HAIG    REPORT:    GoTo [on this page] HaigReport's Menu Of Themes of Menus for our thousands of pages
TIPS for
Navigating HaigReport:  If you arrived at this page, referred from a Search Engine such as Google et al, your URL link will NOT have an #Anchor/Marker to take you to the relevant spot on this page.  In that case, we do recommend that you view our "Latest HaigReport Promotions" of recent additions to our websites, by Clicking Here.  It will open in a new Browser window. 

If
you Click Here, you will be taken, usually, to the specific Unique Content on this page, for which you were most likely seeking.  However, if you Click Here, you will be taken to the Top of the HaigReport Header, below on this page. 

However, if you have arrived at this page from another of our Website pages, your link will usually have an #Anchor, also called a marker, which will take you to the intended specific spot on the page where that marker is positioned.  In fact, it will probably take you there prior to your reading this.  Moving to that Anchor is the final step in the loading of this page.

 HAIG     REPORT:   Is now on  twitter  [from 2nd June, 2013]  link to us HERE on twitter     See our Twitter Strategy     Follow @HaigReport

 HAIG    REPORT:  SEE: Russell Mathews' COMMENTARY:    Russell Mathews' [BCom BSc LLB & BA] current TOPICAL commentary on GOVERNMENT, politics & business     Press to READ       Press for MENU   

 HAIG    REPORT:    WANTED:
Healthy female "dog" to breed with Parson Russell Terrier, to produce ASSISTANCE DOGS.   Rochedale South QLD 4123
I wish to breed from my Parson Russell Terrier. He is a trained assistance dog. He has a wonderful nature. The breed of his mate could be varied or a cross; eg Parson Russell Terrier, Jack Russell Terrier, Beagle, Bull Terrier, Bull mastiff, Staffy, and/or Fox Terrier plus many others. She does not need to be "pedigreed". I am very protective of my dogs. She will become very valuable to me and become one of my assistance "dogs". If we can assist each other, please contact me on my contact form, including your email address and your landline phone number so I can phone you to discuss. 

Because I am disabled and have an LLB [so therefore understand the Law surrounding disabilities and assistance dogs] I am now branching out to providing Assistance dogs to disabled persons [even if disabled in only a minor way and so not even realizing it]. This is not a business proposition but rather just a very necessary service I can offer to the community.
Many people have a disability and do not realize their ailment or "problem" is by law, the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) [DDA], classified as a "disability". This is especially so for people getting on in years, and who have a dog, and are maybe moving to accommodation where they are told they cannot take their dog. In a majority of cases, those people cannot be legally forced to surrender their animal/dog.
I will be assisting those person who already have dogs, but are being forced, unlawfully, to dispose of them because maybe they are moving accommodation. I can train your existing dogs to be assistance dogs and provide the documentation as required by the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) [DDA]. I do not intend to charge for this, but just maybe cover some marginal costs.

    View the Latest    HAIG     REPORT Promotions:  in this Scrolling Window, or OPEN in new browser:     

 Click here  to Learn about your Personalized Alert Notice [IMMEDIATELY BELOW] prepared by our HAIG Unique Visitor Algorithm: [HUVA] or  Click here  to see your UNIQUE Personalized Alert Notice in a new Browser Window.


  Outline of Argument & Submission asAt 31st October, 2011 Appeal Qld Police Fraud & Disability Discrimination by Magistrate Paul Kluck, District Court Judge Kerry John O'Brien, & CDPP Shane Hunter:


My logo, my TRADEMARK, is the MRI of my skull, showing gross assymetry,aka DEFORMITY = ugliness and target of bullies. The HAIG REPORT: the EVIDENCE My logo, my TRADEMARK, is the MRI of my skull, showing gross assymetry,aka DEFORMITY = ugliness and target of bullies.

   It is Our legal, social and moral DUTY to EXPOSE CRIME, FRAUD & CORRUPTION plus Lying and Hypocrisy in Public Life, Including Judges & magistrates 
 

Fraud, Corruption & attempted  MURDER 
covered-up by Queensland police, EXPOSED 

header: Queensland Court of Appeal on Trial

CourtOfAppealOnTrialJusticeMargaretAMcMurdoACPresidentQueenslandCourtofAppeal  Queensland Court of Appeal on Trial CourtOfAppealOnTrialJusticeMargaretAMcMurdoACPresidentQueenslandCourtofAppeal

commonheader.php

Reg. Office: 254 Hawken Drive, St Lucia, Qld. 4067, Australia.  
Editor-in-Chief:  Russell G H Mathews BCom BSc LLB BA      EMAIL your advice:  Please Please make a donation using BPay.  using  Please make a donation using BPay. 

considerevidence.php

Consider the evidence! Please Please make a donation using BPay.  using  Please make a donation using BPay.  

/CodingPHP/includedSeeContentPageFileNameURL.php

  Click here to GoTo Detail:=>  Outline of Argument & Submission asAt 31st October, 2011 Appeal Qld Police Fraud & Disability Discrimination by Magistrate Paul Kluck, District Court Judge Kerry John O'Brien, & CDPP Shane Hunter

../Corrupt Police& Magistrates Menu.php An example of a CASCADING Drop Down Menu.

MENU: Rantala-Gate: Corrupt Police & Magistrates Mafia.

CDDM_StartMenu160.phpCDDM_StartMenu160.phpCDDM_StartMenu160.phpCDDM_StartMenu160.phpCDDM_StartMenu160.php

See: the Menu: for  Latest Update: Queensland's Court of Appeal: ON TRIAL!!

Follow @HaigReport
??   ??   ???? Tweet  
Share on Facebook Share on Facebook  
http://HaigReport.com/includedSeeTodaysHotTopics.php

See: Today's HAIG HOT_TOPICS  => Click HERE <= 

/CodingPHP/includedSeeContentPageFileNameURL.php

  Click here to GoTo Detail:=>  Outline of Argument & Submission asAt 31st October, 2011 Appeal Qld Police Fraud & Disability Discrimination by Magistrate Paul Kluck, District Court Judge Kerry John O'Brien, & CDPP Shane Hunter

See: the Menu: for  Latest Update: Queensland's Court of Appeal: ON TRIAL!!

Follow @HaigReport
??   ??   ???? Tweet  
Share on Facebook Share on Facebook  
http://HaigReport.com/includedSeeTodaysHotTopics.php

See: Today's HAIG HOT_TOPICS  => Click HERE <= 

 Content:  Outline of Argument & Submission asAt 31st October, 2011 Appeal Qld Police Fraud & Disability Discrimination by Magistrate Paul Kluck, District Court Judge Kerry John O'Brien, & CDPP Shane Hunter

../Corrupt Police& Magistrates Menu.php An example of a CASCADING Drop Down Menu.

MENU: Rantala-Gate: Corrupt Police & Magistrates Mafia.

CDDM_StartMenu160.phpCDDM_StartMenu160.phpCDDM_StartMenu160.phpCDDM_StartMenu160.phpCDDM_StartMenu160.php

See: the Menu: for  Latest Update: Queensland's Court of Appeal: ON TRIAL!!

Follow @HaigReport
??   ??   ???? Tweet  
Share on Facebook Share on Facebook  
Outline of Argument in Kluck KJOB Appeal to CA:

Outline of Argument: in

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER

THE DISTRICT COURT ACT 1967, S 118

In the Court of Appeal, Supreme Court of Queensland

The Queen against Russell Gordon Haig Mathews

The details of the judgment appealed against are—

Date of judgment: 21st June, 2011.

Name of Primary Court Judge: His Honour Kerry John O”Brien DCJA

Location of District Court: Brisbane.

Offence(s) of which convicted: None, yet, still.

Sentence: None

Part of judgment appealed against: The continued and continual denial of Due Process in a quagmire of judicial nullity.
[Most of the hyperlinks on this page have Anchor or Marker extensions  - ie #AnchorName after the .html or .php   ie 
.html#AnchorName or .php#AnchorName  , so, if you wait for the page to fully load, it will go the the precise point on the page, but that is the last thing the html does after the page is fully loaded.]

  1. The contentions herein are in the alternative to the extent of any inconsistency.

  2. Because I , myself am disabled with brain damage, the workload on me is greater as I have to prepare everything in writing, but can do that only when I am able to concentrate, and that is for only part of the time, and irregularly such that it cannot be planned.

  3. These charges, this committal hearing and all court appearances, are a continuation of the defrauding me of my home and property in an armed robbery by Brisbane City Council and Queensland police who supplied the armaments, on 29th and 30th of November and 1st December, 2004. Every aspect is related to taking advantage of me because I am disabled with insidious brain damage.

  4. These four charges are part of such a gross Miscarriage of Justice by Queensland and Australian Federal police and others from the government Sector within Australia, to perpetuated a fraud and protect the government fraudsters, targeting an isolated, reclusive, vulnerable disabled individual, where that gross Miscarriage of Justice has included part of the Australian Judicial System, where that included the individual, Magistrate Walter Harvey Ehrich who had Judicial Immunity. See Court of Appeal 196 of 2010.

  5. While Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecution’s Shane Hunter has Advocates Immunity I doubt if Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecution’s Anthony Gett [see paragraph 244. and following and later plus Appeal Record Book page 188 line 8], also has Advocates Immunity, especially given the extensive fraud involved.

  6. These four charges, the original subject of this appeal, is a continuation of that exploitation of a disabled person by elements of the Australian Government.

  7. Accommodation of Special needs consequent upon disability is a RIGHT not a mere privilege. Where that disability is brain damage, the determination of Special Needs cannot be an ad hoc matter. It requires Specialist expert medical and neurological knowledge that is not possessed by magistrates, judges, lawyers nor disabled defendants. As it is my RIGHT to have my special Needs accommodated, I cannot be expected to provide the expert evidence. I am not an expert. It was wrong to require it of me, and to so do was disability discrimination in itself.

  8. Because the Commonwealth of Australia Executive branch of Government by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions was prosecuting these charges in courts, and because the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions was subject to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities as the Commonwealth of Australia Executive has acceded to the UN Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions and the courts before which it appeared were also subject to that law. If any such court was about to breach the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions should have, for the appropriate periods, withdrawn from the hearings.

  9. I contend that the actions by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, Kluck M. and His Honour Judge O'Brien DCJA are breaches of both UN Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
    &
    UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities /.

  10. I intend, if need be, to proceed with a communication to the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in Geneva, once I have exhausted all domestic remedies; the High Court of Australia.

  11. The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions have breached many provisions of UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

  12. The decision maker in each situation also has a DUTY to provide Natural Justice, which included a Fair Hearing.

  13. It is a breach of disability law to state that a person with the insidious disability of brain damage aka Acquired Brain Injury is not fit to be tried, when they are, subject to their special needs being accommodated.

  14. It is an affront to dignity to be forced to undergo the indignity of being assessed as to if I am fit to be tried. I do meet the seven R v Presser indicia, provided my special needs are met, and so, is it intended that on that finding that I am fit to stand trial, by a specially convened District Court trial with jury, are my Special needs about to be completely denied with impunity?

  15. Determination of fitness to stand trial has only two distinct solutions. Determination of Special needs for a person with the disability of brain damage, has a very different solution set of a multitude of different solutions. These are two very different questions.

  16. I have been pilloried in the courts by the references by His Honour Judge O'Brien DCJA to my being an “uncooperative defendant” with “so called” special needs. As indicated herein, [at paragraph 160.]I and my disability have been ridiculed by Kluck M. That is disgusting. As a disabled person I am entitled without more, to be treated with dignity.

  17. Firstly, consider the decision of His Honour Judge O'Brien DCJA. At Page 612 line 40 Appeal Record Book [Appeal Record Book] and following, His Honour Judge O'Brien DCJA admits receiving my submission, which itself included specific other submissions. I “speak” or address courts in this way as a way of coping with my brain damage disability. This is akin to my writing my speech as I cannot compose my thoughts while speaking in real time.

  1. As an assistance to the court and officers of the court including the prosecution, I make my written speech available to them all prior to my “appearance” or the happening/occurrence of the nominated time.

  2. I do not have page references to that submission to His Honour Judge O'Brien DCJA, as it has not yet, at time of preparation of this Outline, been indexed. That is further Disability Discrimination in the District Court.

  3. Therein, I requested His Honour Judge O'Brien DCJA to recuse himself on the grounds of apprehended bias.

  4. His Honour Judge O'Brien DCJA ignored that completely. As apprehended bias, an aspect of Natural Justice, goes to the very basis of the due process of our legal system, such a request cannot be totally ignored as it has been by His Honour Judge O'Brien DCJA.

  5. I contend that that renders his decision void ab initio. It is not now open to the Court of Appeal to consider the question of bias by His Honour Judge O'Brien DCJA, as only the particular person can know if he has apprehended bias. [I have seen case reference on that.]

  6. Perchance Your Honours fail to see the wisdom of that contention, I will dissect the decision of His Honour Judge O'Brien DCJA.

  7. Within this outline, I make reference to the Melissa Avery case [R v AAM; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2010] QCA 305 ].

  8. at http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2010/QCA10-305.pdf /.
  9. In the decision of the Melissa Avery case [R v AAM; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2010] QCA 305 ], the Court of Appeal spoke approvingly of the Special Circumstances Court Diversion Program which presently operates only in the Brisbane area, coram Magistrate Christine Roney. This program assists categories of vulnerable people including those with impaired decision-making capacity because of mental illness, intellectual disability, cognitive impairment, or brain and neurological disorders.

  10. Clearly, the Court of Appeal realises the importance of assistance by the courts to vulnerable persons with “mental illness, intellectual disability, cognitive impairment, or brain and neurological disorders”.

  11. In the decision for the Melissa Avery case, the Court of Appeal highlighted “suitable compassionate supervisory and supportive bail and sentencing orders”. This relates to situations of guilty verdicts, and defendants on remand.

  12. The Special Circumstances Court Diversion Program has, as point 5.(d) in its Eligibility Criteria, dated 24th December, 2010, below the signature of the Chief Magistrate, Judge Brendan Butler, a requirement that the defendant plead guilty. Thus, “defendant” is a misnomer. The correct term is “offender” or “prisoner”. It is not a “Justice” program, but yet another Sentencing Program. What about disabled innocent people? It is a cheap trick to save court time; is that so the court time can be used to persecute innocent but disabled people who have been targeted for exploitation by the government that is supposed to protect such people.

  13. Disabled defendants do not need to be guilty to be treated appropriately according to disability law..

  14. It is important that the Court of Appeal, in its supervisory role of lower courts [a la Kirk] should specifically guide lower courts especially in light of the Statement in the Melissa Avery decision in paragraph 9: “It is well documented that mental illness is a common and growing problem amongst those charged with criminal offences.”

  15. Is that disability growing at that rate is the the reason for the growth being that police are finding disabled persons are easire to charge and persecute? That justifies further research.

  16. The Hearing purportedly coram Kluck M. was a committal hearing and of the nature of an administrative hearing, and since it was regarding four Commonwealth charges and prosecuted by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, it is effectively a Commonwealth Tribunal. See further below at paragraph 270. and following.

  17. This appeal is matter involving an aspect of the Constitution of Australia, as discussed in the recent case of Kirk in the High Court of Australia, [Kirk v Industrial Relations Commission [2010] HCA 1].

  18. The High Court reaffirmed in Kirk that the Court of Appeal, in effect the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Queensland, has, subject to the Constitution, a supervisory role over all courts in Queensland, in particular, for this appeal, in relation to all matter involving Commonwealth Law. In this case, relevant Commonwealth law includes the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 [Disability Discrimination Act 1992] and UN Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
    &
    UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities [UN Disability Conventions; UNDC]. As highlighted elsewhere herein, the UN Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
    &
    UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities have a huge bearing upon the Common Law of Australia.


  1. Aspects in this case are also contrary to UN Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities & UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities . Although these have not been enacted in legislation, they are Common Law of Australia as have been repeatedly stated by Senior Judicial officers in Australia including Brennan J. [Mabo v Queensland [No 2] (1992) 175 CLR1 who described the previous refusal to recognise the rights and interests in land of the indigenous inhabitants as an unjust and discriminatory doctrine that could no longer be accepted in the light of Australia's accession to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

  2. I now refer to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities & the UN Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities /.

  3. MURRAY GLEESON [then Chief Justice of Australia] in his address entitled "GLOBAL INFLUENCES ON THE AUSTRALIAN JUDICIARY" to the AUSTRALIAN BAR ASSOCIATION CONFERENCE, in PARIS on 8 JULY 2002 stated, in part as per The High Court of Australia website:

    http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/speeches/former-justices/gleesoncj/cj_global.htm#_edn1


        "There is another mechanism by which human rights jurisprudence affects Australian law: through international treaties and conventions.

        As in the United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand, the provisions of an international treaty do not form part of Australian law unless they have been incorporated into municipal law by statute. [ Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh (1995) 183 CLR 273 at 287; Attorney-General of Canada v Attorney-General of Ontario [1937] 1 DLR 673 at 678-679; Ashby v Minister for Immigration [1981] 1 NZLR 222] . However, international treaties to which Australia is a party may indirectly affect the development of the law in Australia.

        Courts may use international treaties and conventions in resolving uncertainties in the common law. In Mabo v Queensland [No 2] Brennan J said: [Mabo v Queensland [No 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1]:

        "The common law does not necessarily conform with international law, but international law is a legitimate and important influence on the development of the common law, especially when international law declares the existence of human rights".

        The decision in Mabo provides a notable example of the High Court of Australia developing the common law in response to the forces of globalisation. Brennan J described the previous refusal to recognise the rights and interests in land of the indigenous inhabitants as an unjust and discriminatory doctrine that could no longer be accepted in the light of Australia's accession to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. He said: [(1992) 175 CLR 1 at 42 ]

        "A common law doctrine founded on unjust discrimination in the enjoyment of civil and political rights demands reconsideration".

        In resolving ambiguity in a statute, courts favour a construction which accords with Australia's obligations under a treaty, on the basis that they presume that Parliament intends to legislate in accordance with, rather than contrary to, its international obligations. [ Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh (1995) 183 CLR 273.] .

        It is unnecessary for present purposes to go into the more controversial area of the circumstances in which ratification by Australia of an international convention will give rise to a legitimate expectation that an administrative decision-maker will conform to the convention.

        In a paper given at a judicial conference at Launceston in April 2002, Perry J, of the Supreme Court of South Australia, commented that Australian counsel rarely refer judges to international legal materials that might have a bearing on a case. If that is so, it is unfortunate, and suggests that our advocates may be less sensitive to the potential importance of such materials than their European counterparts. Part of the explanation may be that, for lawyers in Europe including the United Kingdom, the Treaty of Rome, and the European Convention on Human Rights, are in one sense supra-national, but in another sense, they are the law of a community to which they all belong. Perhaps, to a barrister in London, Strasbourg is no more foreign than Canberra is to a barrister in Perth. It is certainly much closer. But I believe there is a growing awareness, within the Australian profession, of the importance of looking beyond our own statutes and precedents, and our traditional sources, in formulating answers to legal problems. Our law is increasingly aware of, and responsive to, the guidance we can receive from civil law countries. Ultimately, the issues that arise, and the problems that require solution, are in many respects the same throughout large parts of the world. The forces of globalisation tend to standardise the questions to which a legal system must respond. It is only to be expected that there will be an increasing standardisation of the answers.”

  1. I now turn to consideration of the proposition that as in the United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand, the provisions of an international treaty do not form part of Australian law unless they have been incorporated into municipal law by statute. [ Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh (1995) 183 CLR 273 at 287; Attorney-General of Canada v Attorney-General of Ontario [1937] 1 DLR 673 at 678-679; Ashby v Minister for Immigration [1981] 1 NZLR 222] .

  2. The world has changed greatly since 1995. The changed legal environment will distinguish these cases. Prime amongst the changes is the World Wide Web having a marked effect on globalization and International interaction.

  3. In International and United Nations arena, when it is public that Australia has acceded to the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Australia will be treated with derision when it is readily viewed that courts are acting contrary to that convention and/or protocol. That derision will be exacerbated when Australian Courts employ what to many would be viewed as a “lawyer trick” when International parties are told, “Ah, but that accession was by ONLY the EXECUTIVE of the Australian Government, and not by the Judicial arm, as it has not been “incorporated” into Australian Law. Tough.” That argument may persist in Civil Law jurisdiction, but in a Common Law jurisdiction, Laws do not of necessity have to be legislated.

  4. My contention is that Accession in these circumstances, allowing the 28 day period for the law to become viable, Conventions are law, subject only to any impediment, constitutional or otherwise, that may prevent any legislated law being effective. As Brennan J. recognised in Mabo, such UN conventions are a “legitimate and important influence on the development of the common law”. So when and which parts become law. The jurisprudential reason for law is CERTAINTY. Importantly, which parts or aspects of conventions should not become LAW, until legislated. To permit such an hiatus is a judicial cop out. For Certainty, all parts must become law as per the convention. It is ridiculous that organs of the Australian Executive, such as the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions are subject to that convent, but no-one else.

  5. Importantly, any court in which the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions is a party, must invoke all laws to which the Commonwealth Executive is subject, as the alternative is that the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions is breaching law to which it is subject. Hence, the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, is applicable law in this forum.

  6. The consequence is that in this matter, coram Kluck M., coram His Honour Judge O'Brien DCJA and coram the Court of Appeal, the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, is effective law.

  7. Hence, once domestic remedies are exhausted, this matter may be communicated to the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in Geneva.

  8. It is abhorrent to the international community of disabled persons for any Australian Court to hold that a disabled person who demands his rights of accommodation of his Special Needs, consequent upon his disability, is a mental defective and so unfit to be tried, or for any court to even propose that as a possibility, as a question, for detailed consideration.

  9. On page 663 Para 9, Appeal Record Book, His Honour Judge O'Brien DCJA states:

    In Schneider v Curtis [1967] Qd R 300 the Full Court held

that an appellable order for the purposes of s 222 of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld)

means an order which has the effect of disposing of a complaint as distinct from an

interlocutory order made during the course of proceedings. In that case Gibbs J

with whom Wanstall and Douglas JJ agreed, said at p 306:-

"In my opinion the legislature did not intend that the wide powers of

control over the proceedings of Magistrates which this Court may

exercise by an order to review should also be available on an appeal

under s 222. Such an appeal in my opinion only lies from an order

which disposes of a complaint, for example by dismissing it, or by

entering a conviction and imposing a penalty. It does not lie from a

Magistrate's ruling, given at the close of the complainant's case, that

there is a case for the defendant to answer, for although such a ruling

may amount to a refusal of an application, and may be regarded as an

order within the meaning of s 4, it is made upon an incidental

application during the hearing of the complaint and is not an order

made upon the complaint."

  1. Regardless, His Honour Judge O'Brien DCJA failed in his findings due to his failure of consideration, which was a prior mandatory consideration, of my application for His Honour Judge O'Brien DCJA to recuse himself for apprehended bias.

  2. I request the Court of Appeal to invoke its wide powers of control over the proceedings of Magistrates which this Court may exercise by an order to review, pursuant to its:

  1. By exercise of such Jurisdiction, this Court will dispose of these proceeding, finally.

  2. All the decisions, and each of them, by the police from at least the time of seizing my computer on 28th August, 2009, and the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions in prosecuting these charges are tainted by Improper purpose and Jurisdictional Error.

  3. All the decisions, and each of them, by the police from at least the time of seizing my computer on 28th August, 2009, and the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions in prosecuting these charges are tainted by fraud in that each decision was induced or affected by fraud;

  4. I have been targeted by police and others, from the time, that the Brisbane City Council and police forced entry to my property where I had exclusive possession, at least, if not earlier.

  5. On page 388 line 33 Appeal Record Book, police officer Rantala admits that neither the BCC or anyone had a court order. As also in paragraph 56. , I incorporate in my argument the reasoning before the Court of Appeal in Exhibit 3: viz:

    file:///E:/RussellMATHEWS-17July09/haigreport.com/proofofbccmultiplecrimes-bcccriminalsnotprosecuted-2.html in particular in regard to Sect 160 Health Act 1937.

  6. This document shows conclusive irrefutable proof that the Brisbane City Council committed multiple crimes.  They did not have a Court order, which by Section 160 Ss(2) Health Act 1937 [as reproduced below] was mandatory as they did not have my permission.  I was also denied the Natural Justice [aka Due Process] enshrined in Ss(2).  As they entered, they entered by "artifice".  They also entered my buildings for which I had exclusive possession. That is breaking and Entering also.  All of my property that they removed over a three day period amounted to STEALING.  This is particularly more serious as this was by a State Government Authority.

  7. It is necessary for the reader to understand a little relevant law. In particular, how Acts [STATUTES] and Regulations interact.  Statutes of Parliament have been debated by Parliament and passed by a majority of the ELECTED members of PARLIAMENT, usually the government. Statutes make provision for Regulations to be "gazetted" after the sections of the Regulation for that Statute, have been determined and composed by public servants.  The stated purpose for the Sections of Regulations is to foster or enable the provisions of the STATUTE to be implemented. Importantly, Regulations cannot override substantive rights in the STATUTE under which the Regulation has been composed and gazetted, or any other Statute of Parliament or of Common Law Rights, like  Natural Justice aka Due Process, which includes the Right to be Heard.   If Regulations could over-ride Statutes, then Parliament becomes an IRRELEVANCY and ELECTED PARLIAMENTARIANS and PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS, become IRRELEVANT.   This is basic law known to students in High School studying the rudiments of Law.   That the Barrister WAYNE JOHN TOLTON and Solicitor JOANNE WHITING, of the Brisbane City Council Legal Service, were unaware of this is not the least bit credible.

 Health Act 1937: Section160 Entry
(1) The chief executive, the chief health officer, the local government and an officer of the department or local government may enter from time to time into and upon any house or premises for the purpose of examining as to the existence of any nuisance thereon or whether any of the provisions of this Act are being contravened, or of executing any work or making any inspection authorized to be executed or made under the provisions of this Act or any order, or local law, or making any inquiry under the provisions of this Act, or generally for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of this Act or any order, or local law, at any time between the hours of 9a.m. and 6p.m. of any day, or in the case of a business then at any hour when such business is in progress or is usually carried on.

(2) If such admission to any house or premises is refused, any justice, on complaint thereof by any such officer (made after reasonable notice in writing of the intention to make it has been given to the occupier), may, by order under the justice’s hand, require the occupier to admit such officer into the house or premises; and if no occupier can be found the justice may, on proof of that fact, by order under the justice’s hand authorise any such officer to enter such house or premises.

 Section 200; Health Regulation 1996

This Regulation Section 200 was current at the time of the BREAKING AND ENTERING, by Brisbane City Council, but has since been repealed and not replaced by anything.  This Section 200 basically restates Health Act 1937, Section 160 Ss(1.)  Importantly, it did NOT give them the right to enter without a court order or my permission.  THEY HAD NEITHER.  Hence, they acted CRIMINALLY.

  1. By page 346 line 25 Appeal Record Book, 353 line 39 Appeal Record Book , page 388 line 39, Entry was purported to be pursuant to the Health Act.

  2. At page 388 line 57, The document put to Rantala and which he identified was in Exhibit 3:

    E:\RussellMATHEWS-17July09\haigreport.com/20041125BCCentrynotice_cr01.jpg

  3. Shane Hunter of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions has advised me that he does not dispute the veracity of that document.

  4. If it is not readily apparent from the transcript that that was the document. That is the fault of the magistrate and court and cannot be used against me.

  5. At page 388 line 41, Rantala states,

    some sort of notice that they've indicated they had sent to you regarding the matter.”

  6. It was for Kluck M. to ensure the document referenced by Rantala was indicated on the record. Regardless, I contend there is no better document that meets that description, in the exhibits that were coram Kluck M. and recognized by Rantala.

  7. Within that document, the BCC references a legal opinion and so waives privilege.

  8. That opinion, with unlawful deletions by the Qld Information Commissioner is coram the Court of Appeal in Exhibit 3:

    file:///E:/RussellMATHEWS-17July09/haigreport.com/20041019WayneJohnToltonOpinoni.PDF

  9. At page 390 line 5, Rantala states,

    At the time I was shown this and a copy of the Act. I satisfied myself,based on not only the information contained in that, but also reading of the sections of the Act specifically relating to entry of premises.”

  10. That would have to be Section 160 Health Act 1937, if Rantala is believed.

  11. This was a premeditated fraud.

  12. This illegality has been brought to the attention of the police by me by email, the method I use to communicate to alleviate the effects of my disabilities, so they blocked my email to them.

  13. There are open letters to the police re this matter online and in Exhibit 3: ie

    file:///E:/RussellMATHEWS-17July09/haigreport.com/20061116openletterpoliceqldgovt.html

         file:///E:/RussellMATHEWS-17July09/haigreport.com/20061117openletterpolicecommissionercompensationaud1988.html

  1. My contention is that if that had been an honest mistake albeit a mistake of law, the police would have attempted to rectify it as soon as they became aware of the mistake.

  2. My contention is that the seizure of my computer was in furtherance of this fraud.

  3. Surely fraud would be an improper purpose.

  4. I contend that an Improper purpose was to silence me, as this fraud by Rantala et al on 29th November, 2004,was instrumental in defrauding me of my home with central involvement of the Australian Government Sector, including Registrar Douglas Porter of The University of Queensland for use as part of a residential college for The University of Queensland [UQ].

  5. That residential college is associated with the Brisbane Diocese of the Anglican Church [BDAC] of which, at all relevant times, the Chief Justice Paul de Jersey was Chancellor.

  6. The Brisbane Diocese of the Anglican Church [BDAC] of which, at all relevant times, the Chief Justice Paul de Jersey was Chancellor, is now involved in running the occupancy of my house by appointing members to the St Johns College Council of which Douglas Porter was at all relevant times, and still is, Chairman.

  7. The Brisbane Diocese of the Anglican Church [BDAC] of which, at all relevant times, the Chief Justice Paul de Jersey was Chancellor, had a secret contract for the purchase of the legal title of my house, without my knowledge, prior to the armed robbery of me by Rantala, Antony and the Brisbane City Council and that armed robbery was directed to evicting me from my beneficially owned home to fulfil the requirements of the contract with the Brisbane Diocese of the Anglican Church [BDAC] of which, at all relevant times, the Chief Justice Paul de Jersey was Chancellor and who had the contract, and Douglas Porter, part of the Australian Government Sector. The other organs of the Australian Government sector included the Brisbane City Council and the Queensland police.

  8. There were, and still are, powerful bodies organizing against me.

  9. These charges are clearly still exploitation of a disabled person by Elements of the Australian Government sector now including the Commonwealth Executive Government in the form of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.

  10. I am not at this time certain as to when the Chief Justice Paul de Jersey , in the senior office of Chancellor, of the Brisbane Diocese of the Anglican Church [BDAC] became aware of this monstrous fraud.

  11. Importantly, all knew I was and still am disabled.

  12. I and all my possessions were attacked as I was vulnerable and seen as “fair game”.

  13. Further improper purpose relates to the filing of a Sec 222 Justices Act Appeal for Jim Tierney, within time.

  14. I had raised my disability on the evidence.

  15. There were many documents coram Kluck M. in Exhibit 3: I refer to some of those thus:

      file:///E:/RussellMATHEWS-17July09/haigreport.com/iamdisabledaccordingtothelaw.html

            file:///E:/RussellMATHEWS-17July09/haigreport.com/mywritingdisabilityhyperextendedrightthumb.html

            file:///E:/RussellMATHEWS-17July09/haigreport.com/mywritingdisabilitynotofgrecentorigins.html

            file:///E:/RussellMATHEWS-17July09/haigreport.com/mypoorhealthover40years.html

            file:///E:/RussellMATHEWS-17July09/austlawpublish.com/20070314%20HaigReport%20journal%20issue200701.pdf

            file:///E:/RussellMATHEWS-17July09/haigreport.com/mypoorhealthover40years.html#osa1

  1. Also, in my submission to the Mention on 10th August, 2010 I wrote inter alia

    VIZ:

    On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Russell Mathews <xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

CDPP
Magistrate Kluck,
His Honour Judge Brendan Butler AM SC, Chief Magistrate.

Merrilyn Aylett, AHRC
Shane Hunter,

I am attaching a recent report from Dr Rob Moyle.  He refers to previous documents.  Those previous documents are public documents.  They include and are included amongst:
http://HaigReport.com/MyReports/20050729 DrBennettReCATscan.JPG
http://HaigReport.com/MyReports/19990730DrHazellsReport.pdf
http://HaigReport.com/MyReports/20051005DrHazellReport.pdf
http://HaigReport.com/MyReports/20060410CMCapproveBCCtrespass.pdf
http://HaigReport.com/MyReports/20051108LSCBritonapprovesBCCtrespasserrorreTolt.pdf
http://haigreport.com/page9reInfoCommapproveBCCtrespass.pdf
http://HaigReport.com/MyReports/20050729 DrBennettReCATscan.JPG
http://HaigReport.com/MyReports/20060403reOSADrIanBrownreduced.jpg
http://HaigReport.com/MyReports/20071025DrMoyletoCommunityMentalHealthNoBenefitBiologicalTreatmentsEccentric.JPG
http://haigreport.com/MyReports/20071025DrMoyletoCommunityMentalHealthNoBenefitBiologicalTreatmentsEccentric.JPG

http://HaigReport.com/MyReports/20070426DrMoyleReSpecialNeedsAssessmentEmailExpediteCommunicationsDerailmentThinkingFaceToFaceTelephone_cr01_tn451x640.jpg

I refer to all on the public record
and require the court to take Judicial Notice of them.

What is clear from this information and copies of Queensland government documents referenced above, is that there was a massive coverup of this corruption.  Robert Walker of the CMC, John Britton of the LSC and Susan Barker of the Office of the Information Commissioner all approved the BCC armed Robbery stating that they had a Right of Entry as, Section 200 of the Health Regulations, that is subsidiary to the Health Act 1937, over rode Section 160 of the Health Act 1937.   The basis for  this is the gross fallacy that a Section of a Regulation  can over ride rights in Sections of statutes and Common Law rights, as per Plenty v Dillon.”


  1. The Magistrates Court treated me and my sub mission with contempt and simply ignored those documents directed at the nature and extent of my disability.

  2. As a result, these documents are not on the Magistrates Court file and so are not available to the Court of Appeal.

  3. What Jim Tierney and I, Russell Mathews have in common is that neither of us are prepared to play the "victim". The court cannot require, as a precondition for granting relief from disability discrimination aka accommodation of special needs resulting from the disability caused Special Needs, that we are prepared to play the victim and grovel for our rights. We are entitled, as a right, to dignity.

  4. That the lower courts, Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions and registries were causing even more problems related to my disabilities, is raised in this appeal submission/argument.

  5. Jim Tierney contacted me well before the decision by Magistrate Spencer on 10th August, 2009. On 28th August, 2009, only 18 days after Jim Tierney's conviction, and 10 days prior to the end of the 28 day period in which to lodge an appeal after that conviction, the police stole my computer, my DISABILITY AID, AND levelled bogus hastily prepared charges at me, so that I would not assist Jim Tierney to appeal that conviction.

  6. I have been actively attacked by the police to prevent Jim Tierney lodging an appeal to his conviction in the Cairns Magistrate court. See the reasoning below.

  7. I would not have expected to have anything or much to say at the Court of Appeal hearing, in this appeal, unless asked, as I will rely upon the written submission, which is the “written speech” of what I would intend to say were I not disabled with brain damage. Just because my disability is not as clearly obvious as would be evidenced with a wheelchair or a white stick, does not diminish the extent of my disability but, because other people can claim ignorance of my disability, the effects of my disability are much exacerbated.

  8. I have been targeted by police, as detailed in this submission, because I was publicly seen to be assisting Jim Tierney.

  9. In the “outline of Submissions for CA150 of 2011, on behalf of Respondent, at point 12.2 under the Heading: Matters relied on by respondent; one Sarah Farnden, Counsel for the DPP stated: “ It is arguable … [as] the applicant was legally represented at the trial (/and) a decision was presumably made not to appeal. The applicant only filed for leave to appeal 10 months out of time as a result of meeting Mr Mathews.” [emphasis added]

  10. the DPP "logic": the important words are "only" and "as a result" Was there any other reason Jim appealed? Maybe it was also because he had had a conviction for assault albeit "not recorded". There is a question too as to if that "only" is intended as "if and only if" [ aka iff] which is equivalent to "equality". That would mean that, in the absence of any other reason, and that is what “if and only if” means, everyone who meets me appeals, and no-one appeals if they do not meet me.

  11. In a logical sense, one must be very careful using the word "only". In this case, was "only" intended to mean, in sloppy logic, "in quick time" or "shortly afterwards" given that a time is central to the argument; ie 28 days and "10 months out of time". I was communicating with Jim for long before his conviction and sentencing.

  12. On 27th June, 2009, [that is prior to his decision appealed], Jim Tierney advised me in writing:

    I, as a volunteer ran Vinnies Gym for four years, from the very start of Vinnies Gym the instructors that I trained were asked to forge the numbers of Indigenous individuals using Vinnies Gym to put the Qld society officials in a position to get Qld government grants. I sent John Howard four witnessed signed Stat-decs from the instructors and me, so Peter Maher and Jerry McAuliffe closed Vinnies Gym to silence me.

    Warren Pitt communities minister back up these thieves for the reason they told the Cairns community. As did Kerry Shine, Judy Spence Qld police minister, Beatie and Anna Bligh. Queensland police have set me up on a common assult charge to silence me.”

  13. Public “Who is” websites show:

    Domain Name:

    StVincentDePaulFraudBullyingPeterMaherJerryMcAuliffeMareeFell.INFO

    Created On:06-Jul-2009.

  14. Was there any other reason Jim appealed? Maybe it was also because he had had a conviction for assault albeit "not recorded". There is a question too as to if that "only" is intended as "if and only if" [ aka iff] which is equivalent to "equality". That would mean that, in the absence of any other reason, and that is what “if and only if” means, everyone who meets me appeals, and no-one appeals if they do not meet me.

  15. That website has my name plastered all over it That website contains the story of James Tierney as indicated in the preceding paragraphs. I, Russell Mathews was a Section 9, Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) [Disability Discrimination Act 1992] Assistant starting from that time prior to 6th July, 2009. I still am.

  16. The associated Bulletin Board called:

    StVincent de Paul Society Fraud and BULLYING Bulletin Board of Forums.

    @ http://StVincentdePaulFraudBullyingPeterMaherJerryMcAuliffeMareeFell.info/forum/

    was commenced on 7th July, 2009 and that Bulletin Board Shows James Victor Tierney joined that Bulletin Board on Sunday 9th August, 2009. and, to the Sunday 9th October, 2011 has made 777 posts on these matters to that Bulletin Board. This is all public information in the public domain.

  17. In fact, the police raided me and stole my computer, my Disability Aid on 28 August, 2009 [and Jim was sentenced on 10th August, 2009], on trumped up, cobbled together charges with complainants who were invited to make complaints AFTER the Queensland police had seized my disability aid and charged me.

  18. The date on which my disability aid of my computer was seized is in evidence coram the Court of Appeal in my appeal #201 of 2011 at Page 480 and following. This is the transcript of the police record of the execution on 28th August, 2008, of the purported “Search Warrant” on my home at which time the seizure of my disability aid of computer occurred.

  19. My computer, my disability aid, was stolen, so as to disrupt my assisting Jim in lodging an appeal, and to reduce the possibility that Jim Tierney, with my assistance, would lodge an appeal. It is on the record that Jim Tierney is disabled and that I am connected to Jim as his Section 9, Disability Discrimination Act 1992 assistant, then and now. It is on the public record that I was in contact with Jim, because he was on a website with my name plastered all over it. That is just yet more evidence, to connect this appeal, and Jim Tierney's application for Leave to Appeal,#150 of 2011.

  20. Clearly, the raid on me, "seizing” my disability aid of computer, and all my backup media was done 10 days prior to the conclusion of the 28 day period in which Jim Tierney could lodge an appeal within time, of right.

  21. Clearly that raid by Queensland police was done in haste, as they could not wait to obtain the complaints, but in fact, had to INVITE the complainants to make complaint after they seized my disability aid.. Even the invitation was subsequent to the seizing of my major disability aid. The evidence led in the committal hearing related to this seizure of my disability aid, shows the police had been collecting "evidence" purporting to show illegal actions by me, for many months; for well over one year, yet they decided to act in haste at this time.

  22. Clearly the seizing of my disability aid was done as a matter of police urgency. I contend that the police have not explained the reason for this urgency and haste on their part. Further, I suggest that there is no other reason to explain the clear haste with which this was done. The hastily organized raid was done with only 10 days remaining. They could reason that I may have the appeal document organised some time prior to that, but it is the experience that when there is a deadline, people tend to beat deadlines by just a small amount, but still, their reasoning would be that the longer they waited the more likely it was that Jim Tierney would lodge an appeal, with my assistance.

  23. The police and prosecution, would have reasoned, as suggested by His Honour Judge Harrison DCJ in the decision to Jim's Application for extension of Time, even before Jim Tierney was charged, that any sentence on a finding of guilt would be minor and/or nominal and so unlikely to elicit an appeal to the District Court, as the legal cost could not be "justified". I contend that was largely the reason in the decision of the police to prosecute Jim. That augers poorly for the bone fides of the Cairns Magistrates and the legal profession in Cairns, at the very least.

  24. As it was then public that I was assisting Jim Tierney, and, if I assisted Jim to appeal, police were concerned and so hastily decided to seize my computer and all my backup media.

  25. All the evidence to which I refer a pro pos the haste with which police seized my disability aid of computer, is coram the Court of Appeal in Appeal #201 of 2011 and online.

  26. The four charges the subject of the matter in this appeal CA201 0f 2011, relate to two fact situations. One relates to the mention of policeman Henri Elias Rantala and the other relates to mention of the family of a part time home child carer named Julie Maree Dick.

  27. Consideration of the circumstances of both fact situations show the seizure of my disability aid of computer was done with great haste, without appropriate preparation.

  28. The circumstances of Henri Elias Rantala matter are considered first:

  29. Following is an excerpt r the transcript of Day 1, 24th June, 2010, coram Kluck of cross-examination of police officer Brendan Read as to when Rantala made his complaint.

  30. The relevant URL/Hyperlink is:

    http://haigreport.com/CorruptPoliceRantalaTranscript/20100624Day1CorruptCopRantalaMagistratesCourtCommittal.php#BrendanReadInvitedHenriRantalaAndMonicaAntonyToBePartOfChargesAlreadyLaid

  31. After much searching I have found the reference to that in the Appeal Record Book for Appeal #201 of 2011 at page 135 line 49 and following.

    "DEFENDANT: Okay. Now, there is nothing in the search warrant regarding Rantala or Antony, is there, or is there? No, there isn't, in this particular search warrant.

    Okay. Now, I'll put it to you that you actually - after you'd seized or stolen my computer, you then contacted Rantala and contacted Antony and asked them did they want to make a complaint and be a part of this? I spoke to them during the

    After? investigation.

    Hey? I spoke to them during the investigation process and then they advised that they wished to proceed with a complaint.

    So, you didn’t ring them after the ? I spoke to them after the search warrant as well.

    Okay. And - and asked them to lodge a complaint? I asked them what they'd like to do, yeah; did they wish to proceed with a complaint.

    Okay. So, you’ve ? Well, in relation to

    you rang them and ? I asked if they wished to supply a statement

    Yeah. So, you ? regarding the things that were posted.

    Yeah. But you rang them and invited them basically to add - piggy-back on your - on your Dick mistaken identity action? They were already aware of the postings that had been there for some time."

  32. Of course, that does not answer the question.

  33. The circumstances of the Dick factual situation are now discussed.

  34. The transcript [Appeal Record Book Page 297 at line 56.], shows in the words of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions prosecutor Shane Hunter, that the statements of John Dick and Julie Dick had been taken much earlier when the police were contemplating taking an action of Stalking against me, but had discontinued. They dressed that fact situation up into an alleged Commonwealth offence but did not have time to obtain appropriate statements by the Dicks. The statements had been prepared nearly one year earlier but the police had decided not to proceed, and so just had these two statements in their possession. The statements, as a result contained much irrelevant information, detail and evidence which was not only irrelevant but which was inadmissible, could not even be lead or be the subject of cross examination.

  35. In the search warrants and the four charges, there was no mention of Monica Antony nor of Rantala. The police simply cobbled together material for a case after they had hastily seized my computer that was my disability aid.

  36. This text is online at

    http://haigreport.com/CorruptPoliceRantalaTranscript/20100628Day3CorruptCopRantalaMagistratesCourtCommittal.php#HunterDeliberateFraudToGrosslyDiscriminateAgainstMe

    and appear in the Appeal Record Book for Appeal #201 of 2011 Appeal Record Book Page 297 at line 56.

    MR HUNTER: evidence-in-chief. The statement was put together by a State police officer who was also looking at stalking charges which may explain why that content's there, but that's not

    BENCH: But

    MR HUNTER: what's being proceeded with.

  37. There was so much haste to seize my computer, the police did not have time to obtain new statements from the Dick family or any statements or complaints from police Rantala and Antony.

  38. That Kluck M. advised at page 255 line 37 Appeal Record Book: Kluck Reiterates In Presence Of Hunter,"They'll give evidence Presumably it will be consistent with their statements "

    #Kluck Reiterates In Presence Of Hunter To Structure My Cross Examination Of The Dicks From Their Statements Of Evidence

    #KluckReiteratesInPresenceOfHunter. Quote, "You_know_what_their_ evidence_is_going_to_be"

    #KluckReiteratesInPresenceOfHunter Quote "You_have_their_statements_don't_you"

    #KluckReiteratesInPresenceOfHunter: Quote "Yes_thats_basically_what_ theyre_going_to_say"

    #Kluck Reiterates In Presence Of Hunter: Quote, "Theyll_give_ evidence Presumably_it_will_be_consistent_with_their_statements

    shows massive bad faith by Hunter of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, especially as he deliberately stood by mute, knowing that I would be wasting my extremely limited valuable time, exacerbated by the circumstance of my brain damage disability.

  1. This is not just a small matter for just me and Jim Tierney. This is very much a matter for the community, and in particular the community of disabled persons, of which I am only one myself.

  2. Disabled persons are more likely to find themselves before courts.

  3. I suggest that the reason may be because we are seen as isolated and vulnerable.

  4. If this appeal is not upheld, the Court of Appeal will be approving police and Magistrates Courts bullying disabled persons with brain damage, and denying them their rights making them easier targets.

  5. What was done in the Magistrates Court in this hearing coram Kluck M. was a variation of what had repeatedly occurred in the Melissa Avery case.

  6. a pro pos` the Melissa Avery case: I am amazed that this, the wider application of this conduct across Queensland, was still occurring. I consider that akin to corruption by the magistracy. Those magistrates knew what they were doing. They should not be, would not be, ignorant of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

  7. I, Russell Mathews, have had to work very hard, with tunnel vision, to recover to where I am now. The computer and internet has assisted me greatly.

  8. I have referenced herein Kirk ie

  9. Kirk v Industrial Relations Commission:

    Kirk Group Holdings Pty Ltd v WorkCover Authority of New South Wales [2010] HCA 1 /.

  10. It is a landmark case in Administrative/Constitutional Law in Australia. It was decided on 3 February 2010,.
  11. In the Court of Appeal Melisa Avery case as cited previously, Court of Appeal President McMurdo P. stated: “It seems unsatisfactory that the laws of this State make no provision for the determination of the question of fitness to plead to summary offences. It is well documented that mental illness is a common and growing problem amongst those charged with criminal offences.”

  12. I contend that much the same applies in relation to mental illness where the defendant is fit to stand trial but is still severely disabled.

  13. Maybe the adversarial justice system and Disability Rights are incompatible. It is for the Courts to Solve, if Law reform and the parliament fail.

  14. Consideration of this concept as of Quaint academic interest is just not good enough.

  15. The current state of disability law for disabled defendants, especially for those with the insidious disability of brain damage, augers poorly for any Australian with the insidious disability of Brain damage. Anything can be alleged against them, and if the act alleged is ephemeral, the defendant's denial is discounted by his allegedly being a liar due to his brain damage symptoms, so the brain damaged defendant has no defence. Such is egregious for a justice system.

  16. Because I , myself am disabled with brain damage, the load on me is greater as I have to prepare everything in writing, but can do that only when I am able to concentrate, and that is for only part of the time, and not such that it can be planned.

  17. Just because some action is not utterly impossible does not mean that it is not disability discrimination to require it. (If that was so, a blind person with a guide dog could be legitimately required to leave his dog outside and use a white cane. It is disability discrimination to require a disabled person to produce more evidence, [with the exception of the specific case of Assistance dog as mentioned elsewhere herein].

  18. This case involves fundamental judicial functions such as natural justice and the right to a fair hearing.

  19. This denial of a fair hearing is denial of Natural Justice and is thus Jurisdictional Error. [See: Police (SA) v Lymberopoulos (2007) 98 SASR 433.]. POLICE & THE STATE OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA v LYMBEROPOULOS & ORS [2007] SASC 247 (4 July 2007)

  20. For the mention on 8th September, 2010, I had forwarded to the Magistrates Court and to Shane Hunter, my written submission. Clearly, Kluck M. did not want to consider anything I said as he perceived that was a distraction from what he wanted. He clearly wanted to have Hunter locked in to the false notion that I had “clammed up” [line 46 page 440].

  21. Page 438 Appeal Record Book begins:

    MR HUNTER: Good morning, your Honour.

BENCH: Yes, I'll take the continuation of the matter of

Russell Gordon Haig Mathews. I appoint Clare Jarvis to be the

recorder and I have before me Mr Hunter for the Commonwealth

director, and I have no defendant, and had no response from

communication sent by the Court to Mr Mathews. Do you know

anything different, Mr Hunter?


MR HUNTER: No, your Honour. I was given to understand that

today was set aside to conduct the so-called shuttle to

establish-----


BENCH: No, not to conduct it. No, it was for Mr Mathews to

respond to an E-mail sent through the Registry as to of exact

special measures he requested to have the hearing continue,

with particular reference to the cross-examination of

witnesses.

MR HUNTER: Yes.

BENCH: To respond by E-mail to that request.

MR HUNTER: And he hasn't done so to the Court?

BENCH: He hasn't done so. But I want to revisit the issue of

fitness for trial in section 20B of the Crimes Act.


  1. As soon as Hunter returned to his office He advised the court that he had 'inadvertently' mislead the court. That submission of mine has been ignored since.

  2. Shane Hunter Later Admits in Writing that it was received when I sent it.

  3. I refer to Appeal Record Book [Appeal Record Book] Page 661. As these pages of the Appeal Record Book are not searchable text, there are no line numbers. [As of 24th October, 2011, they are now searchable.]

  4. Re Page 661 Para [1]: I appealed against all the purported decisions of Kluck M. on the grounds that the hearing had been ultra vires prior to 29th June,2010, and all decision from then or prior were void ab initio; a nullity. The Jurisdictional Error, the denial of Natural Justice has disposed of the complaint permanently. For this reason, a final decision in the committal hearing had been made. So, in fact, a Sec 222 Justices Act 1886 appeal could be legitimately made.

  5. Re Page 661 Para [2]:

    Background

[2] The appellant had been charged with four offences against s 474.17 of the Criminal

Code Act 1995 (Cth) of using a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence.

He had chosen to represent himself in committal proceedings which commenced on

24 June 2010. The appellant attended the proceedings on the first three days of the

committal hearing and cross examined a number of witnesses called by the

prosecution. On the fourth day, 29 June 2010, he did not appear and advised the

Court that he had a medical appointment. The matter was then adjourned to 30 June

2010 when he again did not appear, advising the Court that he was "too ill". He

failed to appear on some six further mentions of the matter between I July 20I0 and

22 September 2010. During that time he did communicate with the Court by email

advising, in effect, that he had a disability in the form of a brain injury which

affected his ability to properly concentrate and question witnesses in the Court

environment. On 9 July 2010, the Magistrate raised the issue of the appellant's

capability "of understanding the nature of the charges against him". This issue was

again raised by the Magistrate at mentions on 8 September 2010 and 15 September

2010. On none of these occasions was there any appearance by the appellant.

Ultimately, on 24 September 2010, and notwithstanding the objection of the

prosecution, the Magistrate expressed the view that the appellant by his

"correspondence and what he had to say in Court has raised the issue of his fitness

to be tried".

  1. Therein His Honour Judge O'Brien DCJA states, “The matter was then adjourned to 30 June, 2010 when he again did not appear, advising the court that he was “too ill”. He failed to appear on six further mentions of the matter ...” And further in that paragraph, His Honour Judge O'Brien DCJA states, “On none of these occasions was there any appearance by the appellant”.

  2. In fact, as indicated by Kluck M. Page 422 line 27, because of my brain damage disability, my appearances were by email, in which I made substantial legal argument. This was the same method of communication by which the court communicated with me.

  3. Despite my advice [Page 422 line 27,], that these communiques were my submissions to the court, as a proxy for my oral appearance, Kluck M. did not place these on the Court file such that these did not go to the District Court, WITHOUT MY KNOWLEDGE, and hence were not part of the original Appeal Record Book.

  4. Re Page 662 Para [5]: His Honour Judge O'Brien DCJA refers to my grounds as “confusing and repetitive”. This is clearly due to the effects of my disability. Because of the effect of my disabilities, and to attempt to alleviate those effects, I write my logical legal contentions rather than attempt to argue orally. Because of the effects of my disabilities, my written contentions, are of lower standard than they would be were I not disabled with the insidious disability of brain damage. I cannot spend a great amount of time at any “sitting” when preparing the collection of contentions. I find great difficulty organizing my thoughts. I cannot remember what I have written. Because of my disability in that I cannot devote large components of uninterrupted time to my “work”, I have less effective time in any time period to prepare.

  5. This explains my work's being repetitive. I apologize that His Honour Judge O'Brien DCJA found it confusing to him.

  6. Re Page 662 Para [8]: I do not type quickly, and because this part of the Appeal Record Book is not searchable text [until recently], I cannot copy and past into this document. Hence I refer to the First sentence in this paragraph, and in particular the words, “every effort” and 'so called”special needs”'.

  7. Now that the text has been made searchable, I am able to copy and paste it thus:

    [8] The record of proceedings below indicates that the Court made every effort to

accommodate the appellant's so called "special needs" though not, it seems, to the

appellant's satisfaction. The appellant maintains that he did not expressly raise the

issue of his fitness for trial. The Magistrate however took the view that he had done

so by his conduct, specifically, "by his conduct and what he said in Court". As

indicated above, the decision to refer the matter to the District Court was made over

the objection of the prosecuting counsel. The appellant had cross examined

witnesses over the first three days of the hearing and had asked questions designed

to establish what he saw as a possible defence to the charges. Prosecuting counsel

had submitted that the medical evidence was scant and that the appellant's conduct

was not such as to raise any issue of his fitness for trial. In my view, it would have

been clearly open to the Magistrate to continue with the committal hearing. He had

ample power to compel the attendance of an uncooperative defendant.

  1. Special Needs”is the term used in disability law literature to refer to the ways in which the weaknesses caused by disability's detrimental effects, can be, to some extent “accommodated” or to some extent “overcome”.

  2. The use of the pejorative phrase “so called” was clearly intended to belittle and ridicule me and my disability, in much the same way as Kluck M. had done on the first day with the disparaging comment,

    BENCH: So, have you got your thoughts back together again, Mr Mathews? [Page 176 Line 44 Appeal Record Book].

  3. I advised His Honour Judge O'Brien DCJA of this derogation by Kluck M. at Page 615 line 52. With that knowledge, His Honour Judge O'Brien DCJA perpetuated that ridicule of me and my disability.

  4. Being disabled is not merely an imagined state of mind. It is a legal condition with legislated definition.

  5. I have attempted to provide the courts with supporting expert evidence, but as per my submission on 10th August. 2010 where I included a recent Medical Certificate and references to supporting documents as per inter alia

CDPP
Magistrate Kluck,
His Honour Judge Brendan Butler AM SC, Chief Magistrate.

Merrilyn Aylett, AHRC
Shane Hunter,

I am attaching a
a recent report from Dr Rob Moyle.  He refers to previous documents.  Those previous documents are public documents.  They include and are included amongst:

http://HaigReport.com/MyReports/19990730DrHazellsReport.pdf
http://HaigReport.com/MyReports/20051005DrHazellReport.pdf
http://HaigReport.com/MyReports/20060410CMCapproveBCCtrespass.pdf
http://HaigReport.com/MyReports/20051108LSCBritonapprovesBCCtrespasserrorreTolt.pdf
http://haigreport.com/page9reInfoCommapproveBCCtrespass.pdf
http://HaigReport.com/MyReports/20050729 DrBennettReCATscan.JPG
http://HaigReport.com/MyReports/20060403reOSADrIanBrownreduced.jpg
http://HaigReport.com/MyReports/20071025DrMoyletoCommunityMentalHealthNoBenefitBiologicalTreatmentsEccentric.JPG
http://haigreport.com/MyReports/20071025DrMoyletoCommunityMentalHealthNoBenefitBiologicalTreatmentsEccentric.JPG

http://HaigReport.com/MyReports/20070426DrMoyleReSpecialNeedsAssessmentEmailExpediteCommunicationsDerailmentThinkingFaceToFaceTelephone_cr01_tn451x640.jpg

I refer to all on the public record and require the court to take Judicial Notice of them.”

  1. That ridicule by Kluck M. and His Honour Judge O'Brien DCJA is a legal affront. Disabled people just have to put up with that discrimination and affront, as they both, His Honour Judge O'Brien DCJA and Kluck M. have Judicial Immunity.

  2. It is not pleasant, my being disabled and having been disabled for most of my life, through no fault of my own. It is like being partly dead, OR varying degrees of ZOMBYISM. That is not socially attractive, so disabled people with brain damage tend to be reclusive, isolated and hence vulnerable. That applies to me too. Then I had to put up with being robbed in an armed robbery by elements of the Australian Government sector, as a step towards clandestinely defrauding me of my home by the Australian Government, all because I was viewed as an isolated vulnerable mark.

  3. a pro pos “every effort”: The word “every” has a precise simple logical meaning and with judges being “wordsmiths”, His Honour Judge O'Brien DCJA has shown how poor is his decision.

  4. Is His Honour Judge O'Brien DCJA referring to some or any “effort” occurring after the 28th June, 2010, at which time I had become, because of my brain damage, mentally exhausted due the mistreatment of me by Kluck M.? By that time, the proceedings had become a nullity. Clearly, Kluck M. made efforts after that time to seem to “accommodate” my disability. Clearly, Kluck M. did not attempt these “measures” earlier. Clearly, he could have.

  5. The actual bias shown by His Honour Judge O'Brien DCJA towards me is exemplified by his use of the pejorative adjective “uncooperative” {Re Page 662 Para [8]:}, to refer to me. Despite my being disabled and the “proceedings” having been long a nullity, I continued to interact with, and make submissions to, the persecution, but under duress, as I was being threatened with incarceration, without trial, as I was not prepared to grovel or be railroaded.

  6. The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions and Shane Hunter can choose whether or not they will prosecute this matter. They have discretion. Given that they had viewed the letter from BCC to me coram the Court of Appeal at Exhibit 3:

            E:\RussellMATHEWS-17July09\haigreport.com/20041125BCCentrynotice_cr01.jpg /,

their prosecution of me was the exercise of a discretionary power in accordance with a rule or policy without regard to the merits of the particular case, and thus they showed bad faith an element of improper purpose. Of course, Hunter has Advocates Immunity.

  1. There is difficulty as this decision in the appeal book is not searchable nor has line numbers. [This has now been rectified, as to being searchable.]

  1. If it is argued that the claimant must assert the disability, establish its existence to the court's satisfaction and then, personally or through advisers, suggest what steps should be taken to ameliorate the situation, that is imposing a greater workload to a disabled person and I suggest that is disability discrimination..

  2. This would be an exception to the usual rule that the burden is placed upon the person claiming, because, to so place the burden is disability discrimination, apart from the exception in Disability Discrimination Act 1992 sec 54A(5) as above/below.

  3. I suggest that as a matter of practicality, if it is later proven than the brain damage caused a mistrial or ultra vires committal hearing, the conviction will be quashed as void ab initio /. I contend that what happened coram Kluck M. in this original hearing, was ultra vires. I suggest that the magistrate must not only answer questions when raised, even when counsel are present, but must also ensure that the hearing is progressing correctly. He has overall responsibility to ensure the fair hearing. He does not allow counsel to do just anything Counsel pleases. The magistrate can pull them up at any time.

  4. The Disability Discrimination Act 1992 states only one case where a person must give evidence of their disability and/or related special need, and that is in relation to having an Assistance dog.


Disability Discrimination Act 1992:

Section 54A Assistance animals


(5) This Part does not render it unlawful for a person to request the

person with the disability to produce evidence that:

(a) the animal is an assistance animal; or

(b) the animal is trained to meet standards of hygiene and

behaviour that are appropriate for an animal in a public place.

  1. As this specific situation is specifically excluded, it is my contention that the requirement for a disabled person to produce evidence of his disability or special needs is disability discrimination, in all other circumstances, or in general. This, re assistance dogs, is an exception to the general rule in respect of disability. In the present appeal, the court has the documents downloaded from the internet with those documents now on CDs that were exhibits by the prosecution coram Kluck M.

  2. The prosecutor Shane Hunter had control of those Exhibits, coram Kluck for what Magistrate Kluck stated he “thought was for convenience”, [Page 310 line 01 Appeal Record Book]:

    BENCH: Well, I think it's a matter of convenience.”

  3. Hunter of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions removed them from the Magistrates court, so they were not coram DCJA O'Brien in the District Court.

  4. It is disability discrimination to put a disabled person to proof of disability prior to extending accommodation, with the exception of Assistance Dog, as detailed above.

  5. Any requirement evidenced by a statement, such as, "I don't believe you're disabled. Line up like everyone else." is disability discrimination if it is proved to a later court that the person was in fact disabled. I contend that that is Jurisdictional Error and the proceedings are ultra vires and any decision is void ab initio. That is the risk that anyone subject to the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 or the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities takes when disputing a disability.

  6. In the courtroom, the magistrate must ensure that a defendant receives a fair hearing. I submit that to an extent, Disability does require the magistrate to become an activist; well, he must be active to ensure a fair hearing, and be alert to any way that natural justice may be denied. Due process is the ultimate right of the defendant and paramount duty of the decision maker.

  7. The Court of Appeal can take Judicial Notice of how behaviour is changed when the brain is affected. It is common knowledge of how stroke can affect people, drunkenness, dementia, Alzheimer disease or mind bending drugs can affect people. Judicial Notice should be taken of how general and wide can be the effects and that expert evidence is required. As the Onus is upon the Decision Maker to extend natural Justice, aka Due Process, the onus is upon the Decision Maker to obtain sufficient and necessary expert evidence. In the present committal, magistrate Kluck M. did not, so hence the whole proceeding is ultra vires and all decisions void ab initio . Clearly, he was not assisted by the prosecution to ensure a fair hearing. However, I contend that the magistrate cannot rely upon that, when disability has been raised. Kluck M. did not act appropriately when I was in court. His later conduct when Kluck M. was attempting to “rescue” the hearing well after it had become a nullity and when it could not be rescued, shows that he did not do what he could have done at an earlier time.

  8. I submit that it will be Disability Discrimination by the Court of Appeal to force me to go to yet more proof at say the HCA and/or the Committee in Geneva.

  9. I submit that there is good reason to believe that this whole prosecution was Disability Discrimination. There is a high stench to the whole matter.

  10. I contend that but for the Sec 54A above in paragraph 174., it would be unlawful for any person to request the disabled person to produce evidence of their disability or to produce evidence of how that disability affects them detrimentally. 

  11. I am sure the Court will agree that indicia in R v Presser [1958] VR 45 at 48 are pertinent to this consideration.

  12. The indicia of these standards are:

    1. An ability to understand the basic nature of the charge.
    2. An ability to plead to the charge and exercise a right of challenge.
    3. An ability to generally understand the nature of the proceedings, ie that there is to be an inquiry as to whether the accused did what is charged with doing.
    4. An ability to follow the course of the proceedings, although not in any sense requiring a particular competence in doing so, ie “to understand what is going on in court in a general sense”.
    5. An ability to understand “the substantial effect” of evidence against him.
    6. An ability to “make his defence or answer the charge”.
    7. An ability to instruct counsel in the sense of “letting counsel know what his version of the facts is and, if necessary, telling the court what it is”.
  13. I have brain damage. An extremely well known consequence of brain damage is that the disabled person fatigues very quickly, at whatever their damaged brain is capable of doing at all. It can be readily understood logically. All people without brain damage will find they still fatigue. For the thinking intelligently that a person with brain damage would be able to do, it would be reasonable to believe that the brain damage may cause some adverse effect in that they could not do that thinking as well. Quicker fatigue would be a reasonable conclusion of how the detriment may transpire. It is suggested that improved intellectual performance is likely to occur with an increasing degree of brain damage. The Court of Appeal can take Judicial Notice of this aspect. This is so in my case. I was denied a Fair Tribunal by Kluck.

  14. As demonstrated coram Kluck, when fatigued, I am unable to“make my defence or answer the charge”. When I am not fatigued I can. I have four undergraduate degrees gained since my brain damage, with many high distinctions in Mathematics.

  1. These seven indicia are the criteria in considering Fitness to plead/stand trial, a Question of Fact, so a jury decides this question under Sec20B Crimes Act 1914 and per s 613 Criminal Code 1899 (Qld).

  2. These seven indicia would have relevance to Fair Hearing as the reason such a person is not fit to stand trial would be that if a trial occurred it would not be fair by our standards. 

  3. The highlighted point 6 is relevant in my case; not completely at all times, but for some of the time and during those times, when I am fatigued, especially as I am an unrepresented  defendant, [and the defendant cannot be blamed for being unrepresented].

  4. The Fitness to stand trial is a Question of Fact but is based upon expert evidence.  For the magistrate to make his decision of what accommodations are needed, expert evidence is needed and I contend that that is not the responsibility of the defendant.  I reiterate. That is not a question for which the defendant must supply the evidence.

  5. The magistrate cannot make a decision that  a person is unfit to be tried, he has to refer it elsewhere for that decision.  The point of the Avery case was the the Justices Act 1886 was silent on that point.  That was a cop out by magistrates as Avery's mental state was a disability per the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 which applied to the magistrates.  Yet magistrates made repeated breaches of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992.

  6. Kluck M repeatedly tried to argue me into submitting to his railroading me, when I became mentally fatigued.  Because he railroaded me, forced me to try to continue when I was fatigued, I became mentally exhausted, and could not recover for the fourth day of the hearing.  By that stage, the hearing was ultra vires and anything further would be void ab initio.

  7. I contend that coram Kluck, I do not need to prove, or provide expert evidence of, what my state of fatigue was at that time.  My contention is that it is all ultra vires as Kluck M. failed to follow the correct procedure.

  8. I will give the Court of Appeal some gratis advice on the Decision in the Melissa Avery case.  Despite the Justices Act 1886 being silent on the matter of fitness to Plead, There is other relevant law, including common law of due Process, and Commonwealth Law of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992.

  9. The HCA Decision in Kirk meant that the Court of Appeal, as a "constitutional court" is required to provide supervision of the lower courts in its state, Queensland.  The Court of Appeal should have advised how each magistrate should have decided rather than lament the "hiatus" in the "existing criminal justice system".  Since magistrates are clearly unable to work it out for themselves, the Court of Appeal should have provided a detailed "recipe" of the correct manner of handling such cases which may occur in the future.  Such may also reduce the resources that the Court of Appeal must utilize in the future in similar situations when appealed.  The Court of Appeal should have provided better guidance in its supervisory role.

  10. All the following subsections of the disability, in relation to a person, means:
    (a) total or partial loss of the person’s bodily or mental
    functions; or

    (e) the malfunction, malformation or disfigurement of a part of
    the person’s body; or
    (f) a disorder or malfunction that results in the person learning
    differently from a person without the disorder or
    malfunction; or
    (g) a disorder, illness or disease that affects a person’s thought
    processes, perception of reality, emotions or judgment or that
    results in disturbed behaviour;


    Hence, she is disabled.  Magistrates must be responsive to the Disability Discrimination Act 1992.  Did all those Toowoomba magistrates not realise that to provide natural justice they needed to determine any accommodations they must provide?  Did they each expect
    Melissa Avery to tell them herself, or did they feel they could do as they did because Melissa did not arrange to provide "expert medical evidence".

  11. In the Melissa Avery case, the magistrates were in error, to accept her pleas of guilty, and all pleas, sentences and penalties are ultra vires and void ab initio.   Rather than advise the magistrates of what they should have done, as part of its supervisory role, the Court of Appeal simply relied upon later, subsequent evidence, to make the correct decision for Melissa Avery, but in doing thus, the Court of Appeal failed in its important constitutional supervisory role.

  12. On numerous occasions Kluck M. denied me my rights of accommodation of my special needs resulting from my disabilities. Thus, Kluck M. denied me a Fair Hearing.

  13. In a similar way that a person who is unfit to be tried cannot be railroaded by a magistrate, so a person who is disabled to the extent that “they cannot think straight” cannot also be railroaded. Only one occasion need to be established to extinguish the hearing as void ab initio.

  14. One occasion occurred from line 25 of page 173 Appeal Record Book, and continuing,

  15. Kluck M.'s comment at line 45 page 173 must be doubted.

    BENCH: “Well, I don't - I don't know you from any other appearances, Mr Mathews, other than today, so I can't comment on what's your normal demeanour is like.”

  16. Kluck M. had observed me earlier in the day. I believed that I would have appeared, by then, to be hesitant and grossly disorganized. I did not realize I acted, like that when fatigued, in the way, as later indicated by Kluck M. at line 38 Page 424 Appeal Record Book:

    [if he] still seeks to stand mute at the Bar Table for - for minutes at a time.”

  17. I am realising now that when I am fatigued and I cannot think, I do not notice the passage of time. I guess it is like being asleep with my eyes possibly open, but maybe I have them closed. It is the state in some aspects of being a zombie. I really am trying to do the best I can.

  18. At page 249 line 23 Appeal Record Book, Kluck M. further discriminated against me;

      BENCH: You're becoming repetitious, Mr Mathews. I'm going to

ask you to move on from that topic, because you canvassed that

- these issues this morning and after lunch. I direct you to

move on to another topic.

DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.

BENCH: Do you have any further questions for the witness, Mr

Mathews?

DEFENDANT: I do, your Honour. My mind is going blank.

BENCH: Well, if you don't - if you don't ask one soon, I'm

going to treat your cross-examination at an end - as at - as

being at an end.

DEFENDANT: My mind is blank. I'm - it happens and I mean,

I'm - I had been - you know, having to concentrate

consistently today and yesterday and it's not in accordance

with my - the adaptation I have worked - evolved for my -

yeah, with my disability, your Honour.

I know I have more questions for this witness, your Honour.

But my mind is blank at the moment.

BENCH: What do they relate to?

DEFENDANT: To the evidence, your Honour but I'm - it's - it

is my disability, your Honour. I - it - can't do anything

about it. I wished I didn't have it. I - you know-----

BENCH: Well, you can get some assistance in these

proceedings.

DEFENDANT: With concentrating?

BENCH: With assisting you in running your case. But you've

told me on the review that you don't trust solicitors so we

can take it that you're not going to be legally represented

ever in these proceedings, at least. So, you have got no one

to take notes with you and prompt you - take notes for you and

prompt you?

DEFENDANT: Well, no, I don't, your Honour.


  1. As the hearing progressed, my degree of fatigue escalated and my concentration waned further. Between page 221 line 44 and page 374 line11, of the Appeal Record Book, Kluck M. railroaded me with 15 commands of “Ask another question”, when I was unable due to my inability to concentrate due to my brain damage, and my Special Needs not being accommodated. Being forced to continue to try, escalated my fatigue into mental exhaustion.

  2. That was torture for me; real torture.

  3. This is a known form of torture; causing mental fatigue, but for a person without brain damage it takes a much greater period of time to reach that point. It is a breach of my Human Rights to be tortured. It is egregious that I should be tortured in a court of law.


  1. Magistrate needlessly harassed me in regard to my assistance dogs when there was no need. This caused me to have to concentrate on more, when that is my particular weakness. He stated at page 246 line 50:

    BENCH: Is your dog Brian - Mr Mathews-----

DEFENDANT: He'll be all right. Yeah, yeah. He's okay. He's

just - yeah, if that's annoying, I'll hold-----

BENCH: He's only for - if he's on good behaviour. He has to

go if he's not.

DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.

BENCH: Keep him under control.

DEFENDANT: Beg your pardon?

BENCH: Keep him under control.

DEFENDANT: Yes, yes, yes. Will do.

BENCH: Is there a question out of that, Mr Mathews? You've

asked for something to be brought up.

  1. Later at page 424 line 4, Kluck M. and Hunter agree:

    BENCH: Well, we have - we have to see what special measures

he has in place. I mean, he already has his assistance dogs

in Court-----

MR HUNTER: Mmm.

BENCH: -----which haven't disrupted the proceedings-----

MR HUNTER: No; granted.

BENCH: -----so there's been no problem there.

  1. At page 259 Line 22, the following discriminatory exchange occurred:

    BENCH: Yes, Mr Mathews?

DEFENDANT: -----you commented the other day about the dogs

just being a disturbance at some time, maybe. In fact, it's

similar to the - you know, the canary in the coal mine. They are aware of my sensitivities.

BENCH: Yes.

DEFENDANT: And, so, if sometime they may seem to be

disruptive, it's because they realise that my - I'm failing in - because they - they sense - because we're together all the time, they - they sense how I am.

BENCH: Well, whatever the cause-----

DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.

BENCH: -----I won't allow them to disrupt the proceedings.

DEFENDANT: Well, what I'm saying, your Honour, is if they do seem to be disrupting the proceedings, it's because I really shouldn’t be able to continue, because I'm - I'm becoming – my abilities are declining to such an extent they become aware of it.

BENCH: Mmm. But whatever the cause, they will not disrupt

these proceedings.

DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour. Sit down.

BENCH: Is there anything else?

DEFENDANT: Well, what I'm saying, your Honour, is that if

that was the case, then, you know, we shouldn’t continue

because of-----

BENCH: Oh, so are you saying that their disrupting the

proceedings means we should stop?

DEFENDANT: Because - well, because my - my - because I am-----

BENCH: Yes, I understand what you're saying. But what I'm

saying is-----

DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.

BENCH: -----those animals are only allowed in this Court-----

DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour.

BENCH: -----if they do not disrupt the proceedings.

DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour. But all I'm - yeah, what I was

saying is, if they do, it's because-----

BENCH: And if it happens regularly enough, they'll have to

go.

DEFENDANT: They are indicating that I am-----

BENCH: I understand what you're saying.

DEFENDANT: Well, I - I should not really be continuing, and I

would be making a submission at that point.

BENCH: Yes, I - I understand that. I understand that.

DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honour. Okay. I'd be making that

submission at that time. That's all I'm saying, your Honour.

Thank you.

BENCH: But if - look, simply because the dogs are disrupting,

it means that they have to go, but you'll have to come back.

DEFENDANT: But, if - at that point, they do - they - it would

be because I would not be able to continue, at that-----

BENCH: Yes, Mr Mathews.

DEFENDANT: -----point in time.

BENCH: Is there anything else?

DEFENDANT: No, your Honour.

BENCH: Okay. Yes, Mr Hunter.

DEFENDANT: I just want to make that point clear.

BENCH: Call your next witness.

DEFENDANT: Thank you, your Honour.


  1. My contention is that I did not have to provide expert medical evidence coram Kluck M. , as apparently required by Kluck M. and the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecution's Shane Hunter and I do not need to provide it here to the Court of Appeal. [See Appeal Record Book Page 424 line 1.]

  2. Hunter's qualification of “contemporary” [See Appeal Record Book Page 423 line 16.], is a recognition by Hunter, of all the evidence of my disabilities that was in documents in exhibits provided by the prosecution, coram Kluck M and now coram Your Honours, and in the reports to which I had referred the Court and Prosecution in my submission for 10th August, 2010, AND REQUIRED that THE COURT TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THEM: VIZ:

    a recent report from Dr Rob Moyle.  He refers to previous documents.  Those previous documents are public documents.  They include and are included amongst:
    http://HaigReport.com/MyReports/20050729 DrBennettReCATscan.JPG
    http://HaigReport.com/MyReports/19990730DrHazellsReport.pdf
    http://HaigReport.com/MyReports/20051005DrHazellReport.pdf
    http://HaigReport.com/MyReports/20060410CMCapproveBCCtrespass.pdf
    http://HaigReport.com/MyReports/20051108LSCBritonapprovesBCCtrespasserrorreTolt.pdf
    http://haigreport.com/page9reInfoCommapproveBCCtrespass.pdf
    http://HaigReport.com/MyReports/20050729 DrBennettReCATscan.JPG
    http://HaigReport.com/MyReports/20060403reOSADrIanBrownreduced.jpg
    http://HaigReport.com/MyReports/20071025DrMoyletoCommunityMentalHealthNoBenefitBiologicalTreatmentsEccentric.JPG
    http://haigreport.com/MyReports/20071025DrMoyletoCommunityMentalHealthNoBenefitBiologicalTreatmentsEccentric.JPG

    http://HaigReport.com/MyReports/20070426DrMoyleReSpecialNeedsAssessmentEmailExpediteCommunicationsDerailmentThinkingFaceToFaceTelephone_cr01_tn451x640.jpg

  3. The evidence is on the two CDs that were exhibits coram Kluck M.

  4. I had obtained many medical reports disclosing the nature and extent of my disabilities going back in time to 1967. I believe those Medical reports are now online.

  5. Queensland police had purported to download some of that material.

  6. They did download many medical reports of my disability.

  7. Since my disability extended back to 1967 and the reports are relatively recent, and by the nature of my disability of brain damage, as evidenced in those reports now coram the Court of Appeal, I will not improve from the present.

  8. Hunter's demand for “contemporary” reports was clearly to cause me problems and hassles which I am less able to manage due to my disabilities.

  9. What is relevant here is Statement on the record by Kluck M., PAGE 175 Line 26: of the Appeal Record Book:

    BENCH: “Look, the only thing I know is from the correspondence between you and the Chief Magistrate about your dogs, is on file there, and you go into your disabilities there.”


  1. Your Honours can take heed and Judicial Notice that neurological conditions of brain damage disabilities are permanent in nature, in a similar way that Melissa Avery's condition was found by the Mental Health Tribunal to be permanent.

  2. The documents on those two CDs have not been indexed, coram the Court of Appeal. That is not my fault.

  3. I may be able to find the URL/hyperlink to those documents, but then I would have to gain the leave of the court. I will use the electronic path name on the CD index to indicate each document.

  4. It is not a matter of simply being thankful for small mercies; for the merest modicum of accommodation. All Special Needs must be accommodated up to the point where to do more would cause unjustifiable hardship. Token accommodation is no accommodation.

  5. Will the Court of Appeal force me to continue to use what time I have left in my life to proceed in this charade of the Australian Government attacking me and my disability, after the Australian Government has defrauded me, a disabled old man, of his home, and now forced me to engage in this charade.

  6. Question of Law v Question of Fact re Fair Hearing

  7. There is an onus and I submit the paramount duty upon a magistrate is to dispense Due Process. The onus is fully upon the magistrate.

  8. The onus is not upon the disabled defendant to know his special needs. As is readily understood, and of which Judicial Notice should be had, disabled defendants with the many faceted and insidious disability of brain damage aka Acquired Brain Injury, will often not know much about their Special Needs, and are very unlikely to know the optimum set of Special needs for their circumstance, and for the particular situation pertaining at that time. It is basic that Special needs are a function of the situation or environment in which the disabled person finds himself, for any given disability. It is a matter of trial and error to determine the optimum set of coping measures or adjustments, for any particular disability.

  9. It is the province of an expert to guide the court in this respect/

  10. Because of this, not knowing his special needs, many disabled persons with brain damage are exceedingly vulnerable and unwittingly leave themselves open to discrimination, and being cheated and defrauded.

  11. Whether or not a hearing is fair may be a Question of Law. I am not questioning my Fitness to be tried, but contend that consideration of the seven indicia in R v Presser is relevant. Some guidance can be gained by considering the Question of Fitness to stand Trial, which is a Question of Fact. It is not fair hearing to have a defendant who is not fit to be tried.

  12. If he is claiming disability discrimination in a subsequent complaint to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission now called Australian Human Rights Commission, the onus may be upon a disabled plaintiff to prove that he is disabled and the circumstances of that disability, but the alleged discriminator cannot require evidence of the extent of the disability, except Disability Discrimination Act 1992 Sec54A.

  13. Further, in such a hearing coram the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission now called Australian Human Rights Commission, the onus is upon the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission now called Australian Human Rights Commission to accommodate the complainant's Special needs, AND to know what they are for his appearance coram the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission now called Australian Human Rights Commission.

  14. My contention is that Kluck M did not abide his Duty or the onus upon him.

  15. The Court of Appeal will be aware of the Appeal coram the Court of Appeal last year [R v Mathews [2010] QCA 196], regarding the Topsy Turvy, sentence first - verdict afterwards charade coram Ehrich M. on 1st June, 2005. That hearing was in regard to the arrest of me by Rantala on the occasion of his performing the Armed Robbery of me on 29th November, 2004.

  16. For that trial coram Ehrich M., I had subpoenaed the Brisbane City Council to produce that letter

    E:\RussellMATHEWS-17July09\haigreport.com/20041125BCCentrynotice_cr01.jpg

    and a Court order, [if one existed, as should have been the case], approving the entry to my property on the occasion of my arrest. [See Court of Appeal 196 of 2010.] Rantala has now testified that there was no court order. See Page 388 line 33 Appeal Record Book.

  17. The arrest of me by Rantala was unlawful as it occurred as part of illegal entry to my property and the theft of my possessions. At no time did the police produce any evidence to court and on one occasion advised they had no evidence to offer.

  18. The purpose of the unorthodox conduct by Ehrich M. on that occasion was to pervert the course of justice and to permit the fraud to which I have been subjected, prior to that time, and since, including these charges, to continue unchecked.

  19. All persons knowingly involved in that process have intended to pervert the course of justice.

  20. These four charges are clearly a miscarriage of justice.

  21. I refer now to the previous discussion re the disorganized prosecution as in paragraphs 112. to 124. inclusive.

  22. The evidence shows that these four charges were not the response to an obvious complaint.

  23. These four charges resulted from an informal complaint from Anthony Gett of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions [Appeal Record Book page 188 line 8] to Queensland police solicitor, Paxton Booth [page 188 line 1 Appeal Record Book].

  24. Anthony Gett is keen to gain a high profile by being, for the time being a sycophant in many instances, to people in positions of power that could assist his promotion to the judiciary.

  25. Policeman Brendan Read advises that more charges are pending. [Page 189 line 49 Appeal Record Book]

  26. At Page 190 line 13 Appeal Record Book Brendan Read advises that he is aware that there are judges awaiting the outcome of these charges before they decide what to do. Read refers to these as complaints at Page 190 line 4. So when is a complaint not a complaint. Are they each awaiting an invitation like the ones Rantala and Antony received?

  27. #BerendanReadDiscussesFurtherCharges

    #BrendanReadDiscussesFurtherChargesWithCommonwealthDPP

    #BrendanReadAdvisesTheseFourChargesCameDirectlyToHim

    #DetectiveSergeantStevenBignellAdvisedMoreChargesAwaitingOutcomeOfTheseFourCharges

    #BrendanReadConfirmedThatJudgesAreWaitingInTheTheWingsToPursueCharges

  28. True to form, Anthony Gett played the sycophant to the committees for the 20th International Conference in 2006 for the International Society for the Reform of Criminal Law

    [ http://haigreport.com/DistrictCourtKerryOBrien/ISRCL_MembersDirectorsPromotesEvilWickedInternationalJudicialFraudsters.php#InternationalSocietyReformCriminalLaw ]

    handling the Secretarial work, so to be in closer contact will Committee Members. VIZ:

    Please address all Conference correspondence to:
    Commonwealth D.P.P.
    Attention: Anthony Gett
    ISRCL 2006
    GPO Box 847
    Brisbane QLD 4001, Australia
    fax: +61 7 3229 4124
    email: isrcl2006@cdpp.gov.au

  29. At Page 168 line 50 Appeal Record Book, Brendan Read again advises that there are judges awaiting the outcome to proceed with complaints.

  30. The judges on the committees for the 20th International Conference in 2006 for the International Society for the Reform of Criminal Law

    [ http://haigreport.com/DistrictCourtKerryOBrien/ISRCL_MembersDirectorsPromotesEvilWickedInternationalJudicialFraudsters.php#InternationalSocietyReformCriminalLaw ]

    are relevant.

    The Hon. Chief Justice Paul de Jersey AC, Chief Justice of Queensland, Brisbane
    The Hon. Chief Judge Patricia Wolfe, Chief Judge of the District Court of Queensland, Brisbane
    The Hon. Justice Jeffrey Spender, Federal Court of Australia, Brisbane
    Judge Marshall Irwin, Chief Magistrate, Magistrates Court of Queensland

  31. All of this information is publicly available on the internet at International Society for the Reform of Criminal Law.

  32. All re the International Society for the Reform of Criminal Law is information in the public domain and I request the Court of Appeal to take JN of it.

  33. I know Her Honour Chief Judge Patsy Wolfe CDCJ and Spender J. have acted illegally, and deceitfully while Her Honour Chief Judge Patsy Wolfe CDCJ was counsel for Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission now called Australian Human Rights Commission in 1992 coram Spender j., towards me.

  34. They chose to ignore filed attachments to the Affidavit of John Joseph Armstrong of Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission now called Australian Human Rights Commission, which made the decision coram Spender void ab initio and so unenforceable. At all material times, Spender and Her Honour Chief Judge Patsy Wolfe CDCJ knew I was disabled with brain damage.

  35. A few years later, the corrupt registry of the Federal Court in Brisbane collaborated with the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission now called Australian Human Rights Commission to remove the prejudicial documents from the affidavit and replace them with innocuous documents. The affidavit and attachments were taken apart and the pages proving the deceit of Spender and Her Honour Chief Judge Patsy Wolfe CDCJ removed and replaced in the registry building of the Federal Court of Australia.

  36. That this has been done can be proven in many different ways.

  37. This now begs the question of how His Honour Judge O'Brien DCJA was chosen in the District Court to consider my cases, and whether Her Honour Chief Judge Patsy Wolfe CDCJ had anything to do with that decision. I am sure Her Honour Chief Judge Patsy Wolfe CDCJ would not risk herself being challenged, as I would do. His Honour Judge O'Brien DCJA is the DCJA and second in line to Her Honour Chief Judge Patsy Wolfe CDCJ. It is reported that they both get on well together.

  38. It is a reasonable proposition that as CDCJ, Her Honour Chief Judge Patsy Wolfe CDCJ would have a say in who it was that considered a particular case.

  39. Her Honour Chief Judge Patsy Wolfe CDCJ had a clear interest in this campaign by Anthony Gett.

  40. Clearly the prosecution case was poorly assembled as shown in paragraphs 112. to 124. inclusive.  It was patched together as shown in paragraphs 112. to 124. inclusive.

  41. The motivation behind this case was the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.

  42. Given that this was such a poorly prepared prosecution, it is reasonable to expect that the prosecution expected a corrupt hearing and corrupt decision as occurred 1st June, 2005 coram Magistrate Walter Harvey Ehrich, See Court of Appeal 196 of 2010.

  43. Given that JUDGE Marshall IRWIN, Chief Magistrate, at the time of THE SWEARING-IN OF MAGISTRATES COLIN JOHN STROFIELD AND KEVIN JOSEPH PRIESTLY AS MAGISTRATES OF QUEENSLAND at BRISBANE on 06/03/2008 was relaxed about, and in fact lauded the practice of police and many magistrates to caucus, it is also reasonable to believe that caucusing of police with magistrates is a regular occurrence in Queensland Magistrates Courts.

  44. This speech by Judge Marshall Irwin is suggestive of corruption in Queensland Magistrates courts. 

  45. I quote:

"It is in this capacity as Queensland Police Service solicitor that I, [Judge Marshall Irwin] and other Magistrates, have had a close contact with his Honour [Magistrate Colin John Strofield] because he was the principal point of liaison for us with the Queensland Police Service and as a result it has been possible to resolve a number of 'issues', which obviously arise from time to time in the administration of a Court which relate to the Queensland Police Service in the mutual interests, of both the Court, the Police Service and the community through Colin's involvement and his advice and the application of the common sense which I have mentioned previously."

  1. So, are we as Queenslanders now subject to “Common Sense”, [common to whom], as well as Common Law? That adds another whole new dimension to the Judicial Process in Queensland, maybe also in Australia.

  2. In law this is called 'caucusing'.  It completely debases the judicial process.  Accordingly, it is illegal, and because it is illegal and involves functions by authorities, it is CRIMINAL. Of course, magistrates have Judicial Immunity and cannot be touched by courts in civil or criminal proceedings.

  3. There is absolutely NO REASON that police and individual magistrates should be having informal private discussions, ON ANY MATTER. 

  4. Kluck M. was not in charge of this hearing. Kluck was subservient to Shane Hunter, albeit they attempted to act correctly as though Kluck M. was in control.

  5. Kluck M. was acting under direction.

  6. This case and prosecution was all a project owned and staged by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, who supplied and OPERATED the computer display equipment.[Page 189 line 49 Appeal Record Book]

  7. As Kluck M. did not have the real control and running of this hearing, he followed decisions taken by other as for instance re: [Page 310 line 01 Appeal Record Book]:

    BENCH: Well, I think it's a matter of convenience.”

  8. Clearly, that was not Kluck's decision. That decision was made in secret rather than open court.

  9. There was no discussion in Open Court as to how the documents on these CDs would be viewed and that it would be operated by a person provided by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.

  10. These arrangements did not just materialize but were organized in secret. It would appear, that Kluck M. was not even a party to those arrangements.

  11. The whole matter including screens and equipment and operation of the equipment was organized by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.

  12. Clearly, it was not the decision of Kluck M. that the equipment was operated as it was. Clearly, Kluck is not independent and is operating under the instructions of another or others. This is Jurisdictional Error. This exacerbates the evil in that I am disabled.

  13. I really would have relished the opportunity to cross examine police witnesses Read, Rantala, Antony and police stooges when I was not incapacitated due to my disability. Of course, it was intended to use my disability against me, to assist the police and Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to gain convictions against me..

  14. Sect20B Crimes Act 1914 is a logical Catch-22 situation.

  15. If it were to be argued that in a situation were a defendant with similar charges to the present, was in fact unfit to stand trial, but had spent some time in court attempting to cross- examine police witnesses before an appropriate party had raised the possibility of the defendant not being fit to stand trial, then that situation would be identical, in many respects, to the situation coram Kluck, and thus, although the hearing had become ultra vires because it had been unfair, that would not prevent the Sect20B Crimes Act 1914 referral, the proponent of that argument would be in error.

  16. In that hypothetical situation, it could be argued that prior to that time, the hearing had become ultra vires. That could very well be a valid point in all such cases making the referral void ab initio. It is unnecessary here to consider if that would be an impossible scenario. Regardless, that hypothetical situation is readily distinguished because long before the instant at which Kluck M. was of the opinion that I had raised my fitness to stand trial, which I deny totally, I had in fact raised the fact of my brain damage disabilities and had demanded my rights of accommodation of my special needs to avoid the continuation of the disability discrimination to which I had been subjected.

  17. To hold thus as has been proposed by Kluck M. et al, would, I contend, be the ultimate in disability discrimination of a disabled person with brain damage; to force such a person, to run the gauntlet of a Sect 20B Crimes Act 1914 trial, rather than accommodate their/his special needs. If that was the case, no magistrates court in Queensland need ever accommodate the special needs of a person disabled with brain damage. To do that, to deny that the hearing had become ultra vires, in this case, would be to increase the probability that a defendant who has been exploited of his possessions because he was disabled, vulnerable and isolated, and who has been set-up with trumped up charges, would suffer permanent loss of his possessions, and permit the perpetrators of the fraud to escape with fraudulent gains, as intended in this case.

  18. If the Court of Appeal disallows this appeal, no magistrates court in Queensland need ever accommodate the special needs of a person disabled with insidious brain damage, as when the defendant or his counsel raises the this disability with any evidence of same, the magistrate can hold that the defendant or his counsel has raised the question of his fitness to stand trial and make an order to refer the matter to the Mental Health Tribunal or District Court per Section 20B Crimes Act 1914. Alternatively, it will be a warning for such defendants not to raise the matter of his brain damage disability.

  19. For the reasons explained, Kluck M. in this situation, and in the general situation of the disability of insidious brain damage aka Acquired Brain Injury should have conducted a voir dire, with suitable expert witness, called by the court, in a similar way that expert evidence is called in the Distinct Court, in a Sect 20B Crimes Act of 1914 hearing to determine Fitness to stand trial, to determine the Special Needs of the defendant and the appropriate means to accommodate those Special Needs.

  20. I wonder if the eminent lawyers and judges on the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in Geneva would be happy with the actual outcome in my case.

  21. I am eager to have the atrocious situation of the way disabled persons with the insidious disability of brain damage are treated by magistrates and District Court judges in Queensland officially brought to the attention of the eminent members of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in Geneva.

  22. I request return of all my property taken from me in the same perfect condition is was in when removed from my possession.

  23. I request an order of the Court of Appeal, prohibiting further prosecution of me for these matters.

  24. The conduct subsequent to the 29th November, 2004 armed robbery of me, of the Queensland police, Magistrate Ehrich and the Commonwealth of Australia prosecution confirms that this armed robbery and exploitation of a disabled person were deliberate crimes against a disabled person by elements of the Australian Government, and not a simple mistake of law.



[Signed] Applicant

Date: 28th October, 2011

Place: Brisbane

________________________________________________________________________________

Outline of Argument for application for leave to appeal per the District Court Act 1967, s118

Filed on behalf of: Russell Gordon Haig Mathews

Address for service: 

Telephone: NIL Email=

Fax: NIL.

This is Page 35 of 35


 Menu:  Latest Update: Queensland's Court of Appeal: ON TRIAL!!

PHPincludesCourtOfAppealOnTrial/includedMenuCourtOfAppealOnTrial.php

Menu:  Latest Update: Queensland's Court of Appeal: ON TRIAL!!!!

  1. Affidavit for Court of Appeal: Why CDCJ Patsy Mary Wolfe Unfit to be a Judge due Judicial Fraud when barrister:
  2. Appeal to Court of Appeal CDCJ Patsy Wolfe Deny Refuse Recuse Apprehended Bias Form27:
  3. Appeal to Court of Appeal CDCJ Patsy Wolfe Deny Refuse Recuse Apprehended Bias Form29:
  4. Appeal to Court of Appeal CDCJ Patsy Wolfe Deny Refuse Recuse Apprehended Bias Form38 Adduce Evidence:
  5. Appeal to Court of Appeal CDCJ Patsy Wolfe Deny Refuse Recuse Apprehended Bias Affidavit Adduce Evidence:
  6. Appeal to Court of Appeal DCJA Kerry O'Brien Deny Qualified Privilege Form27:
  7. Appeal to Court of Appeal DCJA Kerry O'Brien Unlawful Order Disability Discrimination Apprehended Bias Form27:
  8. Appeal to Court of Appeal DCJA Kerry O'Brien Unlawful Order Disability Discrimination Apprehended Bias Form29:
  9. Appeal to Court of Appeal DCJ Spurious Michael Shanahan Refuse Recuse Apprehended Bias Form27:
  10.  Appeal 25th November, 2011: Police Fraud & Disability Discrimination by Magistrate Paul Kluck, District Court Judge Kerry John O'Brien, & CDPP's Shane Hunter:
  11.  Outline of Argument & Submission asAt 31st October, 2011 Appeal Qld Police Fraud & Disability Discrimination by Magistrate Paul Kluck, District Court Judge Kerry John O'Brien, & CDPP Shane Hunter:
  12. Respondent's CDPP's Shane Hunter's Lies & Dishonesty in Outline of Argument for CA201/2011 Qld Court of Appeal re Qld police Fraud & Disability Discrimination: Magistrate Paul Kluck; District Court Judge Kerry John O'Brien KJOB:
  13. My Response to Lies & Dishonesty in Respondent's CDPP's Shane Hunter's Outline of Argument for CA201/2011 Qld Court of Appeal re Qld police Fraud & Disability Discrimination: Magistrate Paul Kluck; District Court Judge Kerry John O'Brien KJOB:
  14. Transcript of My Oral Submission on the day, 25th November, 2011, in Qld Court of Appeal, against Qld police corrupt charges to coverup Qld Government Armed Robbery of disabled citizen, before Magistate Paul M Kluck:
  15. Court of Appeal Short Hearing 25th November, 2011; Reserved Decision; Possible Way Forward - Conclusive Evidence: Armed Robbery; International Scrutiny::
  16. Decision: 13th December, 2011 [James S Douglas & Margaret White], Court of Appeal division of Supreme Court of Queensland Mathews v Commissioner of Police [2011] QCA 368 CA No 201 of 2011: :
  17. My Future Actions, after the 13/12/11 Refusal by Qld Court of Appeal of my Appeal::
  18. My request to the Qld Attorney-General to Honour His Duty to Apply to the Court to Set Aside The Miscarriage of Justice, Vexatious Litigant Order:
  19. Decision 12th August,2005: Justice Margaret White Order Remove To Conceal Fraud By Brisbane City Council & Qld Government BS4337_2005_QSC05-222Mathews_v_Morgan_Ors:
  20. Is Justice Margaret White Using Her Judicial Immunity To REPEATEDLY_Conceal Crime By Her Favoured University Of Queensland to StealHome Of Disabled Old Man?:
  21. The Decision of Glory of the Queensland Court of Appeal:
  22. Transcript: 20050601 Magistrates Court Transcript Fraud by Magistrate Walter Harvey Ehrich, [aka Magistrate Topsy Turvey, al la Queensland Court of Appeal], John Peden, Ms Prasley & Police Sergeant Terence G IND:
  23. Transcript: 20081217 Magistrates Court Transcript of Fraud & Farce byMagistrate Walter Harvey Ehrich & Police Sgt Cox:
  24. Index: Queensland's Court of Appeal: ON TRIAL!!
  25. CORRUPT GOVERNMENT Judge Henry George Fryberg protects CORRUPT GOVERNMENT ARMED ROBBERS:
  26. Earlier Mentions of Henry George Fryberg: the former article explains a little extra:


See **** The EVIDENCE **** that ex-police cop parasite Peter Dutton, Liberal Party Federal MP for Dickson, tried, but failed, to close down our website disclosing labor ELECTORAL FRAUD, using corrupt Qld cops.

  Australian Federal Court Judge Jeffrey Spender is criminal scum. See the EVIDENCE

BREAKTHROUGH in Daniel Morcombe case.
We
SCOOPED Channel 7, TV & EXPOSED POLICE CORRUPTION.

See the photo PROOF
 E-Contact us to tell us what you think:

This website is part of the web-presence of

Russell G H Mathews BCom BSc LLB BA

View list of SOME of my WEBSITES and Bulletin Boards

Email: http://HaigReport.com/eml.html

SEE WHAT I PLAN TO DO ABOUT IT!

Image

CLICK on image => My Election HOMEPAGE


Russell G H Mathews BCom BSc LLB BA

View list of my WEBSITES and Bulletin Boards

Email: http://HaigReport.com/eml.html

See our LATEST TOPICS:

HOT NEWS: HARD EVIDENCE:  Joe Hockey & FASCIST CRIMINAL congress

I have been bullied my whole life.  See the reason.  That means that I have had fights my whole life.  You can realize the I detest bullies; that is, bullies that are personal to me, politically domestically which includes corrupt polticians, judges and ,MAGISTRATES  & MAGISTRATESmagistrates, more magistrates, lawyers, lawyers, and police, police, and other public sector parasites, plus, politically INTERNATIONALLY.

20041129 more reduced and cropped photo police Rantala.jpgDCP_0517 Big Big Big A Constable Antony.jpg

















 CORRUPT ARMED ROBBER [with violence] Henri Elias Rantala. 

[see NEW Website on Henri Rantala]  

"PPheeeeew , that is HUUUUGE", he whispered.

Monica Antony [BigA for Antony]

Corrupt Cops  [talk about being the BUTT of humour]   'Does Swine flu [flew] have anything to do with the POLICE AIR WING? '  and who said, 'PIGS WILL FLY'.

SEE WHAT I PLAN TO DO ABOUT IT!

My Qualifications

       Bachelor of Commerce [BCom] [The University of Queensland] - 1978
       Bachelor of Science [BSc] [The University of Queensland]
- 1997
       Bachelor of Laws [LLB]
[The University of Queensland] - 2003
       Bachelor of Arts [BA]
[The University of Queensland] - 2003


   Police Constable Henri Elias Rantala aka 'Minge'  aka 'Dummy'  
20041129 more reduced and
            cropped photo police Rantala.jpg About this parasite , Corrupt cop Henri Elias Rantala aka Minge, aka dummy [he dumped his superior Superintendent Dale Pointon right into the CORRUPTION QUAGMIRE], Qld police prosecutor now prosecuting exclusively traffic charges, [I hear],, now groomed to perpetuate corruption in the Queensland police and Queensland government.
Rantala is a rare case within the Queensland Police Service [QPS] in that he he was "groomed" and "fast tracked" to continue the fraud, corruption and bribery that is the QPS within the wholesale corruption that is the Queensland labor Government.  [One major way to reduce this is the restoration of the Upper House  to the Queensland Parliament, the Legislative Council, as a democratically elected house.  It was abolished by the Queensland labor government in 1922.]  Rantala was groomed to be a police prosecutor, which is one position where police can be particularly corrupt.  As Prosecutors, they had Advocates Immunity.  I have been able to have this parasite under oath in the witness box subject to my cross examination.   In his evidence in chief at "Call Henri Elias Rantala" he produced a litany of lies.   My cross examination of him, and his replies thereto, at My Cross-Examination Of Corrupt Police Parasite Henri Elias Rantala,  are most instructive.  Considering all the subsequent events in the attempted corrupt cover-up of this gross crime of Armed Robbery by the Queensland Government, the extended period of planning activity that went into the perpetration of this Armed Robbery, and the fact that Rantala Left Indooroopilly Station from which he launched this Armed Robbery, targeting me, soon after in January2005, it appears Rantala was in integral part of this armed Robbery targeting me.  Just a few days prior, Douglas Porter, the then Registrar of The University of Queensland, for whom, as its Rep, Porter was orchestrating this Armed Robbery as a step towards stealing my beneficial ownership of my home, house and land, caused an attack on me and then called the police to me, and Rantala appeared..

 I will build in this caption here, the detail that is relevant to this despicable life form.  This caption will accompany the image of Henri Elias Rantala where ever it appears on our websites.  It will be progressively added to all previous representations of his photo.
We will build into this caption here, the detail that is relevant to this parasite .  Whereever this photo appears on new pages on our websites, this caption will accompany the image of Corrupt cop Henri Elias Rantala aka Minge, aka dummy [he dumped his superior Superintendent Dale Pointon right into the CORRUPTION QUAGMIRE], Qld police prosecutor now prosecuting exclusively traffic charges, [I hear],, groomed to perpetuate corruption in the Queensland police and Queensland government.   This caption will be progressively added to all previous representations of the photo of Corrupt cop Henri Elias Rantala aka Minge, aka dummy [he dumped his superior Superintendent Dale Pointon right into the CORRUPTION QUAGMIRE], Qld police prosecutor now prosecuting exclusively traffic charges, [I hear],, groomed to perpetuate corruption in the Queensland police and Queensland government. 



   Police Constable Monica Louise Antony aka 'Big A for Antony' 

DCP_0517 Big Big Big A
            Constable Antony.jpg
We will build into this caption here, the detail that is relevant to this twit brainwashed with a bidet .  Whereever this photo appears on new pages on our websites, this caption will accompany the image of Corrupt cop Monica Louise Antony aka BigA for Antony, SUPER DUMB FEMALE Just consider her answers in my cross-examination of her, now that the police hierarchy has shuffled her out of the way, so she can do no harm to police corruption by her inability to lie convincingly.   This caption will be progressively added to all previous representations of the photo of Corrupt cop Monica Louise Antony aka BigA for Antony, SUPER DUMB FEMALE Just consider her answers in my cross-examination of her, now that the police hierarchy has shuffled her out of the way, so she can do no harm to police corruption by her inability to lie convincingly. 


../CorruptMagistratesMenu.php ../Corrupt Police& Magistrates Menu.php An example of a CASCADING Drop Down Menu.

MENU: Rantala-Gate: Corrupt Police & Magistrates Mafia.

CDDM_StartMenu160.phpCDDM_StartMenu160.phpCDDM_StartMenu160.phpCDDM_StartMenu160.phpCDDM_StartMenu160.php

Dumb Cop Henri Rantala UPDATE:


SEE:    Rantala-Gate:  => Qld Police CORRUPTION COVER-UP
& FACE of    Rantala-Gate:

UPDATE:

More PROOF of SENIOR LEVEL POLICE Corruption in Qld

[and not just in Queensland:]
Dumb cop Henri Elias Rantala dumps Superintendent Pointon and Senior cops right into the CORRUPTION MIRE that is Queensland.



"The offensive material has been subsequently been maintained on the internet since that time until the present day.  I have been contacted by Superintendent Pointon, Officers from Ethical Standards Command, Security Intelligence Branch, State Crime Operations Command, relatives all asking question about the material from 2006 until the present day."

"The offensive material has been subsequently been maintained on the internet since that time until the present day.  I have been contacted by Superintendent Pointon, Officers from Ethical Standards Command, Security Intelligence Branch, State Crime Operations Command, relatives all asking questions about the material from 2006 until the present day."

../CorruptMagistratesMenu.php ../Corrupt Police& Magistrates Menu.php An example of a CASCADING Drop Down Menu.

MENU: Rantala-Gate: Corrupt Police & Magistrates Mafia.

CDDM_StartMenu160.phpCDDM_StartMenu160.phpCDDM_StartMenu160.phpCDDM_StartMenu160.phpCDDM_StartMenu160.php
This, above, has been stated in writing in a signed statement by the
Corrupt Police Prosecutor Henri Elias Rantala, dated 21st October, 2009; [20091021].   What he calls "offensive material" is the irrefutable PROOF that Police Officer Henri Elias Rantala, committed an ARMED ROBBERY.  This "offensive material" also includes MY REPORT TO POLICE OF ARMED ROBBERY, which they have ignored.  This statement by Rantala, is now PROOF that the police are AWARE OF THE ARMED ROBBERY and are ignoring my complaint of ARMED ROBBERY, AND BREAKING, ENTERING AND STEALING by Queensland Police and Government officials.   I am trained in law with an LLB apart from my other qualifications.  I know more law that these mug police officers.  The evidence, the  irrefutable PROOF,  is shown on these websites.  It shows that Rantala, while armed, ensured that thieves could ransack my home.  The fact that the thieves pretended they were from Brisbane City  Council is irrelevant, as they did not have a legal right to enter.  The Queensland Parliament sets the process for Council to enter private property.  This involved obtaining a COURT ORDER.  The armed robbers and thieves did not have a court order.  Australia is becoming a REAL POLICE STATE, when police believe they can over-ride STATUTE LAW passed by the legislature.  

That police ignore instances of ARMED ROBBERY, is not unique in Queensland.   Andrew Phillip Scipione the Commissioner of the New South Wales Police Force is GUILTY OF SIMILAR CRIME [cover-up] IN NSW as relates to the case below.



Thieves using ARMED POLICE to detain the owner of the property, and keep the owner of the property separated from his property while the thieves steal the property, happens regularly with Queensland Corrupt Police.   One case occurred on 15th September, 2005 in Cairns when the thieves from St Vincent de Paul Society, with whom Jim Tierney previously of JT's Gym in NSW, were operating a Joint Venture for Charitable Purposes, called "Vinnie's Gym", where Jim Tierney supplied his own labour and his own Gym equipment, valued many years previous, at over $1 million dollars worth.  The thieves from St Vincent de Paul Society had corrupt ARMED police attend and 'escort' Jim Tierney, AT GUN POINT, from his equipment and keep him from it, while they stripped the Gym of Jim Tierney's valuable gym equipment.

On 15th September, 2005,the ARMED police and sparmy callous hypocritical Brisbane based paid staff of St Vincent dePaul Society, arrived unannounced to steal Jim Tierney's one million dollars plus worth of gym equipment, by ostensibly 'closing' the gym. When one of the instructors asked what they should tell the group of very disabled people who were due in that afternoon, the answer from the sparmy hypocritical CEO of the thieving St Vincent dePaul Society was 'life is tough'. In an effort to calm the situation, "Enough," said Judith Tierney.


Police Armed Robbery Elsewhere

This has been a case of POLICE THUGGERY.  This, my case, is not a unique case of armed police using their position, to detain property owners, to enable thieves to rob them. Another documented case occurred in 2002 at Queanbeyan, with ARMED ROBBER scum pig Leslie Charles Gilroy  employed by Andrew Phillip Scipione the Commissioner of the New South Wales Police Force



../CorruptMagistratesMenu.php ../Corrupt Police& Magistrates Menu.php An example of a CASCADING Drop Down Menu.

MENU: Rantala-Gate: Corrupt Police & Magistrates Mafia.

CDDM_StartMenu160.phpCDDM_StartMenu160.phpCDDM_StartMenu160.phpCDDM_StartMenu160.phpCDDM_StartMenu160.php


  Directory re


 Tax & Investment Planning Services - 1982 to 1989
 [TIPS] [Townsville]


TIPS for TAX logo
 
T
ax & Investment Planning Services


About our first TIPS office in Townsville at 62-66 Railway Avenue, Townsville.
 
About our second TIPS office at 56 - 58 Thuringowa Drive, KIRWAN, Townsville.

    UPDATES:
 These updates will be dated, [what else, but], and be in order with the latest at the top.

[20081231]
Favicon.ico links to Website Index pages:
  [Just click on any logo/favicon to be taken to that particular Web-site.]

  Image             FISH        us  uk  nz Au  Ca   In                       



Our LATEST TOPICS:

    Listed here  20090804_0947GMT
       http://CorruptJudgeBrendanButlerChiefMagistrateCaucusingPoliceFraudAim.info

         http://CorruptJudgeMarshallIrwinChiefMagistrateCaucusingPoliceFraudAim.info

        
http://IndiaStudentAustraliaVisaPRScamShonkRipOffRaceFraudPrisonDeport.info
     

    Listed here  20090724_1103GMT

          http://DangerousLiaisonCapriCorruptQueenslandPoliceArmedHoldUpFraudCMC.info

          http://FlowerHartMichaelMeadowsFraudWCOWhiteIndustriesCaboolturePark.info

      
   http://CrimeMafiaPoliceProsecutorHenriRantalaMagistrateEhrichStrofield.info

    Listed here  20090712
       http://WalterHarveyEhrichCorruptMagistratePoliceFraudArmedRobberyTheft.info

         http://ColinJStrofieldCorruptMagistratePoliceFraudArmedRobberyTheftQld.info

       http://StVincentDePaulFraudBullyingPeterMaherJerryMcAuliffeMareeFell.info

    Listed here  20090601

Australian Public Sector CLICK HERE  Anti-Corruption Conference 2009

 CLICK HERE - Home of Fraud, Rort & Sin
 & sponsored by the corrupt partnership of the corrupt partners of Qld's CMC,  NSW's ICAC & WA's CCC.

 Allstralian Parliament
Member for TARDIS CLICK HERE
CLICK HERE  Russell Mathews BCom BSc LLB BA



    Listed here  20090525

Daniel Morcombe  Photo Evidence Update:

Police GAG Witness &
Police threaten Witness 

http://DanielMorcombePhotoEvidenceUpdatePoliceGagThreatenWitness.info

Beware of
CRIME STOPPERS

 
It Assists Corrupt Police, Political Crime & Criminal Fraud

  http://BewareCrimeStoppersAssistCorruptPolicePoliticCrimeCriminalFraud.info

  It Assists Corrupt Police, Political Crime & Criminal Fraud

    Listed here  20090520

    HOT NEWS: HARD EVIDENCE:  Joe Hockey & FASCIST CRIMINAL congress

    Joe Hockey & NSW Liberals Supports Lisa Chikarovski's

        Sewer Language Internet Bullying & INCITING MURDER

       This sewer mouth espousing slut language Lisa Chikarovski  espousing the slut language does great harm to Joe Hockey.

    Listed here 20090509:

TIPS for TAX logo
Tax & Investment Planning Services

  1.   *     Analysis of the 21st Century World Recession-Global Financial Economic Crisis
  2.   *   Free Advice How to SURVIVE 21st Century World Recession & PROSPER
  3.   *     Free Advice How to FIND a JOB & MAKE MONEY finding It
  4.   *     Free Small Business Advisory Service
  5.  *      Free T.I.P.S. for Tax & Investment Planning Service
  6.  *      FREE study Learn How To Do Own Personal Financial Planning Advice

   
    Listed here 20090503:




linksforumworldrecession
Links to our FORUMS regarding the 21st Century World Recession, SURVIVING IT & PROSPERING.
  1. 21st Century World Recession
  2. Analysis of the 21st Century World Recession
  3. FULL detail of the Analysis of 21st Century World Recession
  4. How to SURVIVE the 21st Century World Recession, & PROSPER
  5. In detail: How to SURVIVE the 21st Century World Recession, & PROSPER.
  6. Looking for Work: Looking for a Job:
  7. How to FIND A JOB, & MAKE MONEY doing it!!
  8. FULL detail: How to FIND A JOB, & MAKE MONEY doing it!!
  9. FULL detail: How to FIND A JOB, & MAKE MONEY FINDING it, and REAL MONEY doing it!!
  10. FULL DETAIL: Looking for Work: Looking for a Job:
  11. Small Business Advisory FORUM
  12. Full Description, Small Business Advisory Forum.
I have addressed this way forward, depending upon one's predilection, based on one's past actions or inclinations: Income from working for an 'employer' or working in one's own business.

  1. Looking for Work: Looking for a Job: How to FIND A JOB, & MAKE MONEY doing it!!
  2. Small Business Advisory FORUM
global footer

Themes of  Websites
for the
HAIG   REPORT: Group of Websites:
[We expect, in time, to have all of the thousands of pages on the
HAIG   REPORT: group of websites accessible from this Menu of THEMES. Eventually, there will be approximately 15 themes, each with an average of 15 to 20 websites/domains/directories, with each website/domain having an average of 20 pages. This would equate to 15 x (15 to 20) x 20 = 4,500 to 6,000 pages. This menu of Themes will be included near the bottom of each page, in time. With one line of code, strategically placed, this Menu of Themes is now on thousands of pages. We are continually and progressively adding pages to this Menu of Themes of website Menus.]

Menu: HaigReport'sThemes or Categories of the the Topics of the HaigReport Group of Websites:

The LATEST ADDITIONS are added to the top:


See  All 62 Domain Names in the HaigReport Group

Now here are the THEMES:



  1. International: Corrupt Politics & Corrupt religion:


  2. About HaigReport Group of Websites including
    Vote One Russell Mathews:


  3. Russell Mathews [BCom BSc LLB & BA] Commentary additional to the rest of these Websites:


  4. Legal Rights, & BLACKLISTS of parasite residents & tenants in rental accommodation:


  5. RAMPANT POLICE CORRUPTION Exposed by HaigReport Websites; Publicize Your Complaint Here:


  6. Other public sector corruption Exposed by HaigReport Websites:


  7. RELIGION Corruption CRIME & PAEDOPHILIA Exposed by HaigReport Websites:


  8. wankers & pony spankers Exposed by HaigReport Websites:


  9. Corrupt JUDGES, COURTS, & TRIBUNALS Exposed by HaigReport Websites:


  10. Corrupt LAWYERS Exposed by HaigReport Websites:


  11. Corrupt POLITICANS Exposed by HaigReport Websites:


  12. University of Qld Fraud & Corruption Exposed by HaigReport Websites:


  13. Corruption at other universities; Exposed by HaigReport Websites:


  14. Expose' of Other CORRUPTION, including TELSTRA, under influence of public sector parasites, as exposed by the HaigReport Group of Websites:


  15. Business Promoted by HaigReport Websites:


  16. Finance by HaigReport Websites:

This page is part of the Internet presence of

Russell G H Mathews BCom BSc LLB BA
View list of SOME of my WEBSITES and Bulletin Boards

Email: http://HaigReport.com/eml.html


SEE WHAT I PLAN TO DO ABOUT IT!


Image
CLICK on image => My Election HOMEPAGE