The pursuit of me by the Supreme Court of NSW for contempt has stepped up a notch with the court ordering me to serve all Australian Attorney-Generals with a Notice of a Constitutional Matter pursuant to section 78B of the Judiciary Act 1903.
This article is an update as to where the proceedings are at and also to drive home that the suppression orders put on the matter should never have been issued.
I was charged for contempt for allegedly calling a Justice Clifton Hoeben a paedophile and Registrar Christopher Bradford a paedophile and a bribe taker in court on the 3rd of February 2017. I have pleaded not guilty and deny the allegations against me.
I have used numerous precedents in my defence but the main one is Lange v ABC 1997 (HCA). (Click here to read more) The bottom line to the Lange v ABC High Court of Australia precedent is that laws that infringe on political communication are invalid. Political communication includes political corruption and also includes communication regarding government employees and judges are government employees.
The prosecution in effect argued in court that judges are above the law and what is said in court is not covered by the freedom of political communication as per Lange v ABC 1997 (HCA).
Put simply my defence is: 1. I didn’t say what they claim. 2. What I did say is protected by the implied freedom of political communication in the Australian Constitution. and 3. Even if I did say what they claim I would also be protected by the implied freedom of political communication in the Australian constitution.
The hearing for contempt was heard on the 4th of May and with further time allowed to file and serve further written submissions the matter has dragged on until this point. Now I have served the Attorney-Generals it could possibly be drawn out another month or two depending on a number of variables. (Click here to read my further submissions) and (Click here to read the further submissions of prosecution)
I regard this as a positive step whether or not the Attorney-General’s intervene as it shows that there should never have been a suppression order given it is now confirmed there is a political argument to be had and laws that infringe on political communication are invalid.
Background
I have written about this a number of times and if you are new to this story you can read the background by clicking on the below links to previous articles:
Chief Justice Bathurst has journalist charged with contempt for accusing him of corruption – 5/2/2017
Free speech and political speech is being suppressed in Australia by the NSW Supreme Court – 8/4/2017
The above photo was taken in 2008 and is on the front of my book “Love Letter from the Bar Table“. Justice Michael Moore was made aware of the photo as I filed it as part of an affidavit. He never charged me with contempt or even threatened to. So why am I now being charged for saying that Registrar Christopher Bradford takes bribes?
Neither Clifton Hoeben or Registrar Christopher Bradford have filed an affidavit in the case nor have they denied the allegations that they say I made. They have also not charged me or complained about the allegations I made against them in an article last year titled “Paedophile priest gets 3 months jail for raping 3 boys by NSW Supreme Court’s Justice Hoeben“ even though I wrote to them and let them know I would be publishing the allegations. So I take it they confirm that the allegations in the article is true and correct.
JUDICIARY ACT 1903 – SECT 78B – Notice to Attorneys-General (Click here to read more)
The below quote is on the Australian Government Solicitor’s website and explains how a Notice of a Constitutional matter works:
The Australian Government can become involved in constitutional litigation in either of 2 ways. First, the Government may be a party in its own right, where proceedings have been commenced by or against it. Second, the Commonwealth Attorney-General has a right to intervene on behalf of the Government in cases raising constitutional issues.
The Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) requires parties in such cases to give the Attorney-General notice of the constitutional issues (under section 78B) to allow a decision to be made on intervention by each Attorney-General (under section 78A).
In relation to possible interventions, AGS’s role includes considering notices given under the Judiciary Act and, in consultation with the Commonwealth Solicitor-General and other interested agencies, advising the AGD on whether the Attorney-General should intervene. This year AGS reviewed 259 notices given under s 78B of cases raising constitutional law issues.
The Attorney-General intervened under s 78A at the hearing of 9 cases in the High Court and 1 case in each of the Family Court, Victorian Supreme Court and Western Australian Court of Appeal and was a respondent to an appeal to the High Court where he had intervened in the court below.
AGS also advises the Australian Government on all submissions on constitutional law issues that are put to courts on behalf of Commonwealth agencies. This is to ensure that these submissions are accurate and apply Commonwealth constitutional policy consistently. (Click here to read more)
Responses from the Attorney-Generals
Justice Helen Wilson issued orders giving me until the 7th of June to serve the State and Federal Attorney-General’s the section 78B Notice of a Constitutional Matter. (Click here to see the Notice of a constitutional Matter that I sent to the A-Gs) The Federal Government have responded as per the below letter:
.
And the Queensland government responded saying that they will not intervene at the moment but if it gets to the High Court of Australia they will reconsider intervening. (Click here to read the QLD Government’s letter)
At this point the other States and Territories have not made a decision about intervening.
Issues raised by the Notice of a Constitutional Matter
The constitutional questions raised in my case and my viewpoints are:
1. Is what is said in court protected by the freedom of communication on matters of government and politics as per Lange v ABC (1997) HCA?
A. Yes. As per Lange v ABC (1997) HCA and Nationwide News Pty. Limited v. Wills [1992] HCA 46; (1992) etc.
2. Is criticism and/or allegations of corruption against Judicial officers protected by the freedom of communication on matters of government and politics as per Lange v ABC (1997) HCA?
A. Yes. As per Lange v ABC (1997) HCA, Nationwide News Pty. Limited v. Wills [1992] HCA 46; (1992), Theophanous v Herald & Weekly Times Ltd (1994) 182 and Coleman v Power [2004] HCA 39; 220 etc.
3. Are suppression orders issued by a court invalid if they infringe on the freedom of communication on matters of government and politics as per Lange v ABC (1997)?
A. Yes. As per Lange v ABC (1997) HCA, John Fairfax Publications Pty Limited v the Attorney General for New South Wales [2000] NSWCA 198 and Nationwide News Pty. Limited v. Wills [1992] HCA 46; (1992) etc.
4. Are proceedings for contempt invalid if they infringe on the freedom of communication on matters of government and politics as per Lange v ABC (1997)?
A. Yes. As per Lange v ABC (1997) HCA, John Fairfax Publications Pty Limited v the Attorney General for New South Wales [2000] NSWCA 198 and Nationwide News Pty. Limited v. Wills [1992] HCA 46; (1992) etc.
Confirmation that there should have never been a suppression order on the matter
The High Court of Australia has handed down numerous precedents making it very clear that any laws that infringe on political communication are invalid.
So the question that needs to asked when deciding if there should or shouldn’t be suppression orders on this matter are: Is what is being argued in the case a political issue? The answer is blatantly yes because the court has ordered me to serve all the Attorney-Generals with the section 78B Notice of a Constitutional Matter and any argument regarding the constitution is political. And the prosecution agreed that I should serve the notice so they are not disputing it is a political matter.
The suppression orders say I can’t repeat what I said in court and I can’t name the judges and registrar which I have done in this article and the previous articles and that has resulted in another charge for contempt. Yep, another contempt charge for me breaching a suppression order that should not have been issued because it infringes my freedom of political communication which for example is doing nothing more than letting the followers and readers of this website know about the corruption that is happening in court.
Why the Attorney-Generals should intervene
All the Attorney-Generals should intervene given it is a case involving judges of a court prosecuting their own case and putting a suppression order on it to protect their names and trying to conceal what happened which is a national scandal. What the judges don’t like is me calling them out for being the criminals they are. And they are too scared to sue me for defamation because they would lose or even if they won their reputations would be destroyed as the public would see that they are not fit to be a judges.
The Attorney-Generals should also intervene because new media like this website and social media are not scared of reporting judicial corruption as the old media are so the judges are trying to intimidate new media in an attempt to conceal judicial corruption. This has to be stopped.
Ultimately this case needs to end up in the High Court to give it a final resolution because it has the potential to have a far-reaching impact. If judicial corruption and what is said in court is determined to be outside the protection of the implied freedom of political communication in the constitution then who and what else is also outside the law?
Please use the Twitter, Facebook and email etc. buttons below and help promote this post.
Kangaroo Court of Australia is an independent website and is reliant on donations to keep publishing. If you would like to support the continuance of this site, please click on the button below to donate via PayPal or go to the donations page for other donation options. (Click here to go to the Donations page)
If you would like to follow this website, you can by email notification at the top right of this page and about twice a week you will be notified when there is a new article.
Thank you for your support.