They do indeed Be they the mills or wheels of justice, they grind slowly and exceedingly fine

Well, at least I hope they do – and are right now grinding slowly and effectively. It’s now more than three full weeks since Friday April 17, the date by which the District Court judge who heard my appeal the Monday before against a magistrate’s guilty verdict on a traffic speeding charge was pretty confident he’s be handing down his decision.
It sounds like His Honour since that appeal hearing on April 13 has found more to think about than he originally thought.

And he most certainly does. And his wise, fair and just judicial mind must surely be focused on the two lines of argument I pushed at appeal.

That if a remote camera operator’s certificate declaring all signs in a school speed restriction zone had been handed up in the lower court last May, the magistrate would have been obliged to consider those matters and my barrister would have had the opportunity to question the certificate’s relevance, seeing this supposed sighting of clearly visible and accurate signs happened “before the start of operations” on that day, most likely hours before I puttered along that street.

And that the transcript of the magistrate’s court hearing is missing a vital section in which the SM warns the police prosecutor that her case is flawed and unless she fixes it quickly, she would not like the decision the magistrate was leaning towards.

Interesting, hey? On the first point, guess what the Commissioner of Police’s brief argued at appeal in a clear attempt to minimise the importance of that certificate? That it’s never existed anyway and, paraphrasing a bit here, that’s it’s a figment of my imagination.

Fairly desperate stuff, right? In my summary of argument for the appeal, I included extracts from the Queensland Police Force’s remote traffic camera office and the Queensland Revenue Office, both affirming what the camera operator’s certificate stated.

And what does that mean? Those two government agencies are telling porkies or have been duped just as I was; or I’ve committed a criminal offence by creating false versions of those missives for my own sinister advantage. I did have the presence of mind to ask the appeal judge and the respondent’s brief if any charges were likely against me.

Oh, and I also advised the court that I had lodged a complaint to the Crime and Corruption Commission asking them to investigate my very strongly held belief that the certificate would have been falsely declared as there was no way all the signs could have been observed from some remote position to be visible and adequate.

I have stressed in both courts that this certificate was not included in the original police brief through an accident or incompetence; it was left out for the plain tactical reason of trying to derail our arguments. Instead, they ended up wrecking their own.

My own personal self-appointed bush lawyer’s opinion: I don’t think it would be at all fair to me if the appeal judge doesn’t wait until that CCC investigation is complete. At least we’d know by then if that certificate ever existed in the first place. You couldn’t make this shit up, right?

And that second strand to my appeal address? That the SM in May last year had stepped well over a red line between fairness and one-sidedness in ignoring her own ultimatum and becoming an advocate for the police prosecution by adjourning court while she went hunting for only the one piece of evidence she thought she needed; that my car was in a 40km/hr zone.

And why was the police prosecutor’s case flawed – and I argued it should have remained fatally flawed – was that the crucial information would have been included in the camera operator’s certificate which of course was not tendered because it – any of you BUGgers out there? – never existed in the first place. You couldn’t make this shit up, right?

Not long after my appeal hearing, I mistakenly directed my request for a full investigation into this crucial missing section of the lower-court transcript to the District Court registry, who nicely advised that it was not the place to make that appeal, They sent it on to QTranscripts with a copy to Robert Natanek, A/Senior Legal Officer at the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. I am sure both will be looking in depth at the possibility that the lower-court transcript was incomplete, surely by accident rather than design. I just know that the ODPP will be rightly appalled that the transcript they sent me might be missing a key section favourable to my case. I asked the ODPP some days ago if they’ll share their copy of the oral transcript with me. I’m sure in the interests of truth, justice and the Australian way, it’s on its way.

My own personal self-appointed bush lawyer’s opinion: I don’t think it would be at all fair to me if the appeal judge doesn’t wait until we all work together to get the full picture of what that transcript should have shown. I told the judge at appeal I believe he was entitled, (a duty perhaps, I wish I’d added) in a higher jurisdiction, to pass judgement on how far a magistrate should go to favour one side over the other.

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