Abuse of Discretion

A failure to take into proper consideration the facts and law relating to a particular matter; an Arbitrary or unreasonable departure from precedent and settled judicial custom.

Where a trial court must exercise discretion in deciding a question, it must do so in a way that is not clearly against logic and the evidence. An improvident exercise of discretion is an error of law and grounds for reversing a decision on appeal. It does not, however, necessarily amount to bad faith, intentional wrong, or misconduct by the trial judge.

For example, the traditional standard of appellate review for evidence-related questions arising during trial is the "abuse of discretion" standard. Most judicial determinations are made based on evidence introduced at legal proceedings. Evidence may consist of oral testimony, written testimony, videotapes and sound recordings, documentary evidence such as exhibits and business records, and a host of other materials, including voice exemplars, handwriting samples, and blood tests.

Before such materials may be introduced into the record at a legal proceeding, the trial court must determine that they satisfy certain criteria governing the admissibility of evidence. At a minimum, the court must find that the evidence offered is relevant to the legal proceedings. Evidence that bears on a factual or legal issue at stake in a controversy is considered relevant evidence.

The relevancy of evidence is typically measured by its probative value. Evidence is generally deemed Probative if it has a tendency to make the existence of any material fact more or less probable. Evidence that a murder defendant ate spaghetti on the day of the murder might be relevant at trial if spaghetti sauce was found at the murder scene. Otherwise such evidence would probably be deemed irrelevant and could be excluded from trial if opposing counsel made the proper objection.

During many civil and criminal trials, judges rule on hundreds of evidentiary objections lodged by both parties. These rulings are normally snap judgments made in the heat of battle. Courts must make these decisions quickly to keep the proceedings moving on schedule. For this reason, judges are given wide latitude in making evidentiary rulings and will not be over-turned on appeal unless the appellate court finds that the trial judge abused his or her discretion.

For example, in a Negligence case, a state appellate court ruled that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting into evidence a posed accident-scene photograph, even though the photograph depicted a model pedestrian blindly walking into the path of the driver's vehicle with the pedestrian's head pointed straight ahead as if she was totally oblivious to the vehicle and other traffic. Gorman v. Hunt, 19 S.W.3d 662 (Ky. 2000). In upholding the trial court's decision to admit the evidence, the appellate court observed that the photograph was only used to show the pedestrian's position relative to the vehicle at the time of impact and not to blame the pedestrian for being negligent. The appellate court also noted that the lawyer objecting to the photograph's admissibility was free to remind the jury of its limited relevance during cross-examination and closing arguments.

An appellate court would find that a trial court abused its discretion, however, if it admitted into evidence a photograph without proof that it was authentic. Apter v. Ross, 781 N.E.2d 744 (Ind.App. 2003). A photograph's authenticity may be established by a witness's personal observations that the photograph accurately depicts what it purports to depict at the time the photograph was taken. Ordinarily the photographer who took the picture is in the best position to provide such testimony.

Further readings

Cohen, Ruth Bryna. 2000."Superior Court Affirms Non Pros for Failure to Subpoena Own Witness; Trial Court Did not Abuse Discretion in Its Application of Civil Procedure Rule 216." Pennsylvania Law Weekly (October 9).

Hamblett, Mark. 2001. "Circuit Panel Issues Recusal Guidelines; Says Rakoff Acted Properly In Not Stepping Down." New York Law Journal (February 26).

Riccardi, Michael A. 2002."Polygraph Evidence OK to Prove Probable Cause, Circuit Judges Say; No Abuse of Discretion in Relying on 'Lie Detector' for Limited Purpose." Pennsylvania Law Weekly (April 29).

Cross-references

Appeal; Bad Faith; Error; Evidence; Precedent; Probative; Relevancy.

West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

Ads by Google

Defamation Lawyer
Experienced Defamation Specialists 28 years experience in defamation
australian-defamation-lawyers.com.au

Reply to the Australian Government Solicitors



To
David Nguyen
Australian Government Solicitors
MLC Cente
Martin Place 2000

Dear Mr Nguyen
I respond to your letter dated 17th December 2013 where you intend to set my subpoena aside once again.
As I believe you must be of some intelligence I would recommend that you read the statements provided to the Australian Federal Police by Veronique Ingram , Adam Toma, Mathew Osborne Mark Findlay and Cheryl Cullen and you may come to your own ( even if it is limited ) conclusion why AFSA wants this subpoena set aside. Therefore it is the intention of the Australian Government Solicitor and AFSA to protect systemic corrupt conduct and I understand you are again asking a court and magistrate to comply with your request.

You also may feel obliged to inform your "ÇLIENTS'' of the consequences of perjury and the requirements of the Australian Public Service Code of conduct..........................
and may also feel obliged to inform Veronique Ingram of her obligation as a Government Agency Head and the responsibility this carries.
You are also aware I am not obligated in informing you how I intend to use the documents I have subpoenaed to use in my defence however you are clearly aware it relates to the systemic failure of senior Management at AFSA.
Thank You
Fiona Brown

Commonwealth Ombudsman tries to use  confidentiality to protect systemic corrupt conduct in Federal Government Department/ Veronique Ingram  AFSA/ Colin Neave/ Adam Toma/ Complaints

Clearly the Commonwealth Ombudsman is panicked by a subpoena served on them last Tuesday.

 They have now invited me to  to  withdraw the subpoena or  otherwise not call upon it and to please put this in writing.

As I have been saying all along and according to the Commonwealth Ombudsman  statistics this department headed by shonky Colin Neave who as banking industry Ombudsman fucked over 80% of  complaints about the Banking industry. Before him  fat and ugly  Alison Larkins  was acting in this role after Alan Asher " ripped his skirt off and resigned. Larkins is now working for immigration.

So the ombudsman  want me to withdraw my subpoena and  clearly I will say to the "Come Kiss My ARSE" and see you in court!!!!!! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The Ombudsman Act   Section 35(8) cannot be used  to fail to respond to subpoena's.
Clearly  this shows how desperate the  Commonwealth Ombudsman  is when being exposed to atrocious maladministration. 

Commonwealth Consolidated Acts

[Index] [Table] [Search] [Search this Act] [Notes] [Noteup] [Previous] [Next] [Download] [Help]

---

OMBUDSMAN ACT 1976 - SECT 35

Officers to observe confidentiality

             (1)  In this section, officer means:

                     (a)  the Ombudsman;

                     (b)  a Deputy Ombudsman;

                     (c)  a person who is a member of the staff referred to in subsection 31(1); or

                     (d)  a person, not being a person referred to in paragraph (b) or (c), to whom the Ombudsman has delegated any of his or her powers under section 34 or who is an authorized person; or

                     (e)  a person who is made available to the Ombudsman as mentioned in subsection 8(12).

             (2)  Subject to this section, an officer shall not, either directly or indirectly, and either while he or she is, or after he or she ceases to be, an officer, make a record of, or divulge or communicate to any person, any information acquired by him or her by reason of his or her being an officer, being information that was disclosed or obtained under the provisions of this Act or under Division 7 of Part V of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 , including information furnished by the Ombudsman of a State or information disclosed to or obtained by the Commonwealth Ombudsman in the exercise of a power of the Ombudsman of a State delegated to him or her as provided by subsection 34(7).

Penalty:  $500.

             (3)  Subsection (2) does not prevent an officer:

                     (a)  from making a record of, or divulging or communicating to any person, information acquired by him or her in the performance of his or her duties as an officer for purposes connected with the exercise of the powers and the performance of the functions of the Ombudsman; or

                     (b)  from divulging or communicating information to a person:

                              (i)  if the information was given by an officer of a Department or prescribed authority in the performance of his or her duties as such an officer--with the consent of the principal officer of the Department or authority or of the responsible Minister; or

                            (ia)  if the information was given by a person who is, or is an employee of, a Commonwealth service provider of a Department or prescribed authority under a contract--with the consent of the principal officer of the Department or prescribed authority or of the responsible Minister; or

                             (ii)  if the information was given by a person otherwise than as set out in subparagraph (i) or (ia)--with the consent of the person who gave the information.

             (4)  Subject to subsection (5), subsection (2) does not prevent the Ombudsman or a Deputy Ombudsman from disclosing, in a report made under this Act, such matters as, in his or her opinion, ought to be disclosed in the course of setting out the grounds for the conclusions and recommendations contained in the report.

             (5)  Where the Attorney-General furnishes to the Ombudsman a certificate in writing certifying that:

                     (a)  the disclosure of information or documents concerning a specified matter or matters included in a specified class of matters; or

                     (b)  the disclosure of a specified document or of documents included in a specified class of documents;

would, for a reason specified in the certificate, being a reason referred to in paragraph 9(3)(a), (b), (c), (d) or (e), be contrary to the public interest, an officer shall not, either directly or indirectly and either while he or she is, or after he or she ceases to be, an officer, except as provided in subsection (6):

                     (c)  divulge or communicate to any person any information acquired by him or her under the provisions of this Act concerning such a matter or such a document;

                     (d)  divulge or communicate any of the contents of such a document to any person; or

                     (e)  furnish such a document, or a copy of, or an extract from, such a document, to any person.

Penalty:  Imprisonment for 2 years.

             (6)  Subsection (5) does not prevent an officer, in the performance of his or her duties as an officer:

                     (a)  from divulging or communicating information referred to in that subsection to another officer;

                     (b)  from furnishing any of the contents of, a copy of or an extract from a document referred to in that subsection to another officer; or

                     (c)  from returning such a document that has been produced to him or her to the person lawfully entitled to the custody of the document.

          (6A)  Subsection (2) does not prevent the Ombudsman, or an officer acting on behalf of the Ombudsman, from giving information or documents under paragraph 6(4D)(e) or paragraph 6(18)(d).

             (7)  Subject to subsection (7A), where the Ombudsman proposes, for purposes connected with the exercise of his or her powers or performance of his or her functions, to furnish information, or to send a document, or a copy of, or extract from, a document, to the Ombudsman of a State, the Ombudsman shall satisfy himself or herself that a law of the State makes provision corresponding to the provision made by this section with respect to the confidentiality of information acquired by the Ombudsman of the State.

          (7A)  Subsection (7) does not apply in relation to any information or document obtained by the Ombudsman in the exercise of a power of the Ombudsman of the State that the Ombudsman was authorized to exercise in pursuance of subsection 34(7).

             (8)  A person who is or has been an officer is not compellable, in any proceedings before a court (whether exercising federal jurisdiction or not) or before a person authorized by a law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory, or by consent of parties, to hear, receive and examine evidence, to disclose any information acquired by him or her by reason of his or her being or having been an officer, being information that was disclosed or obtained under the provisions of this Act or under Division 7 of Part V of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 .

Tasmanian Integrity Commission CEO Diane Merryfull

This skanky Bitch is a shonk ! Merryfull was  Deputy  Commonwealth Ombudsman where she fucked over complaints and protected systemic corrupt conduct in Government departments

Chief Executive Officer

The CEO is responsible to the Board for the general administration, management and operations of the Integrity Commission.

Diane Merryfull A former Senior Assistant Ombudsman in the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, Diane Merryfull took up her appointment as Integrity Commission CEO in August 2012. She holds a Bachelor of Arts and a Bachelor of Laws from the University of New South Wales and has wide-ranging experience in senior management roles in the Commonwealth and ACT governments. Ms Merryfull has led teams covering law enforcement agencies such as the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Crime Commission, Defence, the Australian Tax Office and Australia Post, dealing with complaints, own motion investigations and compliance inspections. She was also seconded to the Office of the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security to lead a complex and sensitive security inquiry in 2011.

Tasmanian Integrity Commission CEO Diane Merryfull

No integrity here from this shonky bitch  Merryfull worked for the Commonwealth Ombudsman where she protected Fraud and systemic corrupt conduct

.

Gavin McCosker/ AFSA ITSA
Be aware this man is shonkey  at AFSA

• Join Today
• Sign In

Gavin McCosker

Chief Operating Officer at Australian Financial Security Authority

Canberra Area, Australia

Government Administration

Join LinkedIn and access Gavin McCosker’s full profile. It's free!

As a LinkedIn member, you'll join 225 million other professionals who are sharing connections, ideas, and opportunities.

• See who you and Gavin McCosker know in common
• Get introduced to Gavin McCosker
• Contact Gavin McCosker directly

View Gavin's full profile

Gavin McCosker's Overview

Current

• Chief Operating Officer at Australian Financial Security Authority

Past

• National Manager, Corporate Strategy and Support at Insolvency and Trustee Service Australia
• Chief Finance Officer at Torres Strait Regional Authority
• A/Director Program Management and Business Support at Smart Service Queensland

see all

Education

• University of New England (AU)
• The Australian National University

Recommendations

2 people have recommended Gavin

Connections

250 connections

Anyone wanting to testify against Veronique Ingram/ AFSA

If you have had difficulties with shonky Veronique Ingram Inspector General in Bankruptcy and  the systemic corrupt conduct this bitch is protecting at  the Australian Financial Security Authority or the old ITSA come and testify against  against her at the Downing Centre in Sydney...
Email me fionabrown01@hotmail.com if interested*****************

Browne V Dunn/

 

The Rule in Browne v Dunn

The High Court has emphasised the need for care on the part of a trial judge in directing a jury to attribute significance to the failure of counsel to put an aspect of his client’s case to a witness on the other side, especially where it is otherwise apparent that the proposition which is not put is in issue.

1

The defendant gave evidence that [the complainant’s injury was the result of a fall rather than having been inflicted by him]. That proposition was not put to the complainant. In other words, she was not asked to comment on whether that was the case. The result is that she has not had the opportunity to respond to the suggestion [she injured herself in a fall], and you do not have the benefit of the evidence she might have given had she been asked.

Where further direction warranted.^2:

It is a rule of practice in both civil and criminal trials that if one party is going to assert a different version of events from the other, witnesses for the opposing party who are in a position to comment on that version should be given, by the cross-examiner, the opportunity to do so. That has not occurred. The failure to ask the complainant questions about [the fall] which the defendant says occurred may be used by you to draw an inference that he did not give that account of events to his counsel. That in turn may have a bearing on whether you accept what the defendant said on the point. However, before you draw such an

1

MJW v The Queen (2005) 80 ALR 329; R v MAP [2006] QCA 220.

2

Foley [2000] 1 Qd R 290 suggests that the basic direction as to the absence of evidence, and the direction as to inferences, are to be given only in exceptional cases: Peter John Burns (1999) 107 A Crim R 330, a recent application of Foley. Benchbook – 32 – Rule in Browne v Dunn No 32.2

inference you should consider other possible explanations for the failure of counsel to put questions about [a fall] to the complainant.

3

Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67, 70, 76. See also Cross, On Evidence, Aust ed. [17435] ff.

4

Birks (1990) 19 NSWLR 677; Manunta (1990) 54 SASR 17 .Caution should also be exercised in deciding whether to give a direction where the party who called the witness who was not cross-examined does not complain: McDowell [1997] 1 VR 473.

5

Walter Berkley Hart (1932) 23 Cr App R 202 shows the prosecution stands to be embarrassed by the rule in Browne v Dunn as much as the defendant. At 206, the Court of Appeal commented on a "remarkable feature of the case", that three defence alibi witnesses were not cross-examined.

6 In particular, the witness treated unfairly may be recalled and given the opportunity to make appropriate comment. In

Payless Super Barn (NSW) Pty Ltd v Ogara (1990) 19 NSWLR 551, 556 Clarke JA said that the trial judge "may, for example, require the relevant witness to be recalled for further cross-examination before allowing the contradictory evidence to be given or he may decline to allow the party in default to address upon a particular subject upon which the opposing party was not cross-examined."

In preparation for trial, usually counsel would be given his client’s instructions: that is, what his client has to say about the matter in written form taken by his solicitor, or in oral form by what his client says when they meet, or both. Counsel then uses that information from his client to ask questions of the opposing side’s witnesses. However, communication between individuals is seldom perfect; misunderstandings may occur. The solicitor or the barrister may miss something of what their client is telling them. In the pressures of a trial, counsel may simply forget to put questions on an important matter. You should consider whether there are other reasonable explanations for the failure to ask the complainant [whether there was such a fall]. You should not draw any inference adverse to the defendant’s credibility unless there is no other reasonable explanation for that failure.

The rule concerns the failure of a cross-examiner to challenge the evidence of a witness on some point, followed by the attempted making of assertions or calling of evidence to show that the witness should not be believed.
3 Considerable caution is required in applying it in criminal trials, since there may be any number of reasons for oversight, including counsel’s error.4 The rule applies against the prosecution.5 Rebuttal evidence may be permitted.6

 Complaints about AFSA/ ITSA/ Veronique Ingram / Matthew Osborne/ Mark Findlay
If you have  had problems with ITSA / AFSA and would like to have the matter heard before a magistrate in a court of Law please contact me
fionabrown01@hotmail.com
and have your say in court.
This matter is to expose systemic corrupt conduct and corruption!!!!
Particularly if you   have had dealings with any of the following.....
Veronique Ingram, shonkey Inspector General in Bankruptcy
Adam Toma EX corrupt National Enforcement Manager
Matthew Osborne principal Legal Officer providing corrupt legal Advice to Trustees
Mark Findlay 
Gavin McCosker
Cheryl Cullen
Florence Choo 
Guilia Inga
Also anyone who has experience difficulty with Tibor Karolyi who originally worked for ITSA/ AFSA and now works for  de Vries Tayeh

The Scandalous Heiner Affair

Queensland School studies take this link for summarised background on the Heiner Affair scandal

THIS (18 mBYTE DOWNLOAD), LINKED ABOVE, IS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT RELEASED IN AUGUST BY THE 2012 QUEENSLAND CHILD PROTECTION COMMISSION OF INQUIRY SO YOU MAY VIEW IT AND COMMENT ON ITS FINDINGS WITHOUT ANY FEARS OF BEING SUED FOR DEFAMATION. REMEMBER TO USE THE PASSWORD "Tsisrep2012" TO OPEN IT Kevin Lindeberg discusses the importance of the Rofe Audit and the Commission of inquiry into child abuse on 4BC Radio (Queensland Australia)
More background information:
On 8 August 2012 - a date which may live long in Australian history - the Queensland Child Protection Commission of Inquiry (QCPCI) released the unredacted Rofe QC Audit of the Heiner Affair as a privileged public exhibit under the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1950.
It is now available for the world to read, discuss and quote from as a privileged public document.
It is, and shall be seen as, an historically important document in the political, legal, democratic life of this nation.
PHOTO RIGHT: Kevin Lindeberg delivers the Rofe Audit/Heiner papers to the QCPCI on 20th July 2012 - click on thumbnail for big image
The Audit was a central item of evidence presented by counsel for whistleblower Kevin Lindeberg as part of his application that Commissioner Tim Carmody SC should disqualify himself from hearing the Heiner Affair which was captured under QCPCI's Term of Reference 3(e).
Term of Reference 3(e) states:
"reviewing the adequacy and appropriateness of any response of, and action taken by, government to allegations, including any allegations of criminal conduct associated with government responses, into historic child sexual abuse in youth detention centres."
This was because of his earlier November-December 2001 involvement in this matter when Queensland Crime Commissioner. (See alleged prima facie criminal count 57 in the Audit.) It was said in evidence on 24 July 2012 before the QCPCI that Commissioner Carmody would be required to investigate himself if the common definition of "government" were to apply in Term of Reference 3(e). This was because the law prohibits any sworn decision-maker from being "party and judge in his own cause". Hence, it was argued that he should stand aside to avoid any perception of bias in respect of Term of Reference 3(e).
He declined to do so.
In doing so, Commissioner Carmody defined the key word "government" to just mean "...The Premier and Cabinet Ministers." While in possession of the Audit, he excluded from the definition of the word "government" enities such as "departments" and "statutory authorities". It therefore meant that he would not have to investigate bodies like the CJC/CMC, Department of Families, Police, DPP, Crown Law, etc, including the Queensland Crime Commission regarding their handling of the Heiner Affair at particular times.
Consequently, it meant that he would not have to investigate his own conduct but only that of "...The Premier and Cabinet Ministers."
This definition of "government" has been strongly contested as being incorrect at law.
The Newman Government gave a pre-election undertaking that it would review the Heiner Affair. This commitment is now in the balance, if not possibly crippled unless remedied.
Readers may now freely judge for themselves the substance or otherwise of this alleged cover-up as set out in the Audit. You may now freely judge what certain public officials who worked and/or still work in public office (in all arms of government in Queensland and Federally) did and didn't do at particular times when confronted with these matters of alleged serious wrongdoing involving obstruction of justice.
It is now publicly disclosed by the QCPCI that of those named parties is the Governor-General of Australia and 6 sitting Queensland judicial officers.
This matter is, as it always was since its beginnings some 22 years ago, about government by the rule of law and restoring public confidence in the machinery of government.
The Heiner Affair has always been based on the fundamental democractic principle which keeps us free from tyranny and oppression: "No one, no matter how high his or her status, is above the law."

Double standards in applying the law.. and taking on powerful bodies:

“... citizens are equal before the law; and ... the criminal law should operate uniformly in circumstances which are not materially different” - it doesn't in Queensland where the politicians and their mates are above the law. Related quotable quotes
Beattie and the Goss Cabinet should have been charged with criminal offences - but they weren't. Why? The answer at this link

---

The games played by News Limited and Queensland State Government to try to shut down this page In 1999, The Courier-Mail and the Queensland State Government were both parties to Scott Balson's political arrest. The arrest was a direct result of a written request by Labor Attorney General Matt Foley despite no evidence being held that Balson had done anything wrong. The allegation was that he had named Labor MP Bill D'Arcy as a man facing child sex charges. This happened at a time D'Arcy was put into the Speaker's Chair by Beattie in a hung Parliament. The action by the government to have Balson arrested was a clear response to this page that he has maintained since 1996. Balson was found not guilty after three trials and he went on to sue The Courier Mail and State Government in the Supreme Court for a malicious prosecution. Soon after Balson's arrest D'Arcy was charged and convicted of several acts of paedophilia and was given a 13 year jail sentence. Balson remains the only person to ever be arrested under this 30 year old obscure act. More at this link In February 2008 the Australian Press Council upheld Scott Balson's complaint against The Australian newspaper over dishonest claims that he is extreme right wing, racist and anti-semitic. The dishonest "article" by The Australian (News Ltd) was aimed at destroying the reputation of the whistleblower, Kevin Lindeberg, by associating him with Balson (the "right wing extremist" messenger). The suggestion being that "extreme right wing parties" were behind Lindeberg's campaign for justice. The timing of the paper's attack is interesting. It was just before the 2007 Federal election at a time Daily Telegraph reporter Piers Akerman was exposing Kevin Rudd's involvement in the shredding of the Heiner Inquiry documents. (See links below). If the law had been applied equally years before this Kevin Rudd would probably never have become Prime Minister. The politicised attack on Balson and Lindeberg by The Australian newspaper is one of the most crystalised and clear cut examples of the real power lurking behind Australian politics. It is a fact that Kevin Rudd is the godfather to the child of Chris Mitchell - editor of The Australian newspaper. More at this link.

---

Most recent Heiner Affair articles linked at top:

Law Makers protect law breakers - justice in Australia video of Senate Hearing June 2011.
After over 20 years of covering the shredding up Murdoch's Sunday Mail actually covers it when the subject gets too hot - read the article at the link above.
Steve Austin ABC Radio - Question over Heiner ruled out of order in QLD Parliament - 21 July 2011: Steve Austin asks why a question over a payment of taxpayers money to gag an individual is ruled out of order.
Heiner inquiry victim to give evidence in Canberra 6th June 2011: QUOTE: A woman who claims she was paid $120,000 'hush money' over her alleged pack rape while in state government care could give evidence to a Senate inquiry in Canberra to be called as early as this month.
State pays $120,000 'hush money' to alleged rape victim 9th July 2010: QUOTE: Two decades after an inquiry into abuse at the John Oxley Youth Detention Centre was shut down, the state government has paid $120,000 to a former detainee allegedly pack raped in 1988 at the age of 14.
Rudd's axing ... the timing is a trifle too cute! 26th June 2010: QUOTE: IN an extraordinary coincidence, as Kevin Rudd was being tipped out of the Prime Minister’s office, an Aboriginal woman denied justice by Queensland’s Goss Labor Government - which Mr Rudd once was said to have run - had more than $120,000 in extraordinary damages tipped into her bank account.
The Significance of the Heiner Affair to the rule of law in Queensland: Kevin Lindeberg addresses the Australians for Constitutional Monarchy21st February 2010
Alan Jones (2GB Radio) on Heiner - includes interview with Kevin Lindeberg: Corruption in QLD Government. 30th September 2009
Alan Jones (2GB Radio) on Heiner - includes interview with Barry O'Keefe QC on the fundamental issue of the rule of law: Barry speaks on the importance of the rule of law regardless of someone's position. 28th September 2009
Alan Jones (2GB Radio) on Heiner - includes interview with whistleblower Kevin Lindeberg: Reveal the apalling truth behind the coverup (13 mBytes - 15 minutes). 23rd June 2009
Piers Akerman of 4BC Radio: Discusses corruption in the Queensland Government (April 2009). 
 PM shreds his own credibility IN an unprecedented breach of protocol, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd refused a request from the former Governor-General to investigate the ongoing Heiner corruption scandal and explore the implications of his appointment of current Governor-General, Quentin Bryce. Heiner affair shadows Bryce SERIOUS allegations concerning the integrity of Governor-General designate Quentin Bryce and her role in the unresolved Heiner affair are being investigated by staff of Governor-General Major-General Michael Jeffery.
Taint sticks to Bryce AN unprecedented legal challenge may prevent the appointment of Australia’s first nominated female Governor-General, Queensland Governor Quentin Bryce.
It’s nearly Heiner noon LIKE the ticking crocodile that relentlessly pursued Captain Hook, the unresolved Heiner affair continues to tick along behind Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. Tomorrow, the Queensland Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee (PCMC) will consider a review of the Criminal Justice Commission’s (CJC) and the Crime and Misconduct Commission’s (CMC) handling of the matter.
A case of "the pot calling the kettle black"? See who heads up the Qld Government inquiry - David Solomon (search page for Solomon) and who wrote the article - Greg Roberts... so this article on Freedom of Information is a load of (you know what)! (November 2007)
David Solomon, once a senior reporter at The Courier-Mail has worked on many Labor Party Committees in the past - he is a trusted "mate"  and Greg Roberts - well his appalling reporting ethics are forever destroyed! So why does Chris Mitchell side with PM Kevin Rudd implicated in shreddergate?  Mitchell married a reporter, Christine Jackman, who worked for him at The Courier-Mail - sacrificing his Jewish partner of 20 years for a younger woman. Jackman and Mitchell have a child - and guess who's their Godfather? Kevin Rudd.
Will Rudd's name end in shreds? - Piers Akerman - 19th November 2007
Perverted Justice - Piers Akerman - 27th September 2007
Labor Senators twice blocked attempts by Queensland National Party Senator Barnaby Joyce to table the full 3000-page nine-volume Rofe report in federal parliament last week.
JUSTICE - THE HEINER AFFAIR - Tasmanian Parliament 26th September 2007
It does not surprise me that the Government has refused to grant leave for the tabling of this 66-count indictment into what has become known as the Heiner scandal relating to the rape of an indigenous Aboriginal child, a girl aged 14, in the John Oxley Detention Centre some 19 years ago.
Rudd should answer Heiner queries - The Australian - 25th September 2007
This story is starting to break and is too big for even Chris Mitchell to hold down!
Heiner Affair inaction appalling - 22nd September 2007 (Article by Piers Ackerman - Daily Telegraph)
But sections of the media, led by The Australian newspaper, also want to muzzle debate on the festering sore that is the Heiner Affair, the tragic business of the unresolved pack rape of a 14-year-old girl when in the care of the Queensland Government nearly two decades ago and the subsequent shredding of evidence gathered by retired magistrate Noel Heiner. (Chris Mitchell, now editor of The Australian was editor of The Courier-Mail andplayed a major part in the cover up during the 1990s).
News Limited's simplistic view on the shredding - (19 Sept 07) Murdoch wants a change of the guard and Rudd in.
Guess who now edits The Australian - Chris Mitchell the man who played such a major role in protecting Peter Beattie from facing the music in the 90s over the shredding by participating in the cover by excluding coverage of the true facts. He was then the editor of The Courier Mail now he is at it again. This is a Murdoch lacky at his best - no wonder he has such a senior position in News Limited! Nothing smart - simply sell your soul to Rupert.  
Heiner Affair and Lindeberg Grievance - 19th September 2007
Senator Barnaby Joyce tries to lodge the letter presented to Beattie last month - but is denied because Labor Senator's object.
Australia's top current affairs radio reporter, Alan Jones, lifts the lid on Shreddergate, Radio Interview with Kevin Lindeberg (14 mByte file - 15 minute audio interview) - 13th September 2007
Is Kevin Rudd behind Peter Beattie's resignation? - September 2007
IN a stunning reversal, federal Opposition leader Kevin Rudd has opened up the door for the appointment of a new inquiry into the Heiner Affair - the scandalous cover-up of a gang rape of a young girl while in the care of the Queensland Government, and the subsequent blocking of an investigation and the shredding of its documents by the state's Goss Labor government, in which he was a senior public servant.
Guess who has the most to lose if Rudd gets in as PM and this happens.
Letter to Peter Beattie in August 2007 signed by eminent members of the legal profession: - August 2007
Quotes: We believe that it is the democratic right of every Australian to expect that the criminal law shall be applied consistently, predictably and equally ..... prima facie double standards by Queensland law-enforcement authorities
Daily Telegraph Article - Hiding in the Shadows - 18th August 2007
Call for Federal Gove to appoint a Special Prosecutor
Sunday Telegraph Article - Shreddergate threatens Beattie and Rudd - 18th August 2007
So when are the sixty plus charges going to be served on Beattie and Rudd? Is it now just a matter of time?
Lindeberg appears in film involving politicised arrest by Beattie of Scott Balson - July 2007
The film was banned by the Brisbane International Film Festival in August 2007 - the Queensland Government is a major sponsor.
Lindeberg's statement to House of Reps Standing Committee on Health - March 2006
Queensland is "...the sick man of Australian politics"
Beattie attempts to Amend the Constitution - September 2005
While concerns have been raised about the lack of independence shown by bodies such as the CMC in scrutinising government conduct and corruption, the Beattie Government has proposed changes to the Constitution which potentially further remove barriers to governmental abuse of power. Clerk of the Senate, Harry Evans, criticised the changes as “dangerous and unnecessary”.
And this year’s Whistleblower Supporter of the Year was awarded to MP Bronwyn Bishop for her contribution in exposing the legal double standards arising from the Heiner Affair. Source: The Independent Monthly - page one, page two.
Federal House of Representatives take action on Lindeberg's complaint - September 2005
 At the very time Beattie was forced by overwhelming public outrage to recant his decision NOT to appeal against a dubious Supreme Court judgement to close down an enquiry into Queensland Health his Shreddergate cover-up was making waves in Canberra. While the Federal politicians were acting on Lindeberg's submission Beattie's government still had its head stuck deeply in the mud.
The crims are running the Queensland Parliament - it's official - August 2005
The 15-year delay in the pursuit of justice which their cover-up caused, is now being used by them as a last desperate excuse to do nothing after their improper conduct and nonsense legal interpretations have been exposed for the world to see. They stand naked. It is the ultimate perversion of trust in public office, betrayal of sworn oaths, respect for the rule of law and constitutional government, and reveals that high level corruption is alive and well in Beattie's Queensland while the mainstream media knowingly look the other way.
Beattie Misleads the House of Parliament (again) over Shreddergate - July 2005
New Horrific Abuse unearthed at John Oxley Youth Detention centre - June 2005
13-year-old boy seeing him nearly being choked to death by a staff member, continually bashed by other inmates, and permitted to be raped by staff letting inmates into his room at night
The Queensland Audit Office join in the cover up - June 2005
Letter to the Governor of Queensland - Ms Quentin Bryce - May 2005
now consider the Governor's own stated standards: With integrity, you cement your core, and thereafter you are able to open your heart and mind to endless possibilities. From a speech she made on 12 May 2005 - source at this link
May 2005: The University of Queensland our state's only respectable media - see why at these links  page one, page two, page three (note Beattie has an army of media advisers keeping the mainstream media quiet  (Sir Jo had nothing on this man) - but at what cost to us the taxpayer?)
The Premier keeps the Governor waiting and judicial double standards par for the course under Beattie (PDF files) - The Independent newspaper April 2005
25 State MPs call for enquiry into related rape of young girl in State care - December 2004
Why Does Bronwyn Bishop Rely On Scott Balson? Beattie release - 12th August 2004
Federal Parliamentary Committee recommend charges against Goss Cabinet - 12th August 2004
Supporting submission to the Lindeberg Grievance - August 2004 (Extract below)
My point simply is that whether they knew of the illegality of what they (the Labor Cabinet) were doing or not, they knew what they were doing, and the context in which they were doing it, and it makes no difference to their guilt that they may or may not have been given certain advice by their own lawyers.
It is of crucial constitutional importance that governments at all levels be held accountable in the same way as private individuals…
David Field, Associate Professor of Law, Bond University, Gold Coast, Queensland.
Rod Welford dismisses a citizen's petition - 20th July 2004
The dishonest Queensland Labor Government exposed by Chris Hurley - July 2004
The sick system called justice in Queensland - July 2004
Government “naked” over legal about-face - June 2004
Ex-minister may face inquiry into abuse claim - May 2004
Three Little Words - ABC TV Australian Story - May 2004
The corrupt Queensland Govt refuse to answer questions - May 2004
Crime Inquiry Chair Condemns Shredding Cover Up - March 2004
Another example of double standards in the application of the law in Queensland - March 2004
The University of Queensland's Independent on the cover up of rape by the media and the Labor Government - March 2004
Death Mystery To CMC - December 2003
Corrupt Beattie government covers up again - December 2003
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 26 November 2003 The Australian Senate - exposing Beattie's sick hypocrisy (Nov 2003)
University of Queensland on the shredding of evidence over the pack rape of an Aboriginal girl held in a State Detention Centre  - May 2002
Double Standards at the DPP in Queensland
Speaker oversteps says Whistleblower - August 2001
Clerk of the Federal Senate Harry Evans said the highlighting of a petition after its signature and before its presentation in Parliament would fall under the area of tampering of an official document...
Mr Evans said tampering with petitions had been held to be in contempt of the House of Representatives and precedents had been cited.
The Lindeberg Grievance into the CJC - June and August 2001
Attorney-General's politicised arrest of Balson (who maintains this page) in 1999 exposed in Criminal Justice Commission report - April 2001
Shredding of the Heiner documents and related matters - D O'Neill - 25th November 1999
The Lindeberg Petition - Background  -1st November 1999
The Alleged shredding of Victorian public records - October 1999
QC calls for inquiry into child abuse - October 2000
10-year mystery begins to unravel - October 2000
Memorandum not issue in investigation: CJC officer  - October 2000
The Heiner shredding: paid secrecy documents surface  - October 2000
Calls for commission into Forde Inquiry - October 2000
A shred of evidence - 14th July 1999 (The Courier-Mail "wakes up" to the shredding ten years to late)
A Black day for the Queensland Government 12th June 1999
When Pigs Fly (The Courier-Mail cover-up) 9th June 1999
Marks on Lindeberg Petition questioned in Parliament - 16th May 2000
Beattie's dismissive response in Parliament to the Lindeberg Petition - 29th Feb 2000
Beattie's lack of accountability makes joke of "accountable" government promise...
27th April 1999
Editorial in the Queensland Independent - Beattie not accountable - April 1999
Chris Hurley - archivist - on Sunday program revelations - 31st March 1999
Lies, bloody lies - 29th March 1999
Transcript of Sunday program - 28th March 1999
Quote from Anne Warner: "REPORTER: The cabinet documents don’t mention that the evidence contained allegations of child abuse, but the question still arises, were the minister’s told and did they ignore that serious information. Surprisingly, the minister responsible says she didn’t know.
WARNER: At that time I did not have that knowledge.

Compare Warner's satements to those in the press release in 1989

ASA Position Statement on The Heiner Affair - 19th March 1999
Did the Queensland Premier mislead Parliament? - 4th March 1999
The Courier-Mail reports before and after Channel 9's Sunday expose -
20th February 1999
Download a transcript of the document which, arguably, forced the Forde Inquiry
Tackling the ALP's David Hamill on Shreddergate - 5th June 1998
Senator Woodley's statement in the Senate - 27th May 1998
Canadian blood transfusion victims (Krevers inquiry) sue for $300 million

---

External Links on this subject:
Backdoor to University of Queensland, Department of Journalism on-line files on Shreddergate (unfortunately now removed by the bureaucrats at the University)
Go to Bruce Grundy, Journalist in residence, UQ latest on this scandal
The Justice Report - the abuse of children in Queensland

Links to other Governments and agencies now citing shreddergate as a scandal

Older background information and third party links

"Shreddergate, as the Goss Government shredding of archived documents is called, stands as a sentinel to cover-ups in the highest levels of government in Australia. Cover-ups that the Australian mainstream media have either been party to or incredibly inefficient at covering or investigating. "After investigating this case we claim that the Queensland Criminal Justice Commission (CJC) lied to the Australian Senate. "So serious are the allegations facing Goss, a member of the legal fraternity who cannot claim ignorance, that Queensland's "Shreddergate" was cited by The Alliance for Public Accountability (APA) as a prime case of government corruption in a conference that they convened on the 4th October 1997 in Ottawa, Canada. "The other case used by the APA during the conference was the shredding of Red Cross/Blood Bank records in Canada by government officials when the officials knew that they were being sought under Freedom of Information (FOI) by people who had been contaminated with blood containing Hepatitis B and the AIDS virus. "Unlike Queensland, where "Shreddergate" has been actively covered-up by both the ALP and the state Coalition, the subject of the Krevers Commission of Inquiry and the officials involved in the Canadian blood bank shredding is currently under investigation by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) with charges expected to be laid as a result. "The APA assisted the RCMP by giving that law enforcing agency a copy of the Queensland Morris Howard report into Shreddergate - because of the similarities between the cases as Queensland and Canada have similar criminal codes." Scott Balson, Global Web Builders.

Send Global Web Builders an email

Why Wayne Goss is lying to the Australian public, and he knows it:

Quote from Courier Mail: 'Former Labor premier Wayne Goss last night described the allegations as "flawed". "I never feared anything would come of it. What I did resent was the continued reports of some unspecified wrongdoings", he said.'

Links and background information:

Introductory statement "Curiously though what was forgotten by the mainstream media in the thousands of words written about him and his career to-date was his unexpected and stunning representation in 1995 of Queenslander Mr Kevin Lindeberg before the Senate Select Committee on Unresolved Whistleblower Cases when it attempted to investigate the notorious shredding of the Heiner Inquiry documents by order of the Goss Government.
"What has been curiously forgotten was his oral submission and written opinion regarding the legality of the shredding. He went so far as to suggest that it was open to conclude that the entire Goss Cabinet had committed serious offences when it ordered the shredding of those public records to prevent their use in litigation after the Crown had been served with notice of impending court proceedings in which those records were known to be critically relevant. He suggested in 1995 that the case warranted serious re-examination and severely criticised the Criminal Justice Commission’s handling of the Lindeberg allegations."
(See Australian Society of Archivists (ASA) link below: "The ASA also wishes to place on record its absolute rejection of the argument which the Queensland Criminal Justice Commission placed before the Senate Select Committee on Unresolved Whistleblower Cases in 1995, to wit that archivists should only consider the historical significance of records when reaching a disposal decision.")
The report by the "whistle blower". (NB 230k text only document) - January 1995.
"My submission presents an outline on how various public officials and agencies handled the shredding and related matters. All in their various ways, had a duty to act honestly and impartially in the public interest. All in their various ways, had a capacity to deliver justice to Mr Coyne and myself. None has.
"Mr Coyne's career was reduced to tatters by his Department using pro-active means representing abuse of office. Following my removal from the case, his union betrayed his interests throughout preferring to assist in covering up the shredding rather than exposing it for what it was and remains.
"I was at the time of the shredding, and am, a member of the Australian Labor Party.
"I also became a victim of the shredding, and would not cop it.
"That struggle now places me before the Australian Senate for examination based on facts."
Submission to Senate Select Committee on Unresolved Whistleblower Cases  (NB 210k text only document) - by Kevin Lindeberg - July 1995. (Downloadable MS Word Document).
"In essence Mr O'Shea has mis-stated Mr Callinan's submission, and then attempted to deal with various points on that mis-stated premise. He used the umbrella of Parliament to table his opinion without opening himself up to scrutiny by the members of the Committee unlike my counsel Mr Ian Callinan QC did on 23 February 1995."
Connolly/Ryan Judicial Review (extract):
4.5.11. And finally in Section 59 (Page 142):
"The real impropriety involved in the payment to Mr Coyne relates to the fact that - as, in our view, it is open to conclude - the payment was made for an ulterior purpose. No doubt the individuals concerned in negotiating and making the payment conceived that the Department would benefit to some extent from securing Mr Coyne's silence, as this would remove the possibility of further distraction as the new management of the Oxley Centre attempted to re-establish satisfactory working relationships after the upheaval and trauma which resulted from the Heiner Inquiry. Presumably, those individuals assuaged their own consciences, by assuring themselves that $27,190.00 was a small price to pay in order to allow the Department to "get on with business." But in our view it is open to conclude that the same individuals were fully conscious of the fact that they had acted dishonourably, and perhaps illegally, over the destruction of the Heiner documents, the returning of statements to the QSSU, and the destruction of photocopies of those statements. Had the true facts been brought to light - as they have now, for the first time, been brought fully to light - a number of individuals, including the Minister and Ms Matchett, were at risk of serious personal and (in the Minister's case) political embarrassment. In our view it is open to conclude that those individuals allowed their personal interests to guide them in deciding on the disbursement of $27,190.00 of public funds, and accordingly acted in a way which can be characterised as involving substantial impropriety."
Report by Ian Callinan QC (now High Court judge)
"It is clear that Cabinet made a decision to destroy the documents knowing full well that Coyne wished access to them. It may be that Cabinet made that decision to destroy the documents on the basis that, in its view, the public interest in protecting the people who gave evidence before Heiner outweighed Coyne's private interest in having access to them."
Australian Society of Archivists) (ASA) Statement on the Heiner Affair
"The ASA also wishes to place on record its absolute rejection of the argument which the Queensland Criminal Justice Commission placed before the Senate Select Committee on Unresolved Whistleblower Cases in 1995, to wit that archivists should only consider the historical significance of records when reaching a disposal decision. There are a wide variety of factors which might inform a decision to retain or destroy a particular set of records. These factors include, but are not limited to, the value of the records as evidence of financial affairs and obligations and the value of the records as evidence relating to citizen's rights. Any indication that records are likely to be required in future legal proceedings should, by itself, be sufficient justification to warrant the retention of the records in question."
Shredding of the “Heiner” Documents - the Hurley (Chief Archivist Victorian Government) report - March 1996 (NB 100k text only document) - (Downloadable MS Word Document)..
"The original destruction appears to have been the incautious act of a newly-elected government trying to escape the consequences of an ill-conceived decision of its predecessor. Like a mini-watergate, the real harm came not from the original decision but from subsequent efforts to justify it and to minimise the damage.
"The Goss government was ill-advised to have undertaken document destruction in this way. It is highly unusual, after all, for the disposal of a particular set of records (usually an administrative housekeeping matter) to be dealt with at cabinet level. The advice from Crown Solicitor O’Shea said the State Archivist’s concurrence was mandatory but neither he nor any other adviser seems, at that early stage, to have considered the question whether the Archivist’s discretion involved a consideration of issues in any way related to the government’s reasons for wanting to destroy the records or any reasons citizens (historians apart) might have for wishing them to be preserved. So far as those reasons were concerned, the Archivist appears to have been treated as rubber stamp.
"It was only subsequently, when the whistleblowers concerned voiced their objections and refused to be put off, that the Queensland Government, the Crown Solicitor, and the CJC developed and articulated theories about the nature of the Archivist’s discretion and her proper role. At each stage in the development and defence of their position, the persistence of the whistleblowers compelled them to advance more and more outrageous arguments in order to sustain the flawed logic of the official Queensland position.
"Finally, the official Queensland position collapses under its own internal contradictions. On the one hand, the State Archivist has an unfettered discretion to destroy records, potentially the power to retain or approve the destruction of official records on any grounds she chooses, arbitrarily, or by whatever whim takes her fancy in the passing moment. On the other hand, she is most severely limited to a consideration of historical value and it is not her proper function to consider any other ground for retention. The first proposition is based on the absence of any “legal/legislative provision” bearing on the matter and the second is advanced despite the absence of such provision restricting the archivist’s discretion in the way suggested.
"The professional associations - the Australian Society of Archivists (ASA) and the Records Management Association of Australia (RMAA) have long argued the propriety of submitting records disposal practices to professional review in the interests of public accountability (not just preservation of an historical record). Nowhere has the opposing case (that governments are free to destroy records at their own discretion subject only to a consideration of historical value and that State archives authorities have no role to play in support of accountability) been so strongly and persistently placed on the public record. It cannot be allowed to stand. ASA and RMAA should take up the challenge and do whatever is necessary to place on the public record their opposition to the stance taken by the Queensland authorities in the Heiner case."
Australian Archives advice on keeping records. "Proper recordkeeping is a crucial part of government administration and accountability. It is the basis for establishing and maintaining documentary evidence of government activities and decisions supporting accountability and good business practice. Agencies contracting out the provision of services to other parties must ensure that these arrangements include recordkeeping practices which meet Commonwealth standards." Extract from the Newnham Submission
"The evidence in Shreddergate mounts and mounts. Not only have respected senior counsel come to the view that a serious prima facie conspiracy exists in the shredding but former Queensland Police Commissioner Noel Newnham added his professional weight to a similar view in his submission to the Connolly/Ryan Judicial Review into the Effectiveness of the CJC. "
The statement in the Senate by Queensland Democratic Senator Woodley - May 1997
"The issue at stake is essentially a simple one, but one of great importance. If the Crown or the state, through its statutory keeper of public records, cannot be relied on to impartially and independently protect public records from destruction when those records are known to be required for foreshadowed court proceedings or when it is known that they are the subject of a legally enforceable access statute, the due administration of justice is gravely imperilled. That is essentially what the Lindeberg declaration states in a document I wish to table later.
"As a Democrat, I find it hard to think of anything more serious than the Crown or state deliberately shredding public records to thwart justice. One of Australia's leading Queen's Counsel, Mr Ian Callinan, described it as an unthinkable act. It is made much worse, however, when executive government uses and abuses the independent and impartial good office of a state or federal archivist to achieve that objective. Archivists should be protecting records in the public interest, not destroying them for any desired outcome of executive government or its agencies at the expense of individual lawful rights. It is fundamentally undemocratic and may breach criminal and administrative law in the process."
Senate slammed over CJC case - by Weekend Independent
"THE failure of the Australian Senate to investigate evidence that the Queensland Criminal Justice Commission provided false or misleading evidence to a Senate Committee has been described as a serious blow to democracy in Australia.
"Queensland whistleblowers have written to Senate President Margaret Reid calling on the Upper House to investigate the matter which was brought to its attention by the Queensland Parliamentary Criminal Justice Committee (PCJC) eight months ago.
"President of the Whistleblowers Action Group, Gordon Harris, told The Weekend Independent whistleblowers were very disappointed the Senate had failed to act on the matter and were critical of it for "not wanting to act".
"The Senate is destroying the rights of Australians," Mr Harris said."

Coalition Government Responds to Advice Regarding Heiner Affair -
June 1997

"Mr Borbidge said the Director had advised there was one matter relative to which a charge could, theoretically, be laid under section 92 of the Criminal Code which deals with abuse of office.
"But the Director had concluded his advice by stating that: "Very considerable time has been expended by a good many people in the pursuit of the truth regarding the Heiner matter. One has to wonder whether the public interest requires further exploration or whether it is now time to put the matter to rest once and for all".
"Mr Borbidge said the Government had accepted the Director's advice, and no prosecutions would be launched as a result of his report."

Over 50 articles and original FOI documents researched and uncovered by The Weekend Independent - check out "Shreddergate"

The report by The Weekend Independent- August 1997

Return to "Making the news"

Scribbles Global Web Builders Strachan and Co GWB FijiBure.Com EmailStaff thenetpics thestoryofus Author Woman to Woman