Posts

Staging evidence for launching criminal charges

Image
The accused was sentenced for committing offences quite distinct from those set out in the indictment. After the trial, in sentencing, at paragraphs 6 and 10 of the judgment, his Honour consistently replaced the term " substance " with " device ", asserting that the Crown alleged the dispatch of an " explosive device " when the Crown's charge against the accused did not allege this at all. During the trial, the Prosecutor slipped several times in describing the item not as a packet that “ exploded ”, but as a packet that “ was exploded ” - accidently making a truthful statement that identified how police fragment suspicious items. In his summing up of the Crown's case the Prosecutor made the same revealing and truthful statment, telling the jury: "What then is the evidence about the Canberra Mail Exchange? There are a number of pieces of evidence that I want you to consider and which I say to you will ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Fundamental failures of legal principles

Image
The audio file available here is a deep dive exploring the transition of the legal proceedings from the evidentiary anomalies in a directions hearing discussed earlier into a significant miscarriage of justice during the ensuing trial and sentencing. It specifically examines the mid-trial redefinition of the charges, the retrospective application of the law, and how these judicial shifts effectively neutralized the defence's arguments. The narrative shifts from the evidentiary discrepancies of the initial May 1999 direction hearing to  fundamental failures of legal principles during the subsequent trial and sentencing. Your browser does not support the audio element. Several key developments underpinning this "miscarriage of justice": Mid-Trial Redefinition of the Offense: The court changed the legal interpretation of the offense during the trial. Specifically, while Dunstan was charged with posting an "exp...
Post a Comment
Read more

True Crime Mystery at the Australian Tax Office

Image
In part 1 of this three-part crime mystery, deception by the Australia Tax Office's legal representatives is revealed in documents prepared by the Australian Government Solicitor while representing the ATO in court proceedings.  In part 2, the mystery deepens as exceptional events unfold rapidly after efforts to silence a whistleblower are derailed by legal advice.  Finally, in part 3 of this three-part series, motives are exposed and explanations for the puzzling mysteries at the end of part 2 are discussed. Is it a case of a culture of maladministration or are reasons for "men behaving badly" more villainous? More villainous actions are carried out by other government agencies. This is not a "culture problem" confined to the Australian Taxation Office. The web of a singular criminal purpose spreads wherever the opportunity exists.  The Australian Customs Service Parallel The ACS has used its "power to destroy" in ways that mirror the ATO's conduc...
Post a Comment
Read more

A High Court of Australia application for leave

 Documents filed with an Application for Leave to appeal  An application for leave to appeal from judgement of a High Court justice  - refusing to grant leave to file an application for constitutional writs  - to challenge an interlocutory judgment of a Federal Court justice where rights to apply for special leave to appeal have been eliminated in the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976.  The application for leave to appeal, dated 4 June 2026 - with an introduction => " A long and winding road to overturn a July 2025 Federal Court judgment ", from a judgment of Edelman J dated 13 May 2026, that rejected the following application dated 24 April 2026...  The documents filed with the above application for leave to appeal:  Order of Edelman J made 15 May 2026 , rejecting the application for leave to file an application following a judgment by Gordon J on 24 April 2026 requiring leave to file an application lodged on 22 April 2026.  Re...
Post a Comment
Read more

A long and winding road to overturn a July 2025 Federal Court judgment

Image
The Federal Court judgment of Justice Thawley of July 2025 Does the Commissioner of Taxation have a hold over one or more judges of the Federal Court? The Australian Taxation Office has a well-worn tactic to avoid complying with its Model Litigant Obligation.  Under the Legal Services Directions, Commonwealth entities and their lawyers must act as model litigants, which requires maintaining the highest ethical standards. This includes not requiring another party to prove a matter that the Commonwealth knows to be true.  It is said that "The Commonwealth's obligation to act as a model litigant is codified under Part 5, Division 2 of the Legal Services Directions. This duty ensures  [sic, fails to ensure] that the government and its agencies behave with complete propriety, fairness, and honesty in all litigation and civil claims."  In reality it ensues no such thing.  When confronted by a claim supported by evidence that the Commissioner of Taxation has failed to ...
Post a Comment
Read more