Screen
Australia Board
Level
4, 150 William St
Woolloomooloo
NSW
2011 28th Sept. 2012
Dear
Members of the Screen Australia Board
When
I wrote to you yesterday it seemed as though my pre-sale for
‘Chanti’s World’ had fallen through as a result of your ban. As
it happens, the international broadcaster (a major player in the
world of documentary) is still interested in providing me with a
pre-sale that would make it possible for me to access Screen
Australia funds. It seems the broadcaster is unaware of the Screen
Australia ban that would render its pre-sale irrelevant in real
terms. Just how long the broadcaster can remain in ignorance of the
Screen Australia fatwa remains to be seen!
The
pre-sale for ‘Chanti’s World’ is one that I started talking
with the broadcaster about in Sept last year. This is a documentary
that I have been self-funding for 16 or 17 years now and which Screen
Australia has not invested one cent in. If the Board is really
determined to kill off this pre-sale there is not much I can do about
it but I do hope that you do so in the absence of any doubt at all
about my guilt of the crime I have been charged and found guilty of –
intimidation and placing SA staff at risk! If it were not for the
ramifications for my own career, this would be laughable. How can
correspondence place someone at risk – unless, of course, the
correspondence contains threats, real or implied. Perhaps Elizabeth
Grinston can find some implied threats in my correspondence but I
challenge any normal person (without a double degree in Law and Spin)
to find even one phrase that is threatening.
The
other aspect of this dispute that should (I believe) be of concern to
you all is that Screen Australia (at some considerable expense, I
imagine) is going to defend the defamation suit I have brought
against Ruth Harley in the Supreme Court of NSW. One does not need to
be a lawyer to know that publishing a document (the draft 9th
May letter to yourselves) in which the Plaintiff is accused of
intimidation and placing SA staff at risk is defamatory. Unless, that
is, the accusation is based on fact; is true. If it is true, if I am
guilty of intimidation, I will clearly lose my case. If it is not
true (which I maintain) SA stands a very good chance of losing –
if, that is, Screen Australia’s counsel does not succeed, on
Tuesday 2nd.
Oct, in having the matter dismissed on the grounds that I have not
articulated my ‘pleadings’ and ‘Particulars’ as well as I
might have if I had legal representation.
As
I have stated countless times now, there would be no need for this
matter to be heard in the Supreme Court if Ruth Harley were to
release – to yourselves, to me – the correspondence (or extracts
thereof) in which it is clear that I have intimidated her staff and
placed them at risk. If I have, my being banned is appropriate and
having the matter heard in the Supreme Court is a waste of time,
energy and money. If I am not guilty the same applies – a waste of
time, energy and money. All that would be required is that the ban be
lifted and that the Board apologize for its mistake in banning me in
the first place.
best
wishes
James
Ricketson
No comments:
Post a Comment