The Screen Australia Board has circled its wagons of
support around Ruth Harley and Fiona Cameron rather than admit that there is
not, and never was, any evidence at all that I intimidated or placed at risk
members of Screen Australia staff with my correspondence. I have no choice but to retire as an
Australian filmmaker.
Members
of the Screen Australia Board
Screen
Australia
Level 7, 45 Jones St
Ultimo
2007
1st
April 2016
Dear Board Members
A filmmaker who intimidates members of Screen
Australia’s staff with his or her correspondence deserves to be ‘banned’.
A filmmaker who places members of Screen Australia’s
staff ‘at risk’ deserves not only to be banned but to have his or her behaviour
brought to the attention of the police and for an AVO to be taken out against
them.
Fiona Cameron’s calling the police in 2012 to have me arrested in the foyer of Screen
Australia during business hours, twice, would have been justified if there had
been any evidence at all that I had placed Screen Australia staff ‘at risk’.
However, both common sense and natural justice demand
that any filmmaker so accused be provided with evidence of his or her crime –
intimidation; placing at risk.
Was there anything in my correspondence with Screen
Australia staff that was hurtful, defamatory or malicious? Did I threaten a
member of staff? Did I use profane language? Did I insult someone? Or was I, in
my correspondence, merely exercising my right to freedom of speech? My right to
be a vocal critic of Screen Australia?
To insist that Fiona Cameron’s lie about me be excised from the files?
Why has the Screen Australia Board, for four years
now, been unable to point to even one instance of a crime committed by me so
heinous as to warrant the destruction of my film career?
You all know that
there is no evidence that I intimated anyone; that I placed no-one at risk. So
did previous board members. And yet month after month, year after year, you
have refused to lift the ban - making it impossible for me to work in the
profession I have been practicing for close to 45 years. Worse is the damage to
my reputation, which has grown with each passing year. Where there is smoke there must be fire, the
reasoning goes: “Ricketson must have done something pretty bad to warrant the
ban in the first place.” In the absence of evidence my fellow filmmakers can be
forgiven for imagining what I must have written.
Whilst none of you
were involved in the original ban, you have all been in a position, since you
became board members, to either lift the ban or to insist that Fiona Cameron
provide evidence that I am guilty as charged. You have done neither. My appeal
to Richard Harris, in Jan this year and
last month, has been ignored by him; just as you Board members have ignored all
my requests to be provided with evidence of
my crimes.
Is the reason for your
collective refusal to provide evidence that an acknowledgment that there is no
evidence (and there isn’t) would necessitate admitting that Ruth Harley lied?
Do you refuse to ask for evidence of my crimes because Ruth Harley must be
protected from being exposed as a liar? Or is it to protect Fiona Cameron – the
person whose initial lie set this whole dispute in motion? This assertion, of
Fiona’s having played fast and loose with the truth in a way that was (and
remains) damaging to my reputation, would have been borne out back in mid 2012
if anyone (the Commonwealth Ombudsman included) had bothered to look at the
facts. And these facts are on file; on record.
Fiona’s original lie
could have been, and should have been, struck from the record in 2011. Ruth
Harley refused to do so. Indeed, when I complained to her about Fiona’s lie and
asked that it be investigated, Ruth handed the investigation into Fiona’s lying
to Fiona. All this is on record but, as with the Emperor’s New Clothes, the
Screen Australia board does not want to see what it is inconvenient to see. The
wagons circled around Ruth to protect her from being exposed as a liar and now
the wagons are circled around Fiona, to protect her from being similarly
exposed. You board members (and your
predecessors) have decided that the destruction of the career of one filmmaker
is preferable to holding Ruth Harley and
Fiona Cameron accountable for their actions. I am expendable. So be it.
I have only just
become aware that a feature film has been made based on Helen Garner’s book,
“Joe Cinque’s Consolation.” Over a decade I filmed with Anu Singh, Joe Cinque’s
killer, and have in excess of 40 hours of footage shot of Anu and her family.
Anu’s is a very interesting and compelling story and no-one other than myself
has footage of her from this past decade, as she has sought to rebuild her life
and explain to herself (and the world) how and why, in the midst of her mental
illness, she killed the man she loved.
The feature film
will, no doubt generate a great deal of interest in Anu when it is released.
I’m sure there will be many viewers interested in seeing a documentary about
her. However, such a documentary cannot be made by me, a ‘banned’ filmmaker, as
I am not allowed to speak with members of Screen Australia staff, as I would
need to be able to do if I were to apply for a Producer Offset.
Yet again, as was the
case with the pre-sale offered to me by National Geographic for my feature
documentary, “Chanti’s World” a few years ago, Screen Australia’s ban prevents
me from working as an Australian filmmaker.
I have four close-to-fully shot documentaries (all self-funded) that I
cannot complete as a result of your ban.
I must now try to
earn a living working outside Australia. Fortunately, with my series “Nest of
Vipers” I am able to do so – this thriller, once with a predominantly Australian
cast in the lead roles, is now being developed for a US market with no
Australians involved other than myself. A pyrrhic victory for Screen Australia!
When I
wrote to Richard in January I hoped that he might at least ask for evidence of
my crimes and, if it was not forthcoming (and it can’t be because there is
none) quietly advocate within Screen Australia for my right to be allowed to
continue to make films or be presented with evidence of my crimes. Richard has
chosen (or been instructed?) not to respond to my letters. I am disappointed,
of course, but can also understand that Richard does not wish to upset the
apple cart and jeopardize his own position within Screen Australia by
challenging Fiona – the real architect of the ban on me.
As if
happens (it was not my intention) Richard’s refusal to respond to my letter
adds considerable weight to the defamation case that I had hoped I would never
have to pursue.
I have
held off for four years now, hoping for a breakthrough of common sense and
decency from the SA board, but I will hold off no longer. My original Supreme Court case, in 2012, was
thrown out not because it had no merit but because I (who could afford no
lawyer) had not filled out my Statement of Claim correctly. Thanks to “Nest of
Vipers’ I will shortly be in a position to afford a lawyer.
Today is
my 67th birthday. I promised myself that if this matter was not
resolved, if the ban was not lifted by 1st April 2016, I would
retire as an Australian filmmaker. I have no desire to spend the last few years
of my 60s doing battle with vindictive bureaucrats and a cowardly Screen
Australia board.
Consequently,
I am no longer interested in an apology from Screen Australia, or in having the
ban on me lifted. The damage has been done and cannot be repaired. My career as
an Australian filmmaker is over. In suing Screen Australia in the Supreme Court
I’m not interested in financial compensation if I should win my case. And I
don’t really care if I don’t win it. I will shortly be in a position to pay
whatever it takes in the Supreme Court to prove once and for all that there is
not one letter, one email, one fax or any other form of communication between
myself and Screen Australia in which I have intimidated or placed anyone at
risk; that the architect of all this was and is Fiona Cameron. It will be worth
all the money I get for “Nest
of Vipers” if need be,
to have my name cleared amongst my peers.
The
Screen Australia board has failed, miserably, its duty to deal with all
filmmakers in a fair and equitable manner. Your priority has been to protect
Screen Australia staff, regardless of the facts. This mind-set, permeating all
levels of Screen Australia, is detrimental to the development of exciting
ground-breaking films. And it shows.
best
wishes
James
Ricketson
cc
Senator Mitch Fifield
Commonwealth Ombudsman
Australian Director’s Guild
No comments:
Post a Comment