# 4 Dr Ainsworth's own words speak eloquently of his capacity as a Guardian ad Litem

 

2nd. Dec 2020

 

Dear Minister and Mr  Coutts-Trotter

 

                                                            re Augustus Farrow-Pryke

 

Dr. Ainsworth remains, it seems, Sally's Guardian ad Litem, despite his steadfast refusal to abide by the GAL Code of Conduct!

 

For the record, I would like to respond to the email Dr. Ainsworth wrote to Sally in justification for having had not one conversation with her before recommending to magistrate (redacted) that restoration was not being requested.

 

Sally

 

Since being appointed your GAL, I have read all the materials that (redacted)  forwarded, all the materials you forwarded, all the DCJ Court documents and the e-mails from JR.

 

In all I have received or sent 91 e-mail in 21 days about your matter. The result is that I have a sound knowledge of your case.

 

Such a sound knowledge that Dr Ainsworth did not feel it necessary to communicate with Sally in any way - despite her frequent requests that he do so and in contravention of the Guardian ad Litem Code of conduct.

 

For the matter to go to a hearing (not  a trial) there has to be case that the lawyer (RM) can put with some chance of success.

 

Is it the role of a Guardian to determine whether or not  a case has some chance of success? Or is this the role of a lawyer? In this case, Robert McLachlan.

 

My conclusion after reviewing all the materials  was that the case for restoration was flimsy and the chance of success was zero, which on the day the Magistrate confirmed. Hence my consent to a finding of ‘no possibility of restoration’ to yourself. 

 

Without bothering to speak or meet with his client, indeed refusing to do either, Dr Ainsworth decided that Sally's case was 'flimsy'. In what respect? It could be argued, I suppose, that the case was 'flimsy' if the affidavits Sally wanted presented to magistrate Stubbs were not presented. And if no attempt was to be made to introduce into evidence more up-to-date clinical reports relating to Sally's suffering from depression and not a mental illness.

 

 From the start of this case you choose to be aggressive and attack everyone involve in your case. In doing so you antagonised all parties to the point where they saw you as an impossible person. Exactly the wrong impression you needed to make. Cooperation and persuasion were called for not aggression.

 

I would like to quote here something written by Dr Ainsworth on this subject: 

 

When child protection caseworkers make first contact with the parents of a child (or children) who is suspected of being at ‘significant risk of harm’ they may encounter a range of hostile, angry and aggressive verbal responses from parents. If this contact results in a child being removed from parental care, it is not unknown for these responses to escalate into attempts at verbal intimidation and loud threats of personal violence. These behaviours then get recorded in case files and in materials submitted to the Children's Court to support the case for permanent removal of a child from parental care; these behaviours being presented as evidence of the parents’ unsuitability and unwillingness to comply with demands for changes in their child rearing practices. But how should child protection caseworkers view these less-than-helpful parental responses, and how should they, in turn, respond? This article explores this issue and offers a number of ways of understanding these behaviours, and canvasses new ways for caseworkers to respond when these behaviours occur.

 

 

Despite his own words, Dr Ainsworth believes it to be right that John be effectively alienated from the mother he loves for the next 6 years,  on the grounds that Sally writes emails that are not to the liking of those within FACS who have decided that she is not fit to be a mother - based on what they know to be an outdated clinical report.

 

If my son had been removed from my life when he was 9 years old, I too would probably have behaved in a way that led FACS (and a Guardian ad Litem such as Dr Ainsworth) to brand me an 'impossible person'. I think that this would apply to most parents who dearly love their children and who, feeling cornered, fight back in whatever way they can and with whatever weapons they have at their disposal. 

 

Would this not apply to you both of you also, Gareth and Michael,  if your child was removed from your care? On the basis of a clinical report written during a time of mental and emotional turmoil?

 

Dr Ainsworth continues:

 

As a GAL appointed by the Court I have a responsibility to see that Court time is not wasted by pursuing cases that have a zero chance of success. Which is what I did.

 

So, when it comes to an issue as serious as the permanent removal of a child from his mother, Dr Ainsworth is more concerned about wasting the court's time than he is about the emotional well-being of the child? And of the child's mother?

 

Having decided to play prosecutor, judge and jury, Dr Ainsworth decides in advance that the case has 'zero chance of success.'  It should not be necessary, here, to explain how this approach to his job is in abrogation of his Guardian ad Litem obligations.

 

In addition, in my  view, you would have been further traumatized by a hearing where you would have to listen to a reiteration of all the faults DCJ say you manifest. In that respect my decision is protective of your interests.

 

Dr Ainsworth acknowledges here that Sally is 'traumatized'. Why? Because FACS has made it clear that it will do whatever it takes to prevent John from having any contact with his mother for the next six years other than 2 hour supervised visits, during which unqualified supervisors will be taking noters. 

 

Instead of seeking, with the assistance of Sally and FACS, to find a step-by-step  pathway to restoration, Dr Ainsworth decided, on Sally's behalf, without consultation with her, that he did not want her to be 'further traumatised'. I wonder if the Ad Litem Panel will accept this line of self-justification? Do you, Gareth and Michael, buy this?

 

Imagine if a lawyer, representing a rape victim, decided not to represent his client in court, as she has instructed him, on the grounds that the court experience might 'further traumatize' her? An argument might be made along these lines, but the hypothetical lawyer would be in abrogation of his professional responsibilities if he did not discuss this option with his client beforehand. This is the key problem here - Dr Ainsworth's refusal to discuss anything with Sally; to make unilateral decisions.

 

In a case of this kind if you were represented by your own layer or self-represented DCJ would be in a position to ask the Court to award costs against you. A rare event but nevertheless possible. Consenting to the finding of ‘no possibility’ safeguards against that eventuality.

 

I find it extraordinary that Dr Ainsworth can offer, in justification for his refusal to take instructions from his client, the excuse that he was trying to protect Sally from having costs awarded against her.

 

Finally, the email messages from JR to the Minister and the Secretary and others which have become increasingly defamatory and abuse did you case harm, not good.

 

Leaving aside the proposition that my letters have been 'defamatory' and 'abusive', (evidence please, Dr Ainsworth?), is Sally's Guardian seriously suggesting that John's permanent removal from his mother could be influenced, within FACS, by letters critical of FACS; letters in which legitimate questions are asked?

 

An appeal to senior people to get them to intervene in a case will not succeed if you call into question people’s integrity and competence which is what you both did.

 

All working within FACS are public servants, accountable to the public. As such their integrity and competence can and should be questioned when the evidence suggests that this  is appropriate. I believe, in this case, that many questions can and should be raised not just about Sally's case but about FACS in general. And that questions of integrity and competence should be asked, by both FACS and the Ad Litem Panel, about Dr. Ainsworth's integrity and competence.

 

It is time to move on possibly via a S90 application or appeal. I doubt however that either will be successful.

 

From now on you need to stop and rethink your position.

 

Frank

 

Another quote of Dr Ainsworth's:

 

Finally, can it be true that Australian parents are increasingly likely to abuse or neglect their children? We think not. It is much more likely that the increased notifications that mandatory reporting systems generate are an artefact of the way these systems are progressively incorporating into the child protection surveillance net well meaning but imperfect parents. This leads to the question as to whether or not some parent–child interactions are unwisely, unkindly and unnecessarily being labelled as ‘suspected abuse or neglect’ situations. The over 70% false-notifications figure supports this proposition. It is time, actually way past time, to step back and have a hard look at the way the current approach to child protection is working and how mandatory reporting systems are beginning to victimize some parents. Such victimization can hardly be the most beneficial or effective way of protecting children, can it?

 

Is Sally a perfect parent? No. Are you, Gareth and Michael? Perfect parents? I suspect not. 

 

What does Sally not being 'perfect'  have to do with her being a bad parent? What does this have to do with removing John from her life for the next six years? I have met, over the years, many 'impossible parents' who have brought up healthy and well-adjusted kids. Or is it that kids are resilient and can bring themselves up, despite 'impossible parents'? Impossible parents that love them? Many a flawed mum and dad has been a good parent. And even a deeply flawed mum and dad can give her or his child what is far more important that a decent home, as defined by FACS - namely, love.

 

yours sincerely

 

James Ricketson

# 3 Dr Ainsworth's refusal to communicate with his client to be investigated by Guardian ad Litem Panel

Legal, Department of Communities and Justice Level 4, Henry Deane Building 20 Lee Street, Sydney NSW 2000 GPO Box 6, Sydney NSW 2001 l DX 1227 Tel 02 8346 1388 l Fax 02 8346 1804 www.justice.nsw.gov.au

Our Ref: LEGAL1864/19 Contact: GAL Coordinator

23 November 2020

Complaint regarding Mr Frank Ainsworth’s conduct as Guardian ad Litem (Sally Smith) (Proceedings No: 2018/284883)

I refer to your complaint concerning Mr Frank Ainsworth, received by this office on 19 November 2020. I note that your complaint includes the following allegations against Mr Ainsworth:

• He has never met with  (Sally Smith)  and has ignored emails sent to him by  (Sally Smith).

• On 15 November 2020, Mr Ainsworth sent  (Sally Smith)  an affidavit dated 13 November 2020. Mr Ainsworth did not inform  (Sally Smith)  that she needed to read and respond to the affidavit before the mention of her case the following day.

• Mr Ainsworth informed  (Sally Smith)  by email, at 8:20am on 16 November 2020, the day her case was listed for mention, that the Department of Communities & Justice sought an adjournment of her case to 2 December 2020. Mr Ainsworth did not inform  (Sally Smith)  hat her presence in Court was required.

• On 17 November 2020,  (Sally Smith)  called Mr Ainsworth on the telephone. Mr Ainsworth said to her, “I’m not talking to you. Don’t call again” and hung up.

• On several occasions,  (Sally Smith)  made it clear to Mr Ainsworth, in writing, that she wished her son to be restored to her care. Mr Ainsworth ignored  (Sally Smith's)  wishes, and without informing her in advance, instructed that restoration of her son was not being requested.

  I confirm that our office is dealing with your complaint in accordance with the Guardian ad Litem Complaints Policy. Please see the link to the Policy for your reference:http://www.gal.justice.nsw.gov.au/Documents/gal_complaints_policy.pdf

  I note that in correspondence to the Minister and Secretary which forms part of your complaint you state ‘ (Sally Smith's)  ad Litem Guardian, imposed on her by FACS, will instruct him [the lawyer representing Ms Farrow-Pryke] without ever having met or spoken with her.’ I would emphasise that a Guardian ad Litem was provided by the Panel following an order by the Children’s Court. There are limits on what matters can be considered as part of a complaint about a Guardian ad Litem appointed on the basis of a Court order.

If you wish to provide any further information in relation to this matter, please forward

to guardian-ad-litem-panel-co-ordinator@justice.nsw.gov.au You will be notified of any updates to this matter in due course. Yours faithfully

For General Counsel

Department of Communities and Justice, Legal

# 2 Responsibilities of Guardian ad Litem ignored, along with alternative plans not considered by FACS

 Gareth Ward

Minister for Families, Communities 

and Disability Services  &

Michael Coutts-Trotter 

Secretary , Professional Conduct, Ethics and Performance Unit 

Families, Communities 

and Disability Services                                                                                                    24th Nov. 2020

 

Dear Minister and Mr  Coutts-Trotter

 

                                                            re John Smith

 

In his role as Guardian ad Litem, Dr Ainsworth damns himself with his own words. (See email exchange below) He has demonstrablynot represented Sally Smith in accordance with his legal obligations:

 

A GAL is responsible and authorised to make decisions in the best interests of the client only in relation to the legal proceedings in which he/she has been appointed. 

A GAL when making decisions shall: 

·       promote the autonomy of the client; 

·       safeguard and represent the interests of the client; 

·       take into account views, opinions, wishes and feelings as expressed by the client...

Mr Ainsworth made no attempt to enquire after Sally what she felt her best interests, " views, opinions, wishes and feelings" to be. He made no effort to discuss these with her or represent them in court.

 

Dr Ainsworth is not fit for purpose as a Guardian ad Litem. 

 

It will be interesting and instructive to learn whether the Guardian ad Litem Panel agrees with this assessment, or if the Panel finds Dr Ainsworth's failure to consult with his client acceptable. The same applies for yourselves, Gareth and Michael. 

 

If Mr Ainsworth had bothered to have even one 3 minutes conversation with Sally, as opposed to 8 words shouted at her over the phone (witnessed and heard by myself) he would have realised that she was more than capable of instructing a lawyer herself, and did not need a Guardian ad Litem. 

 

The same applies for Robert McLachlan. In a brief conversation with Sally over the phone, Mr McLachlan would have been led to wonder why on earth FACS had felt the need to force a Guardian on her. 

 

A little delving on their part, the asking of questions, reading Sally's emails to them, would have led both Mr Ainsworth and Mr MC Lachlan to learn that FACS was relying, in its assessment of Sally's mental state, on a 20 month old clinical report; that FACS was not just ignoring more recent clinical reports, but deliberately (and, it seems, with malice aforethought) refusing to allow them to be considered by the court.

 

These more recent reports are, by inference,  a damning indictment of the way in which FACS has handled this case, in that they make clear that Sally is suffering from severe depression as a result of her children being taken away from her.

 

In addition to having known Sally for close to 20 years, I have now had several weeks of very close contact with her, and two weeks of filming with her. Given my experience, I am now in a very good position to advise what I think to be in the best interests of John. I will address this question in subsequent letter. I should add here that the filming I have done with Sally is not for public consumption. If anyone senior within DCJ is interested in viewing this footage, uncut, they too will, I have no doubt, wonder why (redacted) FACS decided she could not instruct her own lawyer and why Magistrate (redacted) agreed with this assessment.

 

Wearing my investigative journalist's hat I have begun to post online what will, eventually, be a detailed account of how this one particular FACS case has unfolded: 

 

http://jamesricketson.blogspot.com/2020/11/dr-frank-ainsworth-many-will-agree-with.html

 

As I have indicated twice now, I will redact all the relevant names and any details that could lead to the identification of members of the family involved. If  my redactions, deletions and changing of names is not, in the opinion of the DCJ legal department, sufficient, please advise me.

 

yours sincerely

 

James Ricketson

                                     25th Nov. 2020

 

Dear Minister and Mr  Coutts-Trotter

 

                                                            re John Smith

 

I learned many years ago that when dealing with FACS that it is important to put everything in writing, because eventually a spin doctor will appear on the scene and attempt, with weasel words, to misrepresent the facts; to turn a pig's ear into a silk purse.

 

The spin doctor in this instance is Dr Frank Ainsworth.

 

Please take note of Sally's email to you both of 5th Nov 2020 (see below), copied to both Dr Ainsworth and to Sally's lawyer, Mr Robert Mc Lachlan. As Dr Ainsworth's client, Sally makes her wishes very clear in this email. 

 

Not only did Dr Ainsworth ignore her wishes, he never once discussed them with Sally. Upon reading the affidavit he received on 13th Nov, he sent it to Sally on 15th Nov, did not inform her of the decision he had arrived at in the previous 48 hours, (no possibility of restoration), did not inform Sally that she was expected to attend court on 16th Nov. Instead, in contravention of his duties as Guardian, (see GAL Code of Conduct) he made the unilateral decision that John was better off being denied any meaningful access to his mother for the next six years, despite John's clearly expressed wish to be with his mother. 

 

I will leave it to others, including yourselves, Gareth and Michael, to judge Dr Ainsworth's competence as a Guardian ad Litem.

 

In the interests of transparency, accountability and truth, let's go back to the beginning of my involvement in this matter, as far as FACS is concerned, with my email  to JK of 15th September.

 

Dear JK

 

....

 

Last Saturday, as Sally, Julie and I sat in the sun by the water at Palm Beach,  Julie expressed her wish to be with her brother, John, just five or so minutes away in Avalon, and was disappointed that she could not share the day, the sun, with her brother. This needs to change. 

 

I...am in a position to supervise visits between Sally and John, as a first step towards making it possible for this family to spend quality time together, without  stranger present taking notes.

 

....

I trust that any future case management plan makes it possible for Sally, John and Julie to spend quality time together with a supervisor they trust and who is, of course, competent to play that role. I am offering my services.

 

cheers

 

My objective was simple. I wished merely to assist in making it possible for John and his mother to spend time together in situations that more closely approximate normal family life than in a library with a FACS note-taker present.

 

The day beforehand, 14th Sept., Sally had sent JK the following:

 

J,

 

I hereby authorise James Ricketson to communicate about the matter of my son John Smith with Department of FACS.

 

Sincerely,

Sally Smith

 

And I had sent JK the following on 14th Sept:

 

Further to my three emails of last week.

 

Is this email from Sally (see below) sufficient for me to be able to advocate on her behalf? Or are there some other formalities that must be attended to?

 

I spent a good deal of the weekend with Sally and her daughter, Julie. Sally was a different woman to the one I had spoken with on the day she attended court - full of laughter and love. She and Julie were very relaxed together. Julie (as I call her) expressed a wish to be with her brother, John, who was only a five minute drive from where we were...This was not possible. A great pity for Julie. And for John.

 

I am a semi-retired filmmaker, have 34 years of experience working with complicated family matters and am in a position to supervise visits between John and Sally in the three bedroom home in Newport where she currently resides.

 

I will forward to you, in a separate email, my Working With Children credentials.

 

Sally will be meeting with John this afternoon in (redacted). I would like to join them but would prefer not to do so if I am unclear about what my rights as a friend or advocate to Sally are.

 

best wishes

 

My half a dozen or so requests of FACS over the following weeks, asking how I could officially advocate on Sally's behalf, were ignored by FACS. The argument that Sally's Guardian ad Litem could and would advocate on her behalf has been revealed, in Dr Ainsworth's treatment of Sally, to be nonsense. His role has been to place a tick in a box; to create the illusion, on paper, that Sally's interests have been considered; that due process has occurred. A host of obvious questions arise.

 

This is not, of course, about Sally. It is about John. His interests are paramount here. 

 

Some indisputable facts:

 

John loves his mum.

John wants to be with his mum.

John cannot be restored to the fulltime care of his mum just now, for a variety of reasons. 

 

If JK had not rejected my offer to supervise visits here is what could have happened, the objective being to maximise the amount of genuine family time John got to spend with his mother.

 

- I could have picked John up from his aunt's place and delivered him back there without Sally and (redacted) needing to meet each other.

 

- John and his mother, with me supervising, could have gone to the zoo, to the beach, for a walk to the lighthouse, played chess and engaged in the kinds of normal activities mums and their sons engage in. 

 

- If the first few of these visits had been without incident of the kind FACS fears, John could, after a few weeks, have stayed overnight with his mother in my house.

 

- All the indications are that spending more time with his mother would have made John happy, and I think that all reading this will agree that John's happiness, his relationship with his mother, must be at the top of FACS' list of priorities.

 

- By now, late November, if FACS had allowed this sequence of events to occur, discussion could have been underway to determine in whose care John was to be placed.

 

One possibility would have been as follows:

 

- John and Sally stay in my house over Christmas, with FACS monitoring this in any way it chose.

 

- FACS talking with S about her offer to have John and Sally live in her new house, in the neighbourhood, when she has bought it. 

 

- John enrolling in (local school)...

 

- At any point in this scenario, that it seemed not to be working in John's best interests, it could be terminated by FACS, and Plan B implemented; Plan B being John going to live with his sister in (Father # 2's home)...

 

- FACS has never had a Plan A or a Plan B. The only plan that has been considered is John going to live with his sister and Father # 2.

 

- One of the advantages of the scenario that was possible in September, and a version of which is possible today, is that John would be able to stay within the community of which he is a part, close to his...mother. Then, when he turns (redacted), just a few months away, he would be in a position to have his own young adult's voice heard when it comes to the question of whether he wishes to live with his mother, at S's, attending (local school), or with his sister and Father # 2.

 

yours sincerely

 

James Ricketson

 

# 1 Dr Frank Ainsworth: "Many will agree with Samut, as I do, that the Australian Child Protection system is madness."

 

19th November 2020

Guardian ad Litem Panel 

Department of Communities and Justice

by email

 

Dear Guardian at Litem Panel

 

Complaint about Dr Frank Ainsworth, GAL

 

I am writing on behalf of Sally Smith*, whose Guardian at Litem is Frank Ainsworth.

 

Mr Ainworth has never met with Ms Smith. He has never spoken with her on the phone. He has ignored emails sent to him by Ms Smith. 

 

When Ms Smith called Mr Ainsworth on the telephone on Tuesday 17th, after her court case of the day beforehand, Mr Ainsworth said to her, "I'm not talking to you. Don't call again," and hung up. I witnessed and overheard the conversation. 

 

At the risk belabouring the point, these 8 words are the only ones Mr Ainsworth has ever spoken to Ms Smith. The significant of this will become apparent.

 

On Sunday 15th November Mr Ainsworth sent Ms Smith a 239 page affidavit, forwarded to him by Ms Smith's court appointed lawyer, Mr Robert McLachlan.  The affidavit is dated 13th November, 2020.

 

Mr McLachlan had informed Sally Smith in earlier correspondence that he would not talk to her; that he would only communicate with her through Mr Ainsworth, who refused, point blank, to communicate with Ms Smith.

 

Mr Ainsworth did not inform Ms Smith on 15th  November that she needed to read and respond to the 13th November affidavit before mention of her case the following day. He did, however,  inform her by email, at 8.20 am on 16th November - the day her case was listed for mention - that DCJ has sought an adjournment of her case until 2nd December.

 

On Monday 16th November, Ms Smith's case was listed for mention in (Redacted) district court, before Magistrate (Redacted). Mr Ainsworth did not inform Ms Smith at any time that her presence in court was required.

 

Nor did he speak with Ms Smith before instructing her court-appointed lawyer, Mr. Robert Mc Lachlan.

 

In writing, on several occasions, Ms Smith made clear to Mr Ainsworth that she wished her son to be restored to her care. All this correspondence is on record with DCJ.

 

Mr Ainsworth ignored Ms Smith's wishes and, without informing her in advance, instructed Mr Ainsworth that restoration of her son, John Smith*, to her care, was not being requested. This was in total contravention of Ms Smith's wishes.

 

I have pasted below letters I have sent to the DCJ  Minister, Gareth Ward and Secretary Michael Coutts-Trotter about this matter this week as they provide supporting evidence of Mr Ainsworth's failure to represent his client.

 

Under the circumstances, I believe Mr Ainsworth should be removed immediately as Ms Smith's Guardian ad Litem. 

 

yours sincerely

 

 

(Redacted)

Magistrate

(Redacted) Local Court

 

20th November 2020

 

Dear (Redacted)

 

                                                re John Smith*

 

I am not a lawyer. I have no legal training. I am writing as a layman friend of Ms Smith's.

 

When it became apparent, in mid September 2020, that Ms Smith... was unable to advocate effectively on her own behalf, I offered to do so. My many approaches to FACS (all on record) to be allowed to advocate were knocked back. "Ms Smith has a Guardian to advocate on her behalf." I was told.

 

I should add here that the reason why Ms Smith was unable to advocate for herself was that she was greatly distressed by her separation from her son, John. Adding to her distress was the way in which she was being treated by the (Redacted) branch of FACS.

 

My offer to supervise visits between Ms Smith and her son, John, was knocked back by FACS, with no reason given....Similar offers have been made by two other longstanding friends of Ms Smith's. I wonder if you are aware of this?

 

On Monday this week, 16th November, you arrived at a legal decision regarding John and Ms Smith without her being present in court to argue her case, and present you with new affidavits. Your decision, a very profound one, given that you were ordering that John be permanently separated from his mother, was made without any reference to Ms Smith's wishes.

 

As you will be aware by now, Ms Smith was only provided with the 239 page FACS affidavit, upon which you based your 16th November decision, on 15th November 2020. Mr Ainsworth's email message of 15th November reads:

 

"Here is the lengthy DCJ affidavit. As you will see DCJ is seeking an adjournment until 2 December."

 

At the time of your decision, on the afternoon of 16th November, Ms Smith had not had one conversation with her Guardian ad Litem. Mr Ainsworth refused to speak with her, insisting that he and she could only communicate via email.

 

(Redacted) court has informed Ms Smith that she will have to wait for up to a month to acquire a copy of the transcript of what transpired in court on Monday. One thing is certain, however - namely that her Guardian, Mr Ainsworth mislead yourself in declaring that he was of the opinion that Ms Smith should be denied meaningful access to her son until he is eighteen years old; that she was not seeking restoration. This is in contravention of what Mr Ainsworth knew to be her wishes. It is in contravention of what Ms Smith's lawyer, Mr Mc Lachlan knew to be her wishes. In short, Mr Ainsworth did not advocate for her at all.

 

Why, (Redacted), did you make such a momentous decision regarding the life of (Redacted)  year old boy, without Ms Smith being in court and having her voice heard? Did it not occur to you that providing Ms Smith with less than 24 hours to read, respond to and instruct her Guardian vis a vis the 13th Nov affidavit was a denial of natural justice? 

 

And why, given that DCJ had declared its wish to adjourn the case until 2nd December, did you allow it to proceed on 16th November, without Ms Smith's presence?

 

Given that I have been denied the opportunity to advocate on Ms Smith's behalf, I now ask these questions in my role as an investigative journalist.

 

Either with your knowledge or without it, you have been deceived by Mr Ainsworth and Mr Mc Lachlan. 

 

As matters stand at the end of the week, on 20th November:

 

- FACS will answer not questions put to staff by Ms Smith. She is told that she must refer her questions to her Guardian and/or her legal representative.

 

- Mr Ainsworth and Mr Mc Lachlan refuse to communicate with Ms Smith at all.

 

- Questions put to Woy Woy court staff are met with: "This is something you need to take up with FACS, your Guardian or legal representative."

 

To describe this as Kafkaesque is an understatement.

 

- The Minister, Gareth Ward, and Secretary Michal Coutts-Trotter do not respond in any way to communications with them. Nor do any of those copied on this email.

 

- It would appear that all those in whose hands John's future lies, especially yours, (Redacted), have decided to abandon even the pretence of transparency, accountability and natural justice and conduct a kangaroo court, from the proceedings of which, Ms Smith was deliberately excluded.

 

I have pasted below the letter I sent to the Guardian ad Litem panel yesterday.

 

yours sincerely

 

James Ricketson

 

I am an Australian  filmmaker with 49 years of experience. This is my submission.

Why is it important that we have an Australian film industry?  Does it really matter if the federal government cuts back funding and allows Australian film to die a natural death, as it does many other inefficient industries? (The Chinese could, after all, make Australian films for a fraction of the cost!) Or  is an Australian film industry in some way important to our culture?The word ‘industry’ is problematic - conjuring up, as it does, a product  from which a profit is expected to accrue. Very few Australian films make a return on the investment made in them (the Australian tax-payer being the major investor) and to pretend that they ever will is to delude ourselves. Imagine if we referred to ‘the Australian ballet industry’, the Australian Opera industry’, the ‘Sydney symphony orchestra industry’, ‘the poetry industry’ and so on. As industries yielding profits to stockholders they are all abject failures, so why do we bother to subsidize them? 

 

Drop ‘industry’ and think only in terms of ‘Australian film’ (and all the other arts) and the questions become both more interesting and more pertinent to the times we live in. 

 

Harking back to the days when political parties on both sides of the political divide felt that Australian film was important provides us with a context within such questions can (and I believe should) be asked today.

 

As far back as 1963 the Senate Select Committee Report on the Encouragement of Australian Productions for television felt that there was: 

 

“a responsibility to protect an industry with a strong cultural element.” 

 

In the late 60’s and early 70’s the various bodies involved in providing the industry with a philosophical base stressed that: 

 

“The industry (should be) pre-eminently Australian in character, not dominated by other cultures; that government sponsorship would support ‘film and television projects of quality’ and produce ‘distinctively Australian’ films that would ‘provide the Australian people with a national voice and a record of their way of life.”

 

The Report of the Interim Board of the Australian Film Commission declared that,

 

“Australia, as a nation, cannot accept, in this powerful and persuasive medium, the current flood of other nations’ productions on our screens without it constituting a very serious threat to our national identity. The Commission should actively encourage the making of those films of high artistic or conceptual value which may or may not be regarded at the time as conforming to the current criteria of genre, style or taste, but which have cultural, artistic or social relevance. Some may not become commercially successful ventures, but these may include films which posterity will regard as some of the most significant films made by and for Australians. Profit and entertainment on the one hand and artistic standards and integrity on the other, are not mutually exclusive. In the long term the establishment of a quality Australian output is more important for a profitable, soundly based industry that the production exclusively as what might be regarded as sure fire box office formula hits.

 

These words ring as true today as they did 40+ years ago, not just for film but for all of the arts. They are an integral part of who we are as Australians and our culture will be the poorer in the future, much poorer, if the arts are viewed as a product to be consumed, as opposed to being a way of connecting us as a community, a society, holding a mirror up to ourselves, making our souls and spirits sing.

 

Another point about the arts and creativity in general that is worth bearing in mind. The only reason why there are bridges, cars, roads, vaccines, modern technologies, space probes (the list is endless) is because someone, at some point in history, imagined into existence, something that no one had imagined before. Or took the fruits of someone else's imagination and built on it.  It is not by chance that we refer to ourselves as Homo Sapiens, Latin for 'Wise Man'. We wise men and women, since the dawn of civilisation, have imagined into existence all we see around us. We could quite justifiably, and accurately, have christened our species, Homo Imaginari. 

 

Leaving aside the importance of the arts from a cultural point of view, successive Australian governments must value and nurture the development of the imaginations of young Australians so that they can, when adults, the reins of the future in their hands, imagine creative solutions to the multiple challenges they and subsequent generations will face. The arts provide young people with a template they can apply to all aspects of their lives, both personal and profession, even if they never pick up a paintbrush, a musical instrument or a camera. 

 

Canberra will be betraying the future if it continues to view the arts as either primarily a commodity or some kind of self-indulgence.

 

For what it is worth, most of us working in the arts earn very little money for the work we do to enrichen our culture.

 

James Ricketson

22nd Oct 2020

JULIAN ASSANGE, letter to Members of the Australian Parliament

 Dear Members of the Australian Parliament

 

I write as an Australian citizen, sentenced to six years in prison in Cambodia for espionage. The Australian government intervened in my case when it became clear, on the basis of evidence presented in court, that I was not a spy, but a filmmaker and journalist.

 

A fellow Australian citizen, Julian Assange, appears daily in court in London this September, accused of espionage. His lawyers argue that he is a journalist and publisher.

 

I read a detailed account of the court proceedings each day and, where possible, transcripts. I want my judgement of Assange's guilt or innocence to be based on facts, not on disinformation or opinion.  Given the implications of Assange's extradition for him personally and for freedom of the press generally, I trust that your own support for Assange, or your lack of support, is based on facts as presented to the court. 

  

You will have heard of, if you have not actually seen, the Collateral Murder video released by Wikileaks in 2010. Of the facts surrounding this incident there can be little doubt now.  The Collateral Murder video is one of the key reasons Assange is facing a 170 year term of imprisonment in the US if he is extradited from the UK after these proceedings.   

 

Below, in bullet form, are the key Collateral Murder facts presented to the court in a statement  made by Dean Yates. You might like to familiarize yourselves with this incident, look at the video and judge for yourselves whether an investigation into a possible war crime is warranted? Ask yourselves also if an Australian citizen, deserves to die in a US prison for bringing to light this possible war crime, when it is an integral part of a journalist's job, his or her professional responsibility, to do just that.

 

The video can be seen here, with commentary from both Julian Assange and a representative of the US Military: 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zok8yMxXEwk

 

 

- 12th July 2007. Dean Yates is at his desk in the Reuters office in Baghdad's red zone when he learns that two Reuters employees, Namir and Saeed, have been killed.

 

- The US military issues a statement: "Firefight in New Badhdad. US, Iraqi forces kill 9 insurgents, detain 13." A US lieutenant colonel is quoted as saying, "Nine insurgents were killed in the ensuing firefight. There is no question that Coalition Forces were clearly engaged in combat operations against a hostile force." 

 

- None of 14 witnesses in al-Amin, where the deaths occurred, is aware of a firefight that might have resulted in the helicopter strike. 

 

- Yates is briefed by US military.

 

- Pilots in Crazy Horse 1-8, an Apache helicopter, claim they saw a group of 'military-aged males' who appeared to have weapons and were acting suspiciously and requested permission to fire.

 

- Some debate occurs as to why Crazy Horse had opened fire,  if there was no firefight? One of the generals present says the dead were of military age and, because apparently armed, were therefore "expressing hostile intent". 

 

- Yates is shown just 3 minutes of the footage, up to the point where the Apache opns fire. It does not include the shooting of Namir and Saeed. As the Apache circles around Namir, he can be seen holding his long lens camera, taking photos of Humvees. An agitated member of the helicopter crew says "He's got an RPG"

 

- The US military refuses to show any more of the video or to provide a full copy of it.

 

- Freedom of information requests to access the full video are denied.

 

- On 5th April, 2010, Wikileaks releases the Collateral Murder video at the National Press Club in Washington.

 

- More details of Namir and Saeed's deaths are revealed in the unedited tape. In it the Apache gunner is seen tracking Namir as he stumbles and tries, unsuccessfully, to hide behind garbage. Another round of fire and Namir's body explodes. Saeed is seen trying to get up for roughly three minutes when Matasher Tomal, aged 43, driving his son and daughter to school in his minivan, pulls up to help him.

 

- The Apache pilots want to open fire again. "Come on buddy," says one, "All you  gotta do is pick up a weapon", apparently a reference to the US Rules of Engagement  permitting

the execution of a wounded man if he appears to be picking up a weapon. As the video makes clear, Saeed is not doing so.

 

- As the unarmed men pick up Saeed and put him in the van, permission to attack is given. The Apache fires 120 rounds into the van. Saeed and Tomal are killed. Tomal's son, Sayad, aged 10 and daughter Doaha, aged 5, are wounded. "Oh, yeah, look at that, right through the windshield," says one pilot. Tomal had been taking his kids to school.  They survive their wounds.

 

- Banter between the pilots heard throughout  is of a kind that kids might use when playing a video game. "Oh, yeah, look at those dead bastards", a pilot is heard saying. "Nice", a comrade replies. "Good shoot'n". "Thank you."

 

- The cause of Namir and Saeed's deaths would have remained a secret had it not been for Chelsea Manning and Julian Assange.

 

In the not too distant future, Assange may well be languishing in a US jail if the Trump administration request for extradition is successful. He will die in jail. 

If, on the basis of the evidence, of the facts, you believe that Assange is not a spy, will you speak out, as some of your fellow parliamentarians have?  

Please remember what is at stake in the Assange case – a commitment to ensuring freedom of speech remains a core value of our democracy.  Irrespective of your views about Assange the man, I urge you to lobby Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Foreign Minister Marise Payne to ensure they intervene and protect an Australian citizen from an effective death penalty for revealing the war crimes of Collateral Murder.

 

yours sincerely

 

James Ricketson