FOI  Australian Public Service Commission/ Dodgy Robert Cornall AO
So apart form doing the dodgy report and investigation into Manus Island which cost $83,000 Dodgy Robert Cornall has done 2 investigations into misconduct by Federal Government Agency Heads under S41(m)
It is hardly surprising there is so much systemic corrupt conduct in Government agencies  when investigations are not independent.
As this dodgy Cornall was secretary of the Attorney Generals department and therefore fails any independence test.
 Taking a look through the annual reports it  is also revealed Commissioner Steve Sedgwick also fucked over  every whistle-blower and all those who made complaints about Agency Heads. Clearly the Shonky Sedgwick has also a vested interest in protecting systemic corrupt conduct and corruption in Government Agencies

---

From: FOI@apsc.gov.au
To: fionabrown01@hotmail.com
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 13:02:22 +1000
Subject: RE: FOI Robert Cornall [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

UNCLASSIFIED

Dear Ms Brown

The two investigations were conducted for the purposes of the Commissioner’s function under paragraph 41(1)(f) of the Public Service Act 1999 “to inquire into alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct by Agency Heads”.  Please note that section 41 of the Public Service Act 1999 was amended in 2013 and this power is now found under paragraph 41(1)(m).

Regards

____________________________________________________Chris Luton
Australian Public Service Commission

p : 02 6202 3571 | f : 02 6250 4437
e : chris.luton@apsc.gov.au | w : www.apsc.gov.au

PUBLIC SERVICE ACT 1999 - SECT 41

Commissioner's functions

             (1)  The Commissioner has the following functions:

                     (a)  to strengthen the professionalism of the APS and facilitate continuous improvement in workforce management in the APS;

                     (b)  to uphold high standards of integrity and conduct in the APS;

                     (c)  to monitor, review and report on APS capabilities within and between Agencies to promote high standards of accountability, effectiveness and performance.

             (2)  Without limiting subsection (1), the Commissioner's functions include the following:

                     (a)  to foster, and contribute to, leadership, high quality learning and development and career management in the APS;

                     (b)  to lead the thinking about, provide advice on and drive reforms to workforce management policies so that the APS is ready for future demands;

                     (c)  to develop, review and evaluate APS workforce management policies and practices and maintain appropriate databases;

                     (d)  to foster an APS workforce that reflects the diversity of the Australian population;

                     (e)  to promote the APS Values, the APS Employment Principles and the Code of Conduct;

                      (f)  to evaluate the extent to which Agencies incorporate and uphold the APS Values and the APS Employment Principles;

                     (g)  to partner with Secretaries in the stewardship of the APS;

                     (h)  to provide advice and assistance to Agencies on public service matters;

                      (i)  to work with other governments (including foreign governments) on matters relating to public sector workforce management, leadership and career management;

                      (j)  to review any matter relating to the APS;

                     (k)  to review any matter relating to the APS referred to the Commissioner by the Public Service Minister, and report on that matter to the Public Service Minister;

                      (l)  to evaluate the adequacy of systems and procedures in Agencies for ensuring compliance with the Code of Conduct;

                    (m)  to inquire, in accordance with section 41A, into alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct by Agency Heads;

                     (n)  to inquire into and determine, in accordance with section 41B, whether an APS employee, or a former APS employee, has breached the Code of Conduct;

                     (o)  to inquire, subject to the regulations, into public interest disclosures (within the meaning of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 ), to the extent that the disclosures relate to alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct;

                     (p)  such other functions as are conferred on the Commissioner by this Act, the regulations or any other law;

                     (q)  such other functions as the Prime Minister, by legislative instrument, directs the Commissioner to perform;

                      (r)  to do anything incidental to or conducive to the performance of any of the Commissioner's functions.

Note:          Neither section 42 (disallowance) nor Part 6 (sunsetting) of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 applies to a direction given under paragraph (2)(q) (see sections 44 and 54 of that Act).

Reports may include recommendations

             (3)  A report made by the Commissioner in the performance of his or her functions may include recommendations.

Fees

             (4)  The regulations may authorise the Commissioner to charge fees (on behalf of the Commonwealth) for the performance, on request, of the Commissioner's functions.

Protest Rally against Israel

Wentworth v De Montfort: a case on ownership of documents in solicitors’ files

May 25th, 2008 · Comments (0)

This post is a companion to this longer companion post which discusses the other cases on the question of who, as between solicitor and client, is entitled to documents relating to their matter found on solicitors’ files and in their accounts. As the decision with the most detailed consideration of the question, it gets its own post.

Twelve classes of documents on a solicitor’s file were in issue in Wentworth v De Montfort (1988) 15 NSWLR 348, a decision of the NSW Court of Appeal. The key issue in the case was described in this way:

‘Ms Wentworth’s primary submission is that any documents brought into existence or received by Sly & Russell in relation to her litigation were documents created or received by Sly & Russell in their capacity as agents for their principal Ms Wentworth, and that, applying ordinary agency principles, any documents so created or received are accordingly hers. As I understand their case, the opponents do not deny that any document created or received by them only as agents for Ms Wentworth would belong to her. However they deny that any documents falling within the twelve categories were so created or received and submit that upon a number of principles applying to solicitors and other professional people, the documents falling within those categories are theirs.’

Summary of previous authorities

The Court reviewed the English authorities, and the 8th edition of Cordery on Solicitors, a very famous English text, and concluded:

‘A number of considerations can be discerned in these decisions and statements as being relevant in the determination of ownership. These include whether or not the client was charged for the creation of the document, and whether the solicitor created the document for his client’s benefit and protection, or did so for his own benefit and protection.’

In resolving the priority to be accorded to these considerations, Hope JA, with whom the other judges agreed, made two conceptual observations: that solicitors should not be assumed to be acting as their clients’ agents in everything they do, and that solicitors are not ordinary trustees, and legislation regulating solicitors’ trust accounts may affect equitable rules associated with trustees generally. The Court also asserted that whether the client paid for the creation of the document was not determinative of whether he or she was entitled to the original document.

Solicitors, like other professionals, are not necessarily agents in everything they do

The Court said:

‘Although solicitors may in particular circumstances receive or create a document as an agent for their client, this is commonly not the case. The distinction between principal and agent and professional person and client is well established. [Hope JA then considered Leicestershire County Council v Michael Faraday and Partners Ltd [1941] 2 KB 205,London School Board v Northcroft(1889) Hudson’s BC, 4th ed, vol 2, at 147, and Chantrey Martin (A Firm) v Martin [1953] 2 QB 286, which are discussed in the other post.]It thus appears that if a solicitor is acting only as agent for a client who is his principal in the doing of some act, the ordinary rules of agency apply to him, and documents brought into existence or received by him when so acting belong to the client. However in other cases, different principles apply, those principles being referable to the relationship between a professional person and his client.’

Solicitors as trustees have different obligations from other trustees

The Court said:

‘A trustee must keep proper financial records and in a real sense, as well as keeping them for his own benefit, he keeps them for the benefit of the beneficiary, to whom he must be ready to render accounts when required. However, while he is trustee, they are his records and he has the legal title to them. The beneficiary is entitled to inspect them, and to have information about them, but they are not the beneficiary’s property: Re Londonderry’s Settlement; Peat v Walsh [1964] Ch 594. Normally, when a trustee ceases to hold office, either on appointment of a new trustee or the determination of the trust, he would be required to hand over all trust property, including documents and financial records, to the new trustee, or to the sole beneficiary or all the beneficiaries if more than one, if required to do so. … This position would generally apply to a trustee who is a solicitor, but there are important qualifications in some cases. If he is solicitor for the client as well as trustee, he is required by law (as I shall describe later) to maintain and to retain proper financial records. He is entitled to retain these records, some of which may refer to other clients as well as the trust, but the beneficiary should be provided with copies if asked for. Other records which he makes as solicitor and not as trustee are subject to the same principles as would apply if he were not a trustee.’

Later, at 357-8, the Court said:

‘Whatever may be the position in relation to ordinary trustees, solicitors who hold money in trust for their clients have two roles and are subject to special duties [under trust account rules and legislation], and they are entitled to and indeed must retain their financial records. …

In so far as the records are those of a continuing trustee, they belong to the trustee, the beneficiary is entitled to information concerning their contents and where appropriate to copies of them but the beneficiary does not own them. In so far as the solicitor has ceased to be a trustee, he is still required by law to maintain and to retain proper financial records.

Looked at as a solicitor’s records, no doubt they are kept in part for the benefit of the client but they are also kept for the benefit of the solicitor who must know and be able to establish not only to the client but to persons exercising the relevant powers under the Legal Practitioners Act precisely what he has done with moneys in his trust account.

His liability to account to inspectors and others pursuant to the Legal Practitioners Act is not a liability which has been created solely for the benefit of the solicitor’s client. It is for the client’s benefit, but it is also for the benefit of the public generally, which has a considerable interest in ensuring the integrity of solicitors and their observance of their professional and other obligations.’ (formatting altered)

Mixed purposes

Hope JA tackled the question of mixed purposes in a passage which does not give up its meaning easily:

‘It is apparent that in many if not most cases a solicitor would have mixed reasons for creating a document.

Thus if on his client’s instructions he writes a letter of demand to a third party, it would be his duty to keep a copy of the letter, for the client may have to prove the sending of the letter and its contents, and the copy kept by the solicitor may be essential for this purpose. On the other hand the solicitor would want a copy for his own protection in order, for example, to be able to prove to his client that he had sent the letter of demand, and also for the purposes of making up a bill of costs. In such a case, the clients would be entitled to a copy of the letter and the solicitor would be entitled to charge him for it. On the other hand the solicitor would be entitled to keep a copy for his own records and absent some special agreement would not be entitled to charge the client for making that copy.

Again if on his client’s instructions the solicitor pays money to a third party and obtains a receipt, the receipt is obviously of benefit for the client for it is evidence that the third party has been paid. It is also evidence for the solicitor that he has carried out his client’s instructions and would be needed by him if any questions as to payments out of his trust account were raised. Again in this case I should have thought that the client was entitled to the original receipt, but that the solicitor was entitled to retain a copy.‘(formatting altered)

If one ignores the last paragraph, the intended meaning of the passage would seem to be that in the case of a mixed purpose, the solicitor is entitled to the original and the client to a copy if he pays for it. It is not clear why the same does not apply in relation to the example in the last paragraph.

Whether the client is charged for the document is not determinative

It is apparent that whether or not a client is charged for work is not determinative. Consider this passage:

‘Thus a barrister may make written notes of arguments he proposes to submit to a court and if he charges upon a time basis for out of court work, the client has in a sense been charged for that work. However I do not think that that makes those notes the property of the client; they would be made by the barrister entirely for his own professional purposes even though they are made in the course of carrying out work for the client. The position is the same in the case of the internal records as in relation to the analogous internal records of a solicitor.’

Evidence about the document and about reasons for creation needed before decision can be made

The question in respect of each document is what the predominant purpose of the creation of the document was. Some classes of documents are inherently for the exclusive or predominant purpose of either the solicitor (for example, internal cheque requisitions) or the client (for example, receipts for payments in discharge of liability of the client, made by the solicitors as the client’s agent). Others require evidence, document by document. It was for that reason that, there having been no document by document examination of the purpose of the creator of the document, reasons were published to assist the parties, but no orders actually determining the ownership of any document were made.

The twelve categories of documents

The twelve categories of documents seem at first glance to be exhaustive, but by virtue of what classes of documents were in dispute between the parties, there are crucial gaps. So copies of court documents filed and served, solicitors’ notes of telephone conversations with and personal attendances on the client, and correspondence between the solicitor and client are not covered. Hope JA did note without disapproval Re Thomson (1855) 20 Beav 545; 52 ER 714; 24 LJ Ch 599, where Sir John Romilly MR held that a client is not entitled to copies of letters written by the solicitor. It seems from the next proposition that he was speaking at that point only of letters to the client, for his Honour also appears to have held that the client was entitled to the original file copy of letters written on behalf of the client by the solicitor to third parties (reiterated by the same judge in Howard v Gunn (1863) 32 Beav 462; 55 ER 181). Re Thomson suggested too that the solicitor is entitled to retain letters received from the client, and it might be extrapolated from that that a solicitor is entitled to keep file notes of oral instructions given by the client. If these authorities are good law, then, in summary, the following is the position:

• the solicitor owns letters received from the client from which it might be extrapolated that the solicitor owns notes of oral instructions from the client;
• the solicitor owns file copies of letters to the client;
• the client owns file copies of letters sent to third parties.

Some classes of documents admitted of a simple answer because they have a relatively obvious, constant purpose. So:

• internal cheque requisitions, photocopying requisition forms are owned by the solicitor (356G, 361C);
• as are trust and other accounts printouts (358) (but note that ‘Having regard to technological advances and the ease with which copies can now be made’, Hope JA said ‘I should have thought that the solicitor who keeps computerised accounts should supply his client with a copy of the relevant printout, but at the client’s expense.’), ‘attempted financial reconciliation documents (361D) and financial records more generally including bank statements (361E-G);
• counsel’s briefs, and solicitors’ notes of attendances on counsel are generally owned by the client (360), except in a special case, such as a discussion between counsel and solicitor about fees, since it is the solicitor rather than the client who is principally responsible for counsel’s fees (359C);
• internal records and memos about work done or to be done are the solicitor’s property (little explanation of what class of documents was conceived of was provided by Hope JA, the only example being ‘a barrister may make written notes of arguments he proposes to submit to a court’) (359-360);
• communications between the solicitor and the Court would generally belong to the client (361);

More difficult were the following classes of documents:

• file notes of telephone conversations with and personal attendances on third parties;
• notes taken at court;
• correspondence with third parties.

They depend on a document by document analysis of for whose benefit the document was created. Examples given included:

• the client would own the file copy of a letter of demand written to a third party on behalf of the client (I say the solicitor owns the file copy because Hope JA asserted that the solicitor would be entitled to charge the client for the provision of a copy to which the client would be entitled) (356A);
• the client would be entitled to the original receipt received by a solicitor upon making a payment on behalf of a client to a creditor of the client (but note the difficulty in interpreting the passage containing the propositions in this and the previous bullet point noted above) (356B);
• the client would own the solicitor’s file note of a telephone conversation with a person the client says owes him money, in which the putative debtor gives his side of the story or makes admissions, or asserts a counter-claim (358E);
• the client would own a statement taken by the solicitor from a third party witness (358F);
• the solicitor would own a note of a conversation with senior counsel about fees because ‘Counsel look primarily to solicitors for the payment of their fees and solicitors have a professional responsibility for their payment. Clients of course have an interest, and a very real interest, in counsel’s fees, but I should think that a record of a conversation by a solicitor with senior counsel concerning the non-payment of his fees would be a record belonging to the solicitor’ (359C);
• the client would own a note of the solicitor’s conversation with the director of a legal aid organisation discussing a costs position (359D);
• the client would own the original exchange of correspondence if the exchange of views with the director of the legal aid organisation had been by letter (359D);
• the client would own notes of what happened in court (360C);
• the solicitor would own ‘to do lists’ made in court and prompted by what had happened there (360D).

FOI  APSC/ Robert Cornall/ dodgy Karin Fisher

Clearly dodgy Karin Fisher is attempting  to DODGE FOI's
It is amuzing how shonky this woman is.......
So I am aware Cornall protected one agency head under S41 of the APS  Act but what was the other one???


From: fionabrown01@hotmail.com
To: foi@apsc.gov.au
Subject: RE: FOI Robert Cornall [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 21:49:44 +1000

Hi Karin,

please advise me under what section of the Australian Public Service Act did Cornall investigate these individuals?

Thank you

Fiona Brown

---

From: FOI@apsc.gov.au
To: fionabrown01@hotmail.com
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 15:12:19 +1000
Subject: RE: FOI Robert Cornall [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

UNCLASSIFIED

Dear Ms Brown

Mr Cornall was engaged by the Commission to investigate allegations that had been made to the Australian Public Service Commissioner about the conduct of certain individuals.  The allegations and details about the investigations include sensitive personal information and are confidential.

Regards

____________________________________________________Chris Luton
Australian Public Service Commission

p : 02 6202 3571 | f : 02 6250 4437
e : chris.luton@apsc.gov.au | w : www.apsc.gov.au

FOI/  Australian Public Service Commission/ Dodgy Robert Cornall

So what was the other inquiry that Dodgy Robert Cornall  did for the APSC?
One was to protect and coverup for an Agency Head under S41 of the APS Act but what was the other one for?
Also Senator Hansen Young  was outraged  dodgy Cornall   was paid 83,000 by the Australian Government to do a report  shonky  report on  Manus Island and the asylum seeker riots!!

---

From: fionabrown01@hotmail.com
To: foi@apsc.gov.au
Subject: RE: FOI Robert Cornall [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 00:30:06 +1000

Hi Chris,

Can you please  verify what  2 investigations Robert Cornall did for the APSC.

Thank you 

Fiona  Brown

---

From: FOI@apsc.gov.au
To: fionabrown01@hotmail.com
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 15:36:54 +1000
Subject: RE: FOI Robert Cornall [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

UNCLASSIFIED

Dear Ms Brown

I refer to your request for information about the number of investigations conducted by Mr Robert Cornall for the Australian Public Service Commission since 2010.

I have made inquiries with the relevant areas in the Commission and two investigations were identified which were undertaken by Mr Cornall since 2010.

Please note that your request was not a valid request for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 because your request was for information, not for specific documents.  However, we have provided you with the information requested.

Regards

____________________________________________________Chris Luton
Australian Public Service Commission

p : 02 6202 3571 | f : 02 6250 4437
e : chris.luton@apsc.gov.au | w : www.apsc.gov.au

Julie Gilbert, allegedly abused by swimming coach Scott Volkers, reveals 'insult' over comments by prosecutor Margaret Cunneen

So again double standards by a shonky dodgy prosecutor.

I wonder how DODGY Margaret Cunneen would like  someone sticking their fingers into her VAGINA and  giving her a rub up when she had a massage!!!

7.30 

By Adam Harvey, staff

Updated Wed 9 Jul 2014, 8:34am AEST

VIDEO: A victim of alleged sexual abuse by her swim coach talks to 7.30 (7.30)

PHOTO: Julie Gilbert says one of her lowest moments came when the charges against the swimming coach were dropped. (7.30)

RELATED STORY: Coach had 'positive reviews' despite blue card rejections

MAP: Australia

A former swimmer who alleges she was abused by high-profile coach Scott Volkers says she felt "insulted" by a top prosecutor's comments about her physical response to his advances.

The royal commission into child sex abuse is currently examining how sports bodies and top prosecutors handled allegations of sexual assault made against Mr Volkers by three former students.

Julie Gilbert, Kylie Rogers and Simone Boyce each allege they were abused between the ages of 12 and 14 while swimming in Mr Volkers' training squad in the 1980s and 1990s.

Mr Volkers was committed to stand trial but charges against him were dropped by the Queensland Director of Public Prosecutions in 2002.

Ms Gilbert has told 7.30 that Mr Volkers' high-profile supporters made his alleged victims feel like "the three worst people in Australia" after the charges were dropped.

'Inappropriate' massage on bed in poolside caravan

The former swimmer says she was abused when she was 13 while swimming in Mr Volkers' training squad in the 1980s.

She said the abuse began after she was injured and found herself struggling to get back into the water.

PHOTO: Scott Volkers in 2002. (AAP: Gillian Ballard, file photo)

Ms Gilbert told 7.30 that after she was injured, Mr Volkers "decided that he'd take me to a sauna" which led to "inappropriate massage" on the coach's bed in a caravan by the poolside.

The royal commission has been told Mr Volkers was massaging her back and legs when he began rubbing her vagina inside her swimmers until she experienced an orgasm.

Ms Gilbert will say that about two days later, she again went to Mr Volkers' caravan before training.

She says during that massage, he moved his hands between her legs and under her shorts.

"This is not a sports massage. I mean a sports massage is your shoulders, it's out in the open, it's not hidden behind a closed door and certainly not on the coach's bed," she said.

Prosecutor questioned Gilbert's version of events

The decision not to bring new charges against Mr Volkers after the collapse of the 2002 case was made partly on the advice of one of New South Wales's most experienced prosecutors, Margaret Cunneen.

Ms Cunneen is a highly regarded crown prosecutor who last year ran an inquiry into the alleged cover-up of child sexual abuse in NSW.

Ms Cunneen has been praised for her attitude towards child victims of sexual abuse, which she has called "abhorrent" because it "exploits their vulnerability, irreparably damages their innocence, and casts a shadow over their whole lives".

In 2004 Ms Cunneen questioned Ms Gilbert's assertions that Mr Volkers had massaged her breasts.

"It is legitimate to consider whether 12-year-old swimmers even had breasts, but that is the allegation," Ms Cunneen said.

She also questioned whether a female abuse victim could have experienced an orgasm while being abused.

"It is difficult to accept that Gilbert could have been sufficiently relaxed for orgasm to occur," Ms Cunneen wrote in legal advice to the Queensland DPP.

It's hurtful, it's a direct attack on my recollections on an event that she wasn't there for.

Julie Gilbert

Ms Gilbert has told 7.30 the comments were deeply hurtful.

"Why would I make that up? What would I gain by saying this man did this to me?" she said.

"It's hurtful, it's a direct attack on my recollections on an event that she wasn't there for.

"There was no scientific or medical reasoning behind it. And at the same time she hasn't met me, she doesn't know me as an actual person.

"I don't know how you can make all these assumptions when you don't even know who I am."

Abuse ruined career: 'We were nobodies'

Ms Gilbert has told the royal commission how she stopped competitive swimming after the alleged abuse, effectively ending a promising career, and that she developed an eating disorder.

She says one of her lowest moments came when the charges against the swimming coach were dropped.

"I think that they looked at him as a high-profile swimming coach and that we were nobodies and that all we wanted to do was to ruin his reputation," she told 7.30.

"That was done right across the media by sporting and swimming personalities all , you know, we were regarded as the worst three people in Australia the next morning."

After the charges were dropped, Mr Volkers was retained as head coach at the Queensland Academy of Sport.

AUDIO: Royal Commission hears Qld Academy of Sport didn't investigate Volkers abuse claim (PM)

On Tuesday the organisation's then-chief, Alex Baumann, told the royal commission that he was not concerned about Mr Volkers because he was not working directly with children.

Chief Commissioner Peter McClellan responded: "Mr Baumann, I have difficulty understanding how he could be a head coach and not have contact with children. Can you explain how that is?"

Mr Baumann replied: "In terms of his role he would be the coach's coach."

Hetty Johnson from child sex abuse survivor network Bravehearts says swimming organisations went out of their way to protect Mr Volkers.

"It's sad but it’s not surprising. This was all about the reputation of Australian swimming and the reputation of their golden boy in Scott Volkers and that’s what’s paramount," she said.

"It's not child protection, it’s not the complainants, it is the swimming. It's a boy's club - 'let's get gold and he is our mate, let’s look after him'."

More comments on prosecutorial misconduct, this time from Australia

Prosecutorial Misconduct Law & Legal Definition

Prosecutorial misconduct is conduct which violates court rules or ethical standards of law practice. Examples, among others, may include:

• Courtroom misconduct (making improper remarks or improperly introducing evidence designed to prejudice the jury: violating rules regarding selection of the jury; or making improper closing arguments);
• Hiding, destroying or tampering with evidence, case files or court records;
• Failing to disclose evidence that might tend to exonerate the defendant
• Threatening, badgering or tampering with witnesses;
• Presenting false or misleading evidence;
• Selective or vindictive prosecution
• Denial of a speedy trial rights
• Use of unreliable and untruthful witnesses and snitches
• Thursday, March 1, 2012

  More comments on prosecutorial misconduct, this time from Australia

  Here is an interesting post from the Australian Professional Liability Blog on prosecutorial obligations. Although the language used is different in many ways, the underlying duties discussed are very similar to those in the rules of conduct in most states, the ABA Model Rules and the Restatement.  I did find interesting that more than one source mentions that prosecutors have a duty to help the court "arrive at the truth," something I would not say since due process, rather that "the truth" seems to be the main goal in our system.  As a famous movie quote goes, "the truth is we don't know what the truth is."  (The first person who can name the movie gets a prize.)
  
  Rather than mention a duty to help find the truth, the text of the comment to ABA Model Rule 3.8 states:  "A prosecutor has the responsibility of a minister of justice and not simply that of an advocate. This responsibility carries with it specific obligations to see that the defendant is accorded procedural justice, that guilt is decided upon the basis of sufficient evidence, and that special precautions are taken to prevent and to rectify the conviction of innocent persons.. . . "