Staging evidence for launching criminal charges

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 result in you accepting that the device that “was exploded” at the mail exchange was a device that [the accused] caused to be sent by the post..."
By drastically altering the interpretation of the offence mid-trial, the court essentially applied a brand new bespoke law retrospectively to the actions of the accused.

The audio overview specifically addresses how the trial judge and prosecutor adopted the more alarming term "nitrocellulose" — a common ingredient even in nail polish and celluloid film — to bridge the gap between a "prohibited substance" charge and the actual physical evidence of stabilised propellant. This distinction is a cornerstone of the judicial redefinition resulting in a miscarriage of justice.

Panelists
The audio podcast available here examines a criminal legal proceeding involving two differing accounts by Ron Smith employed by Australia Post at the Canberra Mail Centre, Fyshwick as a Supervisor. 

Ron Smith's two statements, made within hours of each other, are his evidence of witnessing an alleged explosion of an “exploding mail item.” 

The contrast between these accounts suggests a significant shift in the description of events, similar to a revised scene in a television crime drama but best understood as a matter requiring careful legal and factual scrutiny. 


Two other podcasts are available that reveal further troubling and entertaining details of this criminal proceeding: 
  1. The first highlights the "shaky start" at a direction hearing in May 1999 involving mops, stamps, and incorrect addressees, and
  2. The second describes the  significant miscarriage of justice during the ensuing trial and sentencing.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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 ...
Read more

Applicant's Affidavit of 14 May 2025 - Dunstan v Orr and Others - ACD57 of 2024

Form 59 Rule 29.02(1)                                                                                                                     Affidavit No.       ACD 57 of 2024 Federal Court of Australia District Registry: Australian Capital Territory Division : General COLIN GEORGE DUNSTAN Applicant ROBYN ORR and others Respondents   Affidavit of:...
Read more

Applicant's submissions on Federal Court proposal to block proceedings

Image
APPLICANT’S SUBMISSIONS  IN RESPONSE TO ORDER 4 MADE BY THAWLEY J ON 25 JULY 2025 No. ACD57 of 2024 Federal Court of Australia District Registry: Australian Capital Territory Division: General COLIN GEORGE DUNSTAN   Applicant ROBYN ORR and others named in the schedule Respondents SUBMISSIONS  These submissions are pursuant to Order 4 of Thawley J made on 25 July 2025:  By 15 August 2025, the applicant is to file any evidence and submissions on which he intends to rely on the question of whether the Court should make an order (s 37AO(2)(b) order) substantially in the following terms:  Pursuant to s 37AO(2)(b) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), Mr Colin George Dunstan be prohibited from instituting proceedings in this Court without making an application for leave to institute proceedings in accordance with s 37AR of the Federal Court Act. The Applicant reads his affidavit and supplementary affidavit, both affirmed 14 M...
Read more