Senator Mitch
Fifield
Minister for
Communications and the Arts
Level 2
4 National
Circuit
Barton, ACT
2600
25th
May 2016
Dear Senator
Fifield
Receipt of my
letter to you of 19th April remains unacknowledged. The same applies to all of my letters.
Since 19th
April Screen Australia has seen fit to ban me again. Until 2018!
I realize that it is probably
an exercise in futility to point this out to you but it is a basic premise of
Australia’s justice system that a person accused of a crime must be found
guilty beyond reasonable doubt. In order for this to occur the evidence in
support of the accused’s guilt must be tested in court. Or, in my case, tested by my being presented
with an opportunity to defend myself against the charges laid against me. In
order for me to do so I would need to be provided with evidence of my guilt. No
such evidence has ever been provided to me – despite more than four years of
asking.
I have been found
guilty three times now by Screen Australia without ever having been presented
with evidence in support of the charges laid against me – namely intimidation,
harassment and placing at risk members of Screen Australia’s staff with my
correspondence and now, defamation.
If I am guilty as
charged I should be very easy for Graeme Mason to cut and paste examples from
my correspondence that bear witness to my alleged crimes. He will not and
cannot, any more than Ruth Harley could before him. The reason is simple. I am
not guilty as charged.
The key document in
this matter is the one Ruth Harley presented to Mr Ian Govey, priot to 9th
May 2012, as evidence of the need to ban me, along with her request that Screen
Australia’s Terms of Trade be amended to make the ban legal. Graeme Mason has
refused to provide me with a copy of this document, citing FOI legislation as a
reason:
“Screen
Australia is not required to give you access to these documents under section
11A(4) of the FOI Act. This is because they are exempt from disclosure under
section 42(1) of the FOI Act because they are subject to legal professional
privilege.”
Really, Senator
Fifield! A filmmaker accused of a crime sufficiently heinous to warrant the effective
termination of his career as an Australian filmmaker is not entitled to be
provided with evidence of his crime because the evidence is “subject to legal
professional privilege!”
Do you support
this clear breach of natural justice?
Why do you think Mr
Mason wishes to keep these documents secret? If Ruth Harley’s submission to Mr
Govey outlines the times, dates and nature of my offences it will provide definitive
evidence that banning me for six years was the appropriate punishment for the
offenses I had committed. I will be publically, and appropriately, humiliated
by the contents of this document.
On the other hand, if
the document contains no evidence of my crimes, the whole Fiona Cameron/Ruth
Harley/Graeme Mason house of cards collapses and the ban on me will be seen for
what I believe it to be - Ruth Harley’s malicious attempt to not only silence a
critic but to destroy his (my) career.
In 2018 I will still
be asking for evidence that I intimidated or placed at risk members of Screen
Australia’s staff so Graeme Mason and the board will have ample reason to ban
me yet again until 2020 since they will present to me the proposition that my
attempts to defend myself against false allegations are defamatory.
In you have any
commitment at all, Minister, to the basic tenets of natural justice and the
basic tenets of Australian law, request of Graeme Mason, today, that he make
public the document sent to the Australian Commonwealth Solicitor in which
either my guilt beyond reasonable doubt is clear or which reveals that no ban
should ever have been imposed in the first place.
yours sincerely
James Ricketson
cc Graeme Mason,
Chief Executive, Screen Australia
Kent Purvis, Investigation
Officer |Operations Commonwealth Ombudsman
Louise Vardanega,
Australian Government Solicitor (acting)
Australian Director’s
Guild
No comments:
Post a Comment