Mr. M. Ebeid AM, Chair
Members of the Screen Australia Boad
Screen Australia
GPO Box 3984
Sydney 2001 20th August 2025
Dear Mr. Ebeid and Members of the Screen Australia Board
Following on from my letter of 14th. August.
This letter does not constitute ‘harassment’. It is a request for a simple answer to a simple question I asked 13 years ago and to which I could never get an answer:
‘What evidence does Screen Australia have on file in support of the allegation that I intimidated, harassed and placed at risk members of SA staff prior to 2012?’
Am I not entitled to know what evidence led to my being found guilty by the Screen Australia Board 13 years ago?
I trust that you can appreciate how much damage can be done to the career of a filmmaker working in a relatively small industry such as ours by being publicly accused of intimidation.
‘Intimidation’, a criminal offense under Section 13(1) of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007, can lead to the offender receiving a jail sentence.
Does the Screen Australia board, in August 2025, believe that there is there anything in my correspondence that indicates an intention on my part to (quoting the 2007 Act) ‘cause fear or apprehension of physical or mental harm?’
Did I ever shout at a member of staff? Did I ever swear or use abusive language? Did I ever threaten a member of staff? Give them reason to believe that I might cause them physical harm?
If the Board believes me to be guilty as charged, is such belief based on evidence you have been presented with? Or is it merely hearsay? If it is the latter, please request of CEO Dierdre Brennan she present each of you with evidence.
What about ‘mental harm’? Perhaps I am guilty of that? Notwithstanding Fiona Cameron’s telling me, in the foyer of Screen Australia, that she ‘felt intimidated’ by my correspondence, the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW) makes clear that not every unpleasant interaction amounts to intimidation; that ‘the context of the interaction is extremely important and so is the background between the parties.’
The context, in this instance, is the correspondence between myself and Screen Australia. In broad brushstrokes, this involves me, in the lead-up to my 2012 banning, trying to get straightforward answers to questions and Screen Australia refusing to answer them, and then characterising my continuing to ask them as ‘harassment’.
This same dynamic prevails in 2025. I ask questions and get no answers. I ask again and get no answers or, on occasion, answers to a few questions that are factually incorrect, whilst the important questions are ignored. I ask again and I am accused of harassment and am told that no further communication with me will be entered into. This is an all-too-familiar bureaucratic scenario – used to justify NOT answering questions, or to silence critics.
I have requested, on several occasions now, to meet with members of SA staff to discuss this matter face to face. My requests have been ignored.
The document(s) I have asked for, containing evidence in support of my alleged intimidation and harassment of staff, should be very easy to locate. It/they will be in the SA Board’s September 2012 minutes file. If it contains evidence that I did intimidate, harass and place at risk members of SA staff prior to 2012, then I will be proven a liar - in which case reputational legacy will be that I not only intimidated members of Screen Australia staff, but that I lied year after year about having not done so. This reputation will be well-deserved if I am guilty.
If Screen Australia in 2025 is committed to transparency and accountability, please provide me with the document(s) that led to the SA Board in September 2012 agreeing to my being banned. As I have made clear, all names can be redacted from the document, or documents. I am interested only in finding out what words, phrases, sentences contained in my correspondence led to my being banned.
Given that Screen Australia staff refuse to meet with me or to even speak with me on the phone, I request an opportunity to meet with and discuss this matter with members of the Board at their convenience.
cheers
James Ricketsona
No comments:
Post a Comment