The Commonwealth Ombudsman,
along with the Australian Government Solicitor, endorses the proposition that
evidence a crime has been committed can be withheld from the person accused of
committing the crime!
Mmmmmm!!!
James Ricketson
Europe Guest House
# 51, Street 136 Phnom Penh
Mr Colin
Neave AM
Commonwealth
Ombudsman
GPO Box
442
Canberra
ACT 2601
17th
May 2016
Dear Mr
Neave
Imagine this:
Screen Australia’s $5,000 a day barrister, Mr
Smith, adjusts his wig and addresses a Judge in the Supreme Court. His legal
team of three look on, along with representatives of Screen Australia’s senior
management.
MR
SMITH Your Honour, in accordance with, 11A(4) of the FOI Act, under section
42(1), Screen Australia is under no obligation to provide Mr Ricketson with the
documents he seeks because they are subject to legal professional privilege and
hence exempt from disclosure.
JUDGE These
documents to which you refer, Mr Smith, are letters, emails and other forms of
communication from Mr Ricketson, are they not?
MR
SMITH No, your honour. The documents are those in which Ruth Harley, then
Chief Executive at Screen Australia, presented Mr Ian Govey, Australian
Government Solicitor with evidence that Mr Ricketson had intimidated of place
at risk members of Screen Australia’s staff with his correspondence.
JUDGE And
why does your client, Screen Australia, believe that Mr Ricketson is not
entitled to be appraised of the evidence Ms Harley believed warranted his being
banned? An action which Ms Harley knew would make it impossible for Mr
Ricketson to pursue his career as a filmmaker in this country?
MR SMITH Your Honour, Screen
Australia's position on this is supported by both the Commonwealth Ombudsman
and the Australian Government Solicitor.
JUDGE The withholding of evidence from the
accused, of the crime he has been charged with?
MR SMITH There is no suggestion that
Mr Ricketson committed a crime, you honour. However, it is Screen Australias
contention…
JUDGE Is ‘placing at risk’ not a crime, Mr
Smith? What kind of risk? Did Mr Ricketson arrive at the offices of Screen
Australia wielding a weapon of some kind? Did he make threats to commit
grievous bodily harm? Did Screen Australia make an application to the courts
for an AVO to be taken out against Mr Ricketson?
MR SMITH No, your honour.
JUDGE According to the evidence I have in
front of me, even when Ms Fiona Cameron called the police to have him arrested
for trespassing in the Screen Australia foyer, Mr Ricketson remained calm and
did not use abusive language to either the police or to members of Screen
Australia's staff. Is this not so?
MR SMITH Yes, your honour.
JUDGE Then I am mystified, Mr Smith, on
the need for such secrecy. Is there a question of national security involved in
this matter of which I am unaware? Is this the reason why evidence of Mr
Ricketson’s guilt must be kept secret?
MR SMITH No, your honour. However…
JUDGE I trust, Mr Smith, that you will be
able to share with me the evidence you say Mr Ricketson is not entitled to be
shown and which you insist cannot be tested in this court.
MR
SMITH I will argue in these proceedings, your Honour, that in accordance
with, 11A(4) of the FOI Act, under section 42(1), Screen Australia…
JUDGE Yes, yes, yes, Mr Smith. I trust
that Screen Australia is not wasting this court’s time in mounting a defense,
before me, of the proposition that an accused person can be found guilty of a
crime without his being provided with any evidence that he is guilty as charged?
Mr Smith glances nervously back at
his legal team, unsure how to proceed.
JUDGE Mr Smith, you do, I take it, have
documented evidence that Mr Ricketson intimidated members of Screen Australia
staff?
MR SMITH Your honour, one member of
staff in particular felt very intimidated by Mr Ricketson’s correspondence.
JUDGE ‘Felt’ intimidated?
MR SMITH Yes.
JUDGE And did Mr Ricketson intimidate her?
MR SMITH She felt that Mr
Ricketson’s correspondence was intimidating.
JUDGE And you have evidence to present to
the court that this person had good reason, based in what was contained in Mr
Ricketson’s correspondence, to feel that he was intimidating her?
MR SMITH This is our contention,
your honour.
JUDGE But you wish this case to proceed
without the evidence that Mr Ricketson intimidated this individual being
presented to the court and being tested by Mr Ricketson’s councel?
MR SMITH Your honour, in accordance
with in accordance with, 11A(4) of the FOI Act, under section 42(1), Screen
Australia…
Mr Neave, the office of the Ombudsman’s
response to Screen Australia’s ban on me, from day one, has been "Mr
Ricketson has no right to be provided with evidence that he intimidated or
placed at risk any member of a Screen Australia's staff."
At any point is the last 4 years your
Office could have picked up the phone and said to Ruth Harley, and now Graeme
Mason, "Why do you refuse to provide Mr Ricketson with evidence of his
guilt?"
Instead you allow Graeme Mason to go
through the cynical exercise of citing a section of the FOI Act as a reason not
to provide me with evidence of my guilt. This is nonsense. And you know it is. And so do members of the
Screen Australia board and the Australian Government Solicitor.
I suggest that you call Mr Mason
today and bring this farce to an end. Yes, your office, the office of the
Australian Government Solicitor, Graeme Mason and members of the Screen
Australia board will wind up with some egg on their faces when forced to admit
that I never intimidated or placed anyone at risk. However, their embarrassment in May 2016 will be
nothing compared with what they will have to endure if this matter becomes a
Statement of Claim being heard in the Supreme Court and Screen Australia’s
legal counsel has to argue in favour of the proposition that Screen Australia
is within its right to withhold evidence because 11A(4) of the FOI Act, under
section 42(1) the FOI Act allows it to do so.
best wishes
James Ricketson
No comments:
Post a Comment