I have both good and bad news for my loyal reader. Sometime soon, a District Court judge will strongly rule against an appeal case I presented on Monday and that’s the good news! I won’t have to spend any more with my creative people who have presented me with the draft cover of my upcoming book (above and below)

The bad news is that I won’t need to spend money I don’t have to redesign the cover to boast about my amazing legal victory as a self-proclaimed bush lawyer who broke probably the most basic of judicial rules; in court rooms, only a fool has himself as a client. That’s right! I told his honour I was basically a broke aged pensioner who would be conducting my own appeal, drawing on the expert input of all matters law by a relatively new friend of mine – AI or as he is formally known, Artificial Intelligence.

There were two main strands to my presentation: that we could have mounted a far different case at last May’s Magistrates’ Court hearing if a camera operator’s certificate had been in the police brief as expected. Oh, for you to have been there in Roma Street on Monday to hear the judge and me to-and-fro-ing on whether this certificate would have been significant if it had been in play, while all the time trying to remind ourselves that the Police Commissioner’s legal people in their summary of argument for the appeal claimed the certificate didn’t exist in the first place and had basically claimed it was a figment of my imagination. It was speculation on my part; the opposite of a fact! Which is a lie. I know, my wonderful reader, I know! You couldn’t make this shit up, right?

So, all those months over several years when I wrote to the QPD camera office seeking the name of the camera operator who signed the certificate and other details of when he or she decided just before the start of operations that day that all speed restriction signs within a school zone were visible and adequate, not once did I receive a reply along the lines of “what you talkin’ about, Willis!”

Ah, but did I imagine that His Honour’s eyes litup when I told him my legal advice before the MC hearing in late May last year was that it was not permissible to question in any way, shape or form the veracity of that certification or to impugn the camera operator’s diligence or professionalism in seeing what she or he saw on the day. Boy, did our learned judge swoop on that one faster than a seagull on a potato chip on a beach.

I’m paraphrasing here but the basic message from the bench was “you desperately wanted a certificate included in the police brief that you wouldn’t have questioned anyway!” I deadset thought His Honour’s hand moved to where he thought his black cap might be before ordering me to be taken down.

One again, while it was becoming increasingly obvious that I had a fool for a client, I did explain to His Honour that apart from showing the police prosecutions branch had always thought the certificate was important, we would have argued that signs declared to be visible before the start of operations that day – probably many hours before just after midday when I travelled down Water Street – did not in any way show the situation at the time of the alleged offence.

Now for the second plank of my appeal pitch: that the SM had abrogated her duty to be fair to both sides by going well beyond any red line and in so doing greatly favoured the prosecution and weakened our side’s chance of a win.

I suggested a jurist in a higher jurisdiction had every right to rule against Magistrate Shepherd’s decision to go looking for supporting evidence once her ultimatum to the police prosecution that her case was flawed and she would not like the direction the SM intended to take with her decision if that flaw wasn’t fixed and fixed quickly. The prosecutor came back after a short adjournment and said she had nothing further to offer.

Now this is where things get very interesting and why I thought I heard a tinkle of excitement from the bench when I was asked the exact page and portion of the lower court transcript that included these exchanges between Shepherd SM and the prosecutor.

“Now that’s a very good question, your honour”. I explained that I couldn’t find it during a thorough read-through last night and again this morning and in the 10 minute adjournment that allowed me to change my ways and behave myself.

But, my dear friends, missing it was, either by accident or design. It was quite a lengthy exchange and recess notification and I find it hard to believe that some glitch in the court recording system has caused its absence. I now have to liaise with my barrister over what went down that day. Can I get the police prosecutor on side? How do I prove the big slice of the transcript was missing. Where’s Hedley Thomas when you need him!

I’m guessing this appeal judge in his judgement is going to go large on my claims about what was missing in the court transcript from ten-and-a-half months ago.

I’ll provide the highlights of the learned judge’s ruling which I’m guessing will be fulsome in its praise of how the respondent presented the Commish’s case and will stoutly defend every aspects of Magistrate Shepherd’s stewardship of the lower-court hearing. It’s probably why, after the judge swept from the room after declaring his decision would only take a few days, I turned to the police commissioner’s lead lawyer and congratulated him on his impending win!

So very soon we’ll be hearing that the little annoying and squeaky cog has been shattered into pieces… for now at least. But maybe the fat lady hasn’t quite sung yet?

Don Gordon-Brown

Want to be alerted immediately a new blog hits Australia’s longest running and most offensive satire site? Simply click on the Follow sign to be emailed new yarns the moment they are uploaded! The very second we go far too far – and trust us we will – you can then quickly unfollow via the three dots!

Follow The Bug Online on WordPress.com