OF PERSONS AND FOR OTHER AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES –WEST AUSTRALIA ASSENTED TO MAY 9, 1975