Mangled Thoughts

The British Labour Party’s Criminal Justice Act 2003 is to be copied in Australia. I will put this down to a strong rumour, for the time being. The major centre for this drive is Victoria, which figures in view of the ‘anti-Bill of Rights’, the ‘Blasphemy Law’, and other measures such as what was done with the State Trustees Office and Office of Public Advocate, all measures backed also by the pseduo Liberals who have strangled the Victorian Liberal Party. The concern viz a Victorian version of the Criminal Justice Act is thus not ill founded at all.

Genuine Liberals are not only irritated with the internal affairs of the Australian Liberal Party, but also with the consequence of the failure to send up Federal and State Parliamentary Parties that will fight on and for principles. The danger of an Australian version of the Crimes Act has many genuine Liberals irked, because they have the measure of too many MPs who stand in the name of the Liberal Party only ( I exclude, of course any who do hold genuine Liberal Principles).

Common Law is rooted in absolute property rights, thus economic freedom and of the individual. This is also the basis of ‘tolerance’. The trouble is, common law in Victoria is all but shredded and burnt. A ‘Criminal Justice Act’ would be another major overthrow of justice and inalienable rights.

It is not entirely a joke to call Victoria “Brackistan”. Collectivist ideology informs both major parties, sharpening their absolutist inclinations. Genuine Liberals are shocked by the degradation of the Liberal Party by ‘Statists’ who, at bottom, thirst for power and this is the only bone over which they contest the Left.

Thus has the danger of a Criminal Justice Act been brought to my attention. For this corrupt, rotten and dangerous state of affairs, Liberal Party members, Victorians and Australians can thank the likes of Michael Kroger, Peter Costello, David Kemp, Barry, Sheezel, Doyle, Napthine, Kennett, Ted Baillieu, and a small army of craven, unprincipled apparatchiks who expect to be floated in good to blue-ribbon seats by their overlords. Let’s not overlook either, not only the Victorian Parliamentary wing, but Federally the likes Peter Costello, David Kemp, Mlacolm Trunbull, Brendan Nelson and others see nothing wrong in the overthrow of common law by the imposition of ‘positive law’ the rule of tyrants.

The British Criminal Justice Act 2003.

It is a mammoth of an Act, with about 900 sections. The Labour Party raised it with the ostensible reason of ensuring more robust action against criminals and increase the protection of the British. The Act does not serve that aim at all, and certainly no-one in Britain can pretend they are safer today than before the enactment of the Bill. Reported crime rates, and rates of recidivism put paid to any pretensions of increased safety.

The most offensive measures are spread over sections 98-109, but they are not all that is wrong with the act. The following have been the subject of most attention in Australia:

Section 98, Evidence of bad character

a person’s “bad character” … evidence of, or of a disposition towards, misconduct on his part, other than evidence which—
(a) has to do with the alleged facts of the offence with which the defendant is charged, or (b) is evidence of misconduct in connection with the investigation or prosecution of that offence.

This section directly overthrows rules of due process and admissable evidence, and as the phrases show, are a broad catch all. By ‘bad character’, imagine for example the implications if the Bracks Cabinet had succeeded in their persecution of the Two Pastors via HEROC and VCAT. What, therefore is of bad character is not what it once meant, - and yet if it the sense was the correct understanding it is still not admissable.

99 Abolition of common law rules

(1) The common law rules governing the admissibility of evidence of bad character in criminal proceedings are abolished. (2) Subsection (1) is subject to section 118(1) in so far as it preserves the rule under which in criminal proceedings a person’s reputation is admissible for the purposes of proving his bad character.

Taken together, “misconduct” and “bad character”, the implications are shocking. Consider the ‘laws’ of Brackistan. Under ‘regulation’, not only the ALP has invented a myriad ‘of crimes’ that are not crimes at all. Basically, an Executive can have someone smeared, ruin their reputation, and even convicted by asserting the ‘accused’ has a disposition they (not necessarily the decent man in the street) find reprehensible.

Persons other than defendants

100 Non-defendant’s bad character
(1) In criminal proceedings evidence of the bad character of a person other than the defendant is admissible if and only if—
(a) it is important explanatory evidence,
(b) it has substantial probative value in relation to a matter …

Judge’s in Australia and America have ruled out as admissable evidence ’statements’ on someone’s character as ‘hearsay’ and this, detonates on two measures in the Act, one of which is hearsay is to be admitted in court:

114 Admissibility of hearsay evidence

(d) the court is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice for it to be admissible.
(2) In deciding whether a statement not made in oral evidence should be admitted under subsection (1)(d), the court must have regard to the following factors (and to any others it considers relevant)—
(a) how much probative value the statement has (assuming it to be true) in relation to a matter in issue in the proceedings, or how valuable it is for the understanding of other evidence in the case;

Hearsay in Common Law is verboten, and no witness is allowed to reflect on any other witness and defendant(s).

105 “Evidence to correct a false impression”

(

a) the defendant gives a false impression if he is responsible for the making of an express or implied assertion which is apt to give the court or jury a false or misleading impression about the defendant;
(4)… by means of his conduct… seeking to give the court or jury an impression about himself…

(5) In subsection (4) “conduct” includes appearance or dress.
(6) Evidence is admissible under section 101(1)(f) only if it goes no further than is necessary to correct the false impression.
(7) Only prosecution evidence is admissible under section 101(1)(f).

106 “Attack on another person’s character”

(1) For the purposes of section 101(1)(g) a defendant makes an attack on another person’s character if—
(a) he adduces evidence attacking the other person’s character,
(3) Only prosecution evidence is admissible under section 101(1)(g).

109 Assumption of truth in assessment of relevance or probative value

2) In assessing the relevance or probative value of an item of evidence for any purpose of this Chapter, a court need not assume that the evidence is true if it appears, on the basis of any material before the court (including any evidence it decides to hear on the matter), that no court or jury could reasonably find it to be true.

Needless to say, the judge can assume it true.

Chapter 2 Hearsay evidence Hearsay:

119 Inconsistent statements
(1) If in criminal proceedings a person gives oral evidence and—
(a) he admits making a previous inconsistent statement, or
(b) a previous inconsistent statement made by him is proved by virtue of section 3, 4 or 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1865 (c. 18),
the statement is admissible as evidence of any matter stated of which oral evidence by him would be admissible.
(2) If in criminal proceedings evidence of an inconsistent statement by any person is given under section 124(2)(c), the statement is admissible as evidence of any matter stated in it of which oral evidence by that person would be admissible.

In Australia, America and in Britain (until the Act) many indirect means to introduce hearsay have been properly ruled against. One example is ‘polygraph machines’, put down as a means of delivering reflections on the character of witnesses and defendants. The following, unless mistaken, can see the reversals that very sound ruling - indeed, is it the deliberate force of it:

Section 129: Representations other than by a person

432. This section provides where a statement generated by a machine is based on information implanted into the machine by a human, the output of the device will only be admissible where it is proved that the information was accurate. Subsection (2) preserves the common law presumption that a mechanical device has been properly set or calibrated.

The Act overthrows the law against double jeopardy. In the media there have been those who have attacked this principle, on the claim it is an escape hatch for some who have committed a serious crime. They are compeletely silent on, the reason is to stop false prosecutions, to ensure criminal charges and prosecution cases are sound, and to prevent an Executive (government) given to relentless attempts to convict someone of a crime (they cannot establish).

Concluding remarks

The above are a few points only. The Act is also one measure the Blair - Gordon Brown Cabinet has raised to usurp common law. Listed below are linked materials.

VCAT was established for the ostensible reason of providing a low cost resort, but without surrendering
common law principles. To the contrary, as many have found to their shock, it can be very expensive and
Kafkaesque. While the British ACT of course applies to regular courts and, ostensibly crimes ( words such
as ‘disposed’ are suggestive of something ideologically more) yet the articles above servs to sum up some of
the many things wrong with VCAT.

Some of the ‘legislation’ governing VCAT is aimed at, to the extent possible, ensuring parties cannot seek
recourse in the higher, regular courts. The case of the Two Pastors is an instance, it required adroit
manoeuvring for them to have their case heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, to be vindicated in the high
Court.

There are also provisions, certainly for some areas such as involve the STO and the OPA, which annihilated
the few rights Victorians have to defend themselves and their Rights even before VCAT. As one shows in
the case of Jennifer, the Executive, through its agent the OPA and STO are free to make up their own
‘procedural rules’ and relentlessly pursue their victims. The object of this is to force victims of Kafkaesque
persecution, into submission by virtually bankrupting them.

The above is not a complete summation of what is palmed of as ‘justice’ in Victoria. The essential point is
features, as it were, of the British Act are recognisable in Victoria. If extended to the Courts Magistrates and
Supreme, the complete corruption, no the overthrow of justice is the upshot. To this end, the ‘anti-Bill of
Rights’ is more than damaging.

Telling is the article that outlawed appeal to the High Court of Australia. The anti-bill of rights cannot be
constitutional on this count alone. Why hasn’t the Liberal Party opposed it on principles, defending the
inalienable rights of Victorians against an increasingly absolutist executive? Statists control the Victorian
liberal Party. Under Kennett, the Bill of Rights was prepared and Brumby imposed it. They further happily
usurped inalienable Rights by supporting such measures as the Blasphemy Act.

Genuine Liberals are deeply disturbed a British style Act might be imposed. Given the record of the
treacherous not Liberal “Right”, and in c-operating with Bracks and Brumby in wiping out real rights in
favour of increasingly transparent absolutism, there is every reason to be disturbed. The question is, is such a
bill still only discussed or are preparations to ram a Bill down already advanced?

U.K. Criminal Justice Act 2003

Hansard, here

In the debate during the Lords committee stage of the Criminal Justice Bill 2002-03 the Conservative peer Lord Hunt of Wirral reiterated the view that the Bill’s provisions for non-jury trial in cases of serious or complex fraud marked the erosion of jury trial on the grounds of expediency. He went on: If the Government have their way, then the…

The Criminal Justice Bill: Juries and Mode of Trial at p.19-34
39 HL Debates 15 July 2003 c772

Trial by Jury as a Constitutional Right.

The draft Criminal Justice Act 2003
(Categories of Offences) Order 2004 Second Report of Session 2004–05 Report, together with formal minutes

General Reactions to the White Paper and the Criminal Justice
Bill

Gresford delivers a nice and correct putdown of ‘holism’:

Lord Thomas of Gresford: I resist the temptation to point out that the Greek word holistikos is used as a euphemism by this Government for the more easily understood latinate “centralising”. Without wishing to get involved in the affairs of the Duchy of Lancaster, what is the role envisaged for the current local advisory committees which assist the Lord Chancellor in the appointment of magistrates? Will they continue as before? There is nothing in the Bill about them. Do we assume that they will continue to fulfil their role? If so, who will appoint them? What powers will they have?

I shall post more interesting links in another item.