The
Hon Simon Crean
Department
of the Environment,
Water,
Heritage and the Arts
GPO
Box 787
Canberra
ACT 2601 11th Sept 2012
Dear
Minister
Following
on from my letter of 31st August.
I
find it hard to believe that my dispute with Screen Australia, three
years in the making, is going to wind up in the Supreme Court of NSW!
And all because there is no-one – not yourself, not the Screen
Australia Board – who believes that it is necessary for Ruth Harley
to provide any evidence at all of the crimes for which I have been
accused and found guilty – namely that I have intimidated and
placed at risk members of Screen Australia’s staff.
Fundamental
to the legal system we operate under in Australia (‘Due Process of
Law’), one that has been in place since before the founding of
Australia, is the proposition that the accused is presumed innocent
until proven to be guilty. In order that the guilt or innocence of
the accused be established fairly, evidence is presented in court in
support of the charges that have been laid. It is not up to the
accused to prove his innocence. It is up to the Prosecution to prove
his guilt. Not since the days of 17th C Star Cambers (in our own culture at least) has it been possible to
convict a person of a crime without presenting evidence in support of
their having committed it. That it is possible in 2012 in Australia
is a sad comment on Ruth Harley, on the Screen Australia Board and
legal department and on your own ministry.
Am
I being overly dramatic in referring to my alleged offenses as a
‘crime’? Perhaps, but ‘intimidation’, the threat of violence,
is a serious allegation. ‘Intimidation’ is a charge made against
those who have AVO orders taken out against them. Intimidating
behaviour is what we expect of Mafia-type, of Triad gangs and other
criminals who seek to impose their will on others in contravention of
both the laws of the land and the rules that govern civilized
behaviour. In the collaborative process that is filmmaking I would
not want to work with anyone who was guilty of intimidating behaviour
and nor would I expect any of my fellow filmmakers to wish to work
with me if I am the kind of person who intimidates and places at risk
staff at Screen Australia. Or anyone else. (I am not sure, in a legal
sense, precisely what ‘risk’ means but it certainly does not
reflect well on my character that I should be placing public servants
at risk.) Intimidation is, in any context, a serious charge and one
that the accused has a right to defend himself against. This right
has been denied to me.
Consider
now, the punishment. Being banned by Screen Australia makes it
virtually impossible for me to continue to work as a filmmaker in
Australia. It is a very unusual film (as you would know too well)
that does not require of a film producer that he or she consult with
Screen Australia in relation to the ‘Producer’s Offset’.
Consultation is a right that has been denied me on what I have
repeatedly claimed to be trumped up charges. Ruth Harley has had
ample opportunity to demonstrate that her charges are based in fact.
All the has to do, even at this late date (today) is to produce the
relevant correspondence or even just extracts from it to prove that
far from being trumped up charges it is me who has been playing fast
and loose with the truth in claiming that they are. Ruth could prove
me guilty as charged by just quoting a couple of paragraphs from my
correspondence. She will not do so because she cannot do so. And you,
as Minister, know that she cannot do so because someone in your
office must surely, by now, have asked Ruth to produce the
correspondence. But you, Minister, are prepared to turn a blind eye
to the virtual termination of a filmmaker’s career knowing full
well that he is not guilty as charged. Extraordinary!
All
the indications are that Screen Australia will now use the Supreme
Court of NSW to defend Ruth Harley’s right to keep secret the
evidence in support of the charges she has laid and which have led to
my being banned. I am not sure precisely how Screen Australia intends
to do this but if it involves seeking from the Supreme Court that the
allegedly intimidating correspondence be suppressed, and if the
Supreme Court accedes to this request, I will not abide by the
Supreme Court ruling but will publish the correspondence online if I
have it in my possession. That I should even have to consider such a
course of action is absurd but when you, as Minister, effectively
allow the Chief Executive to destroy a filmmakers career without
presenting any evidence in support of the charges she has laid, don’t
be surprised if a filmmaker who does not wish to have his career
terminated, should resort to whatever tactic he or she feels is
necessary to see that justice is done. If I have intimidated anyone,
ban me by all means. If I have not intimidated anyone, if I have not
placed Screen Australia staff at risk, sack Ruth Harley for having
abused her power in the way I claim she has and for having abrogated
the fundamental principle (dating back to 3rd C Rome) that an accused
person is innocent until proven guilty.
Please
believe me when I say that I am quite prepared to go to jail to
defend my right to be provided with evidence of the crimes Ruth
Harley has accused and found me guilty of and for my fellow
filmmakers to be able to judge for themselves if I am a villain as
charged.
best
wishes
James
Ricketson
No comments:
Post a Comment