|
 |
|
View article without comments
PARIAH -- ILLEGAL RIOT PORN
by mick lambe
Wednesday December 03, 2003 at 04:20 PM
pariahnt@yahoo.com Klare's Klaven
NT Police-doctored video tape vanishes...
click to enlarge
illegal-riot-porn.jpg, image/jpeg, 580x514
Welcome to the Northern Territory
=======================
Update - From NAP -- more below
Scott White has now been taken into custody and his
bail has been revoked.
Please support him by contacting the Berrimah
Corrective Centre and voiceing your disgust.
He may be in court tommorrow morning making a new bail application- phone 0415162525 for an update.
If so, turn up enmass to show your support for the civil
liberties/ rights of activists and drug users.
Ends
================
Corrupt NT State
by mick lambe
The Police-doctored Parliament video has gone missing. The one that conveniently focuses elsewhere whenever assaults on protestors take place.
There are a few 'different' copies about -- this was revealed in Scott's last case by the camera operator.
The tape was withheld as evidence for months while NT Police 'worked' on it.
The close-up of a hand as people are assaulted is corny stuff. And my explanation (as an expert witness on image manipulation) in Court as to how the tape was doctored, was not refuted.
Under cross-examination -- none of the politicians who viewed the TV screens of the (live) action inside Parliament, said they ever saw a close-up of a hand.
--------------------------------------------------------------
From...
http://www.country-liberal-party.com/NAP/pages/Parliament-invasion.htm
Bias and coverups
As the (NT Police doctored) videotape shows I am looking directly at Ema when Superintendent Bert Hofer kicks her. You can even hear me yell out as Ema is kicked by Hofer.
----------------------------------------------
"I witnessed it also and yelled out at Ema's assailants."
Melbourne indymedia report - day of action.
http://www.country-liberal-party.com/NAP/pages/Articles_10.htm#article3
----------------------------------------------
The Magistrate claimed that I couldn't see Ema (Corro) being kicked from my position. He stated this for the benefit of the Press during sentencing.
The background image...
http://www.country-liberal-party.com/images/Parl-2.jpg
...shows me (standing arms folded) looking directly at Hofer and Security guard. Ema is on the floor being kicked by Hofer.
Amended appeal
http://www.country-liberal-party.com/pages/Amended-appeal.htm
... 3. The politicization of the trial was evident. Particularly during the sentencing/press conference finale. Political bias.
a) The Magistrate and Public Prosecutor seemed bound by a need to exonerate Superintendent Bert Hofer, who I witnessed assault a defenseless female in parliament.
http://www.country-liberal-party.com/NAP/pages/Superintendent-Hofer-NT-Police.htm
b) I absolutely refute all of Magistrate Wallace's comments to the assembled press (during sentencing) about this assault.
c) I will rely on the (Police doctored) video tape and the transcript to demonstrate why.
http://www.country-liberal-party.com/images/Hofer-attack.mpeg
Gary Meyerhoff has also signed these amended appeal points.
--------------------------------
Evidence of political bias
Later in the video I am seen pointing at Hofer and regaling a politician about this cowardly thug.
The Magistrate was well aware of this evidence, introduced during the Hofer cross-examination.
http://www.country-liberal-party.com/NAP/pages/Melbourne-Indy-Chronicles.htm
The assault (kick) was also witnessed by Rebecca Morse an ABC reporter.
NT Police did not investigate Ema's assault complaint.
Magistrate Wallace tried to cover for this breach of normal investigative procedure, at the "sentencing/press conference finale".
==================
Just in... (updated above)
From Nicolette (Mon, 1 Dec 2003)
Scott White, the last of the 9 "parliament invaders" to face court charged with the "intentional disruption of the legislative assembly whilst in session" has refused to proceed with his hearing.
Scott has refused to proceed with his hearing today upon discovering the Department of Public Prosecution have "lost" vital evidence- namely the Hansrad video which depicts last years action.
Prosecution are threatening to proceed without Scott(who is pleading not guilty and is self-represented.) Supporters in court are concerned that this is yet another blatent travesty of justice in a trial which
has been surrounded by controversy.
Scott was previously extradited from Tasmania to answer charges. He may now be subject to a new arrest warrant for his refusal to continue with todays hearing.
NAP supporters should head to Darwin Magistrates Court to support Scott and the struggle for human rights for drug users.
More soon..
Ends
===============
This is going to be a very embarassing fiasco for the NT Labor government.
View section of NT Police tampered video - http://www.country-liberal-party.com/images/Hofer-attack.mpeg
NOTE: The videotape was not used by the Prosecution in an assault case against Ema Corro.
Why not? Because it shows Ema being assaulted. The NT State tried to protect Superintendent Bert Hofer (their cowardly FBI-trained thug) by concocting this 'assault' charge against Ema.
The trial was a joke. Both Security guards (the only witnesses) had assault complaints laid against them by Ema prior to this invention.
Neither were charged (or even investigated) as was Ema. The tape vindicates Ema entirely. Which is why an important primary piece of evidence wasn't used by a corrupt Public Prosecution.
http://www.country-liberal-party.com/NAP/pages/Superintendent-Hofer-NT-Police.htm
The video also shows that Ema DID NOT jump from a table onto the Security guard's back. A distance of about 10 metres.
However the Court found Ema guilty on that basis.
Faithfully recorded by the NT ABC, who chose not to interview Ema.
"The court heard Birkeland-Corro jumped on Aaron Wigmore's back from a table known as the Repository of the Mace."
I'm sure the Prosecutor's misleading the court in such a manner was illegal. He knew that Ema did not jump on anyone's back from the table.
---------------------------------
NT Police State
" ...(t)heir corrupt tactics -- whereby victims of Police harassment and brutality are punished through the use of the Law, by the NT Police -- are continuing under a Labor government.
So much for our efforts in ridding the Northern Territory of the racist and corrupt NT Country Liberal Party."
http://www.country-liberal-party.com/NAP/pages/Superintendent-Hofer-NT-Police.htm
--------------------------
The Court order prohibiting the video tape's publicising, obviously doesn't apply to this NT Police-tampered version.
________________________________
pariahmob
www.country-liberal-party.com/NAP/pages/Parliament-invasion.htm
Scott White at Police Station
by mick lambe
Wednesday December 03, 2003 at 04:20 PM
pariahnt@yahoo.com Klare's Klaven
scott-at-police-station.jpg, image/jpeg, 297x357
NT Police refused to investigate complaints and altered the Hansard video to protect State minions. That's criminal activity.
www.country-liberal-party.com/NAP/pages/Parliament-invasion.htm
Scott released
by mick
Thursday December 04, 2003 at 06:28 AM
From NAP (Mon, 01 Dec 2003)
Scott was released today at 4.30pm Darwin time. His committal hearing will continue tomorrow. We will get a detailed report on todays events out to you hopefully tonight.
Solidarity
Gary M
So what makes the NT Courts Different?
by steve b
Friday December 05, 2003 at 09:56 AM
What is it that makes the Northern Territory Courts different from the other states? Toa large extent it seems to be an overdepemdence on the dodgy idea of deterence which the courts occasionally question themselves. Worse than this however sweems to be a complete lack of a framework of civil and political rights being a major part of the decisionmaking process.
Here is a sample of recent Supreme Court decisions which show why the above claim is made:
NT courts
The test is set out in Cranssen v The King (1936) 55 CLR 509 at 519 - 520:
"The court may have mistaken or been misled as to the facts, or an error of law may have been made. Effect may have been given to views or opinions which are extreme or misguided. But it is not necessary that some definite or specific error should be assigned. The nature of the sentence itself, when considered in relation to the offence and the circumstances of the case, may be such as to afford convincing evidence that in some way the exercise of the discretion has been unsound. ..."
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nt/NTSC/2003/95.html
[19] This is enough to dispose of the case. However it is appropriate that I say something on the issue of apprehended bias. The test of apprehended bias is that adumbrated in Livesey v NSW Bar Association(1983) 151 CLR 288 at 293-4 namely:
" ... a judge should not sit to hear a case if in all the circumstances the parties or the public might entertain a reasonable apprehension that he might not bring an impartial or unprejudiced mind to the resolution of the question involved in it."
Counsel for the plaintiff made many complaints about the conduct of the hearing and particularly emphasized that all the circumstances had to be taken into account. As he said, there are in the books numerous cases where one factor of disqualification was not enough in itself, but when combined with other factors, was held sufficient to satisfy the test. Amongst other things counsel focused upon the second defendant's discussions with other members of the Board in the absence of the plaintiff and the second defendant's conduct of having identified himself with the prosecution of the case against the plaintiff by supervising the investigation into the plaintiff's activities. It seems to me that the present case is akin to R v Optical Board of Registration & Ors, ex parte Quran [1933] SASR 1 rather than R v The Medical Board of SA; ex parte S (1976) 14 SASR 360. As Bray CJ made clear in the latter case and the Full Court of South Australia held in the former case, a Board which engages in its own investigations thereby identifying itself in a real as opposed to formal sense with the prosecution thereby vitiates the proceedings; see, per Bray CJ at 364, 370. The second defendant's meeting in the absence of the parties with the inquiry panel on 21 February 2002, it seems to me, necessarily vitiated the present proceedings against the plaintiff.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nt/NTSC/2003/92.html
No argument was addressed to us suggesting that there must be some level of formality in the circumstances of the uttering of a remark by one person, which is then or later transposed to documentary form by another, before it can be said that the former has made a statement that is contained in a document. There are some indications in s. 92(4) that there may be limits upon the informality that will be accepted for bringing into existence a documentary statement that will qualify for the purpose of the provisions under consideration. The casual utterer of something overheard and recorded by a stranger to whom it is not addressed may not qualify as being a maker of a relevant statement. Under s. 92(4), for example, some sense of solemnity or formality may be understood as being present to the mind of the utterer or at least some consciousness of the fact that his remark will be attended to by a particular listener to whom he directs it being one who, if he is not contemporaneously recording it, may later take steps to preserve it. These may be features which, on another occasion, may require consideration. It may be that potential restrictions are pointed to by the references to matters being recorded "with the person's knowledge" and "dictated" which, if taken by themselves, seem to exclude non-deliberate and informal situations. In the present case there was an obvious degree of formality attending the conversation with Constable McLean because it occurred at a police station and a formal recording session had already taken place. The matter need not be further pursued because in the present case no argument requiring its consideration was raised.
Another matter which might have been adverted to but did not attract attention in the appellant's argument was the fact that the constable having quite properly commenced the interview by video recording it terminated that mode of proceeding and continued the conversation and spoke to the child about highly relevant matters without recommencing the video recording. It would be undesirable if in other cases police officers were to feel encouraged to proceed in similar fashion.
It is desirable to add that in support of the ground that was argued, no authorities were referred to which cast any direct illumination on the issue which the court is called on to decide.
It should be held that the appeal against conviction fails.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/qld/QCA/1997/115.html
7. Where, notwithstanding that as a matter of law there is evidence
to sustain a verdict, a court of criminal appeal is asked to conclude
that the verdict is unsafe or unsatisfactory, the question which the
court must ask itself is whether it thinks that upon the whole of the
evidence it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable
doubt that the accused was guilty (13 See Whitehorn v. The Queen
(1983) 152 CLR at 686; Chamberlain v. The Queen (No.2) (1984) 153 CLR
at 532; Knight v. The Queen (1992) 175 CLR 495 at 504-505, 511) . But
in answering that question the court must not disregard or discount
either the consideration that the jury is the body entrusted with the
primary responsibility of determining guilt or innocence, or the
consideration that the jury has had the benefit of having seen and
heard the witnesses. On the contrary, the court must pay full regard
to those considerations (14 Chamberlain v. The Queen (No.2) (1984) 153
CLR at 621) .
8. It was with those considerations in mind that some members of
this Court (15 See Whitehorn v. The Queen (1983) 152 CLR at 660, 687;
Chamberlain v. The Queen (No.2) (1984) 153 CLR at 532-534) have
thought it necessary to qualify the statement by Barwick CJ in Ratten
v. The Queen (16 (1974) 131 CLR at 516) that: "It is the reasonable
doubt in the mind of the court which is the operative factor". Barwick
CJ went on to say:
"It is of no practical consequence whether this is expressed as a
doubt entertained by the court itself, or as a doubt which the court
decides that any reasonable jury ought to entertain. If the court has
a doubt, a reasonable jury should be of a like mind. But I see no need
for any circumlocution; as I have said it is the doubt in the court's
mind upon its review and assessment of the evidence which is the
operative consideration."
The qualification was that no circumlocution was involved in speaking
of a doubt which a reasonable jury ought to have entertained because
account must be taken of the advantage which a jury has in seeing and
hearing the witnesses. To ask only whether the court has a doubt may
place insufficient emphasis upon the fact the jury, having seen and
heard the evidence given, was in a position to evaluate that evidence
in a manner in which a court of appeal cannot.
9. But it is, we think, possible to make too much both of the view
expressed by Barwick CJ and of the qualification suggested. In most
cases a doubt experienced by an appellate court will be a doubt which
a jury ought also to have experienced. It is only where a jury's
advantage in seeing and hearing the evidence is capable of resolving a
doubt experienced by a court of criminal appeal that the court may
conclude that no miscarriage of justice occurred. That is to say,
where the evidence lacks credibility for reasons which are not
explained by the manner in which it was given, a reasonable doubt
experienced by the court is a doubt which a reasonable jury ought to
have experienced. If the evidence, upon the record itself, contains
discrepancies, displays inadequacies, is tainted or otherwise lacks
probative force in such a way as to lead the court of criminal appeal
to conclude that, even making full allowance for the advantages
enjoyed by the jury, there is a significant possibility that an
innocent person has been convicted, then the court is bound to act and
to set aside a verdict based upon that evidence (17 Chamberlain v. The
Queen (No.2) (1984) 153 CLR at 618-619; Chidiac v. The Queen (1991) 171
CLR 432 at 443-444) . In doing so, the court is not substituting trial
by a court of appeal for trial by jury, for the ultimate question must
always be whether the court thinks that upon the whole of the evidence
it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that
the accused was guilty (18 Chidiac v. The Queen (1991) 171 CLR at 443,
451, 458, 461-462) . Although the propositions stated in the four
preceding sentences have been variously expressed in judgments of
members of the Court in previous cases, we have put aside those
differences in expression in order to provide authoritative guidance to
courts of criminal appeal by stating the propositions in the form in
which they are set out above.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/181clr487.html
[15] In sentencing the appellant on this count, the learned sentencing magistrate stated that he started with a penalty of 5 months imprisonment which he then reduced to 4 months and 1 week to reflect credit due for the plea of guilty. In so doing his Worship adopted a starting point very near to the maximum penalty available. Whilst the offending of the appellant must be seen as serious, it is not able to be characterised as amongst the most serious offending of its kind. It is easy to imagine offences of much greater seriousness under the section.
[16] In order to determine the appropriate sentence it is necessary for the court to have regard to the maximum penalty applicable to the offence. The maximum penalty indicates the view of the legislature as to the seriousness with which the community views the offence charged. Section 5(2)(a) of the Sentencing Act specifically requires the court to have regard to the maximum penalty prescribed for the offence. That penalty is reserved for the worst type of case falling within the relevant prohibition: R v Tait and Bartley (1979) 24 ALR 473 at 484; Ibbs v The Queen (1987) 163 CLR 447 at 452. The expression "the worst cases of the sort" should be understood to apply to a range of offending under the relevant provision rather than "for the worst offence of the kind" dealt with by it. The offence may be within that range notwithstanding that the offending could have been worse than it was: Bensegger v R (1979) WAR 65 at 68. As was observed by King CJ in R v Morse (1979) 23 SASR 98 at 99:
"To determine whether a sentence is excessive, it is necessary to view it in the perspective of the maximum sentence prescribed by law for the crime, the standards of sentencing customarily observed with respect to the crime, the place which the criminal conduct occupies in the scale of seriousness of crimes of that type, and the personal circumstances of the offender."
[17] The learned sentencing magistrate characterised the offending on 20 March 2003 as "getting towards the top of the range for breaches of domestic violence orders". In adopting a starting point of imprisonment for 5 months, his Worship has characterised the actions of the appellant as approaching the worst cases of the kind falling under that provision. Although the offending was serious it was not of that magnitude. It did not involve the use of weapons, it did not continue over a lengthy period of time, the appellant desisted of his own volition, the injuries were of moderate severity but were not long-lasting or life threatening, there was no indecency involved, there was, at that time, no continuing threat. The offending could have been much more serious than it was. In my view his Worship fell into error in adopting the commencement point of imprisonment for 5 months. The sentence imposed on this count was manifestly excessive when considered in the context of the maximum penalty available. The appeal against this sentence is allowed.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nt/NTSC/2003/73.html
[14] The respondent submitted there was impropriety in the respondent's albeit lawful arrest, given that the maximum penalty is a $1,000 fine, the respondent and his whereabouts were well known, and the issue of a summons would have sufficed. Without hearing submissions on behalf of the arresting officers I refrain from expressing any view but refer to the reasons for decision in Carr (2002) 127 A Crim R 151, particularly at 159 par 35:
"This Court in its appellate and trial divisions has been emphasising for many years that it is inappropriate for powers of arrest to be used for minor offences where the defendant's name and address are known, there is no risk of him departing and there is no reason to believe that a summons will not be effective. Arrest is an additional punishment involving deprivation of freedom and frequently ignominy and fear. The consequences of the employment of the power of arrest unnecessarily and inappropriately and instead of issuing a summons are often anger on the part of the person arrested and an escalation of the situation leading to the person resisting arrest and assaulting the police. The pattern in this case is all too familiar. It is time that the statements of this Court were heeded.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nt/NTSC/2003/57.html
[32] There is a strong presumption in favour of correctness of a discretionary judgment. In Australian Coal and Shale Employees' Federation & Anor v The Commonwealth & Ors (1953) 94 CLR 621 Kitto J said at 627:
"... A degree of satisfaction sufficient to overcome the strength of the presumption may exist where there has been an error which consists in acting upon a wrong principle, or giving weight to extraneous or irrelevant matters, or failing to give weight or sufficient weight to relevant considerations, or making a mistake as to the facts. Again, the nature of the error may not be discoverable, but even so it is sufficient that the result is so unreasonable or plainly unjust that the appellate court may infer that there has been a failure properly to exercise the discretion which the law responses in the court of first instance: House v. The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 at 504 - 505. ..."
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nt/NTSC/2003/44.html
23. His Worship accepted Mr Howden's first submission in mitigation that
"the situation got out of hand not solely because of my client's actions", but
noted:-
" if one goes back to the start, no way is (the appellant)
going to be put in the van. Now that must have inflamed the
situation to some degree where others were concerned.
MR HOWDEN: To some degree, but certainly not to justify
somebody going and getting a crowbar from the back of a car
and then punching the policeman to the side of the head with
a clenched fist. Both things which my client (was) not
involved in, and the situation then became inflamed.
Clearly it got right out of hand. There was a big group of
people there. And as your Worship correctly says, the
police were forced to pull a gun out and fire a couple of
shots. - - - (I) say that the situation was not entirely one
that was in my client's control. It was somewhat out of his
control because other people were playing a part in it as
well."
24. Mr Howden also submitted that the appellant should be given credit for
ultimately pleading guilty to the 2 charges. His Worship accepted that. The
appellant had pleaded not guilty on 21 April and had been granted bail to
appear on 12 June. Mr Howden stated that his client had in fact been in
custody for some 36 days; it emerged that this was because he had breached the
conditions of his bail of 21 April. His Worship backdated the sentences to
commence on 8 May, a course permitted by Code s405(2) which gave the appellant
full credit for his time in custody.
25. One of the other charges the appellant pleaded to on 12 June, arising
from the later incident of April, was resisting arrest. His Worship noted
that this charge:-
" shows a similar fact situation. That for some reason this
man has some contempt for authority. You look at his
record. He's got to learn that if a policeman is wrong in
his action then he has a civil remedy. If a policeman is
right in his action then he should go - well he should go
with him in any case, and if the policeman's wrong it can
easily be corrected through the civil courts. It's as
simple as that. And alcohol is his problem, obviously."
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nt/supreme_ct/unrep380.html
In the context of the above danger of prejudice to an accused in prosecution evidence of identification by a witness's earlier selection of a photograph or photographs, ordinary considerations of fairness dictate that any such evidence be subjected to careful scrutiny before it is accepted as constituting evidence of positive identification. If words which are reasonably capable of being understood as consistent with an absence of positive identification are used without further explanation or elucidation, there is no question of impugning the language of the witness in denying the independent efficacy of the words as positive identification. All that is involved in such a denial is the application of the fundamental principle that proof of guilt must be beyond reasonable doubt. That point was made by Mason CJ, Dawson and Toohey JJ in Knight (1992) 175 CLR 495 at 502-503:
`In those circumstances, the reasoning process which must be employed if the onus of proof beyond reasonable doubt is to remain upon the prosecution is well recognised. As Dixon J said in Martin v Osborne (1936) 55 CLR 367 at 375:
`If an issue is to be proved by circumstantial evidence, facts subsidiary to or connected with the main fact must be established from which the conclusion follows as a rational inference. In the inculpation of an accused person the evidentiary circumstances must bear no other reasonable explanation.'
In Plomp (1963) 110 CLR 234 at 243 Dixon CJ cited his previous observation in Martin v Osborne and acknowledged the difficulty found in stating the rule, a difficulty which he said `has not been overcome by employing the expression `more consistent' as if there could be degrees of consistency'.
...
There are not, as Dixon CJ observed, degrees of consistency and, if a reasonable jury ought to have found that an inference or hypothesis consistent with innocence was open on the evidence, then it ought to have given the appellant the benefit of the doubt necessarily created by that circumstance.'
Under our system of administering criminal justice, a person is not to be convicted of serious crime on the sole basis of a verbal ambiguity."
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nt/NTSC/2003/9.html
2. The learned magistrate failed to give adequate weight to the reasons given by the appellant for his non-compliance.
[19] In the Court of Summary Jurisdiction counsel for the appellant submitted the appellant had experienced considerable difficulty since his release from prison; he was not eligible for Social Security payments as he had no identification. The appellant was without income until documents could be obtained from interstate. Before the learned Chief Magistrate counsel for the appellant had submitted:
"... there were many times, he says, where he had no clean clothes, that he wasn't eating properly and the place where he was staying was really prevailing upon a friend who was helping him out until he was more financially independent.
He described his whole situation as being a bit embarrassing. ... (15 April, p 9)."
[20] The appellant is a young man. He was aged 21 at the time of these proceedings. He was a person whose only prior convictions were the ones for which this sentence was imposed. It was submitted by his counsel in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction that the appellant wasn't "someone who wanted to thumb their nose at an order, but really it was someone who's had little experience of these sorts of things in the past, perhaps didn't apply himself in the way he should have. He was living in this very uncivil environment, without much finance, and he was disrupted, as it were, by having to serve that extra term of imprisonment" (15 April, pp 9-10).
[21] The learned Chief Magistrate had the benefit of a report dated 17 April 2002 from Ms Kate McLay a counsellor at Banyan House. Ms McLay stated (p 5):
"Mr. Walker appears to lack certain life skills which in my opinion may be due to the absence of parental guidance whilst growing up. Mr. Walker lacks both the skills required to find out about social services within his area, as well as the skills to access the services he is aware of adequately (such as Centrelink).
Mr. Walker's non-compliance with his parole orders seem to be linked to his lack of knowledge of social services that are available within the community. Mr. Walker stated that he chose not to attend his appointment because he was hungry and did not have clean clothes. Mr. Walker stated he was embarrassed to present to people in the condition he was in at the time. If Mr. Walker had had the skills to search out and make contact with services such as St. Vincent's, he would have been able to access food and wash his clothes."
[22] It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the learned Chief Magistrate failed to give adequate weight to these mitigating circumstances surrounding the appellant's non-compliance with the order.
[23] On 23 April 2002 in delivering reasons for sentence, the learned Chief Magistrate said (tp 3):
"You're still a young man. You've got a reasonably positive report from the drug and alcohol unit, who I hope are not gullible. I think it's in your interests and the interests of the community if we can find a way to get you through what I hope is a temporarily bad period in your life.
So in looking at all of the circumstances, and the difficulties that you've found yourself in from the time that you got out of gaol until now, I'll use those circumstances as justifying some reduction of the amount of the penalty which I'm going to impose. But in doing so, I'm going to leave you responsible still to carry out those things which you were otherwise ordered to do, including the work order."
[24] I am not satisfied the appellant has shown there to be any error on the part of the sentencing magistrate. The learned Chief Magistrate did take account of all of the circumstances including the difficulties the appellant experienced after being released from gaol. His Worship relied on these circumstances to justify his decision not to restore the full five months of the suspended sentence but rather to limit the period of restoration of sentence to six weeks.
[25] I would dismiss this ground of appeal.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nt/NTSC/2003/7.html
[20] The principles that apply to a Crown appeal against sentence are well understood and have been addressed in many decisions of this Court and the Court of Appeal. They are conveniently summarised by the Full Court of the Federal Court in R v Tait (1979) 46 FLR 386 at 388:
"An appellate court does not interfere with the sentence imposed merely because it is of the view that that sentence is insufficient or excessive. It interferes only if it be shown that the sentencing judge was in error in acting on a wrong principle or in misunderstanding or in wrongly assessing some salient feature of the evidence. The error may appear in what the sentencing judge said in the proceedings, or the sentence itself may be so excessive or inadequate as to manifest such error ...".
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nt/NTSC/2003/4.html
[1] As to those matters, it was said by Anderson J in Woods v The Queen (1994) 14 WAR 341 at 350:
"When emotional stress is put forward in mitigation, the court must be persuaded that the offending is connected to the emotional condition in a way that to some sensible degree lessens the offender's culpability or the criminality of his/her behaviour, or makes retribution less imperative, or positively indicates that the offending is out of character and therefore may not be repeated, so as perhaps to lead to the conclusion that there is no need, in the particular case, to place emphasis on personal deterrence or so as perhaps to lead to the conclusion that the case is not one in which it is appropriate to emphasis general deterrence."
[1] Bearing in mind the conviction in 1988 for what was a very similar criminal conduct, it cannot be said that the offending on this occasion was out of character, notwithstanding the period of time which had elapsed between the two events. I am not satisfied that in this particular case there is no need to place emphasis on personal deterrence.
[1] In Neal (1982) 149 CLR 305 at 324 Brennan J described the general rule in these terms:
"Emotional stress which accounts for criminal conduct is always material to the consideration of an appropriate sentence, although its mitigating effect can be outweighed by a countervailing factor ... the sentencing court takes account of emotional stress in evaluating the moral culpability of the offender just as it is entitled to have regard to the motive for the offence ... Consideration of emotional stress is common place in the exercise of a sentencing discretion."
At p 326 his Honour made the now oft repeated remarks which are apt in this case:
"The same sentencing principles are to be applied, of course, in every case, irrespective of the identity of a particular offender or his membership of an ethnic or other group. But in imposing sentences courts are bound to take into account, in accordance with those principles, all material facts including those facts which exist only by reason of the offender's membership of an ethnic or other group. So much is essential to the even administration of criminal justice."
[1] I have identified specific errors on the part of his Worship, in particular the taking into account of irrelevant matters in the purported exercise of discretion. It was a difficult sentencing task for his Worship given the objective circumstances of the offending, complicated by the respondent's prior convictions and patent lack of remorse. She did not contest the evidence going to the elements of the offence, but sought a trial to attempt to vindicate her behaviour. She is not punished for that, but is not entitled to any mitigation. In these circumstances, notwithstanding that this is a prosecution appeal, the order made by his Worship must be set aside. In doing so I bear in mind, in so far as they apply to this case, the principles relating to such appears as recently revisited in Powell (2001) 126 A Crim R 137 especially per Prior J at p 140 and Perry J at p 143. This Court has the responsibility "to establish and maintain adequate standards of punishment for a crime" as well as to correct identified errors in the sentencing process.
[1] In lieu of the order made by his Worship, the respondent is convicted in respect of each of the offences.
[2] I was minded not to proceed to fix a penalty, but Mr Fisher, counsel for the appellant, drew the following decisions to my attention, namely, Mulcahy v Clark 107 FLR 448 and Petherbridge 93 A Crim R 235. Upon consideration of them I am satisfied that it is necessary to impose a penalty consequent upon conviction otherwise the Court's function would not be discharged.
[3] Bearing in mind that this is a prosecution appeal, the time which has elapsed since the offending and the respondent's means, I fine the respondent $25 on the first count, $10 on the second count and allow three months to pay.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nt/NTSC/2003/2.html
It is notorious that the courts traditionally regard the liberty of the subject with tenderness in the sphere of the criminal law. So too, in equity, there is especial concern that a coercive power to require or prohibit a person's conduct will be exercised with such precision as the circumstances require and allow. It stands to reason that, if a court is to imprison anyone for not carrying out its order, the order must be couched in unambiguous terms directing what is to be done or what is not to be done. I refer, for example, to Iberian Trust Ltd v Founders Trust and Investment Co Ltd [1932] 2 KB 87 at 95 per Luxmoore J in a passage quoted with approval by Owen J in Australian Consolidated Press Ltd v Morgan (1965) 112 CLR 483 at 515. See also Animal Liberation (Vic) Inc v Gasser [1991] VR 51 at 56, a decision of the Appeal Division of this court, and Spry, Principles of Equitable Remedies, 5th ed. (1990) at pp. 374-5."
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nt/NTSC/2002/64.html
"In this respect the expression "procedural fairness" more aptly conveys the notion of a flexible obligation to adopt fair procedures which are appropriate and are adapted to the circumstances of the particular case".
See also the judgment of Brennan J commencing at p 612.
[29] Two recent, and as yet, unreported decisions of the High Court of Australia also deal with some of the issues in this matter. In Muin v Refugee Review Tribunal (2002) HCA 30 par 123, McHugh J said:
"Natural justice requires that a person whose interests are likely to be affected by an exercise of power be given the opportunity to deal with matters adverse to his or her interests that the repository of the power proposes to take into account in exercising the power. This does not mean that the source and nature of all material that comes before the decision-maker must be disclosed. But " ... an opportunity should be given to deal with adverse information that is credible, relevant and significant to the decision to be made." What is required to discharge this duty depends on the circumstances of the particular case."
[30] It is to be inferred that a decision maker will not take into account any information that is incredible, irrelevant or insignificant to the decision to be made and thus need not put it before the person whose interests are likely to be affected.
[31] Minister of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Rajamanikkam (2002) HCA 32 at par 25 referred to the established principle that a decision maker must base his decision on evidence whether a hearing is requested or not, and if one is requested he must fairly listen to the contentions of all persons who are entitled to be represented at the hearing. I would apply those remarks as much to a situation where there is no oral hearing, but one conducted upon written material.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nt/NTSC/2002/51.html
Dear P's
by pr
Sunday December 07, 2003 at 06:54 AM
A couple of things I've learned from my recent (and ongoing) trial experience is that it's good to have a lawyer, even a bad one, because they can field any possible plead outs that might be arranged.
As you can see from the flamin lack of solidarity and support apparent here now, when the rubber hits the road it doesn't hurt to have an exit stRATegy.
Activism is a harsh mistress and the courts are the enemies terrain, I don't mean to sound to defeatist or pessimistic in saying this and I do hope you go on to win on your own.
As one advocate of direct action in spite of it's pitfalls I support what your doing and offer long distance solidarity under siege for what that's worth.
Keep fighting Pariah's, keep fighting.
NT Police State
by mick
Sunday December 07, 2003 at 08:21 AM
pariahnt@yahoo.com
Hi Prof
As long as one is doing what is right -- there is no possibility of defeat. The bent Courts, media propaganda and Police harassment will never defeat the truth.
And activism is not supposed to be easy.
The egoism and sectarianism of the so-called 'left' is far worse in the NT.
The 'activist' who went along to Court to give support to Bert Hofer -- (the Police thug who kicked Ema) -- also received a computer from former Labor Police minister Syd Sterling.
Bushy? (Troll)
We have a show pony 'left' here -- run by Labor and Police agents.
That's why the appalling incarceration figures of Aboriginal people in the NT -- are being ignored.
http://www.melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2003/11/57879.php
PARIAH and NAP are not part of that 'tame left' scene, which is why we are having our heads kicked in.
It is almost amusing to see an article in GLW on the 'Parliament Invasion' -- authored by a person who was employed at Parliament shortly after that action.
This Stasi-like reaction to dissent is something we need to acknowledge and counter.
PARIAH just keep things loose and leave the public number's game to those who feel it has some effect. We prefer to keep up a 24/7 information web site and to work with groups when their agendas suit.
Political groups should be vehicles for ideology -- not vice versa.
We won't lose in Court. Prison is just an another opportunity for protest.
Solidarity -- and good luck with your political trial.
Remember -- you can't lose :-)
mick
pariahmob
---------------------------
www.melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2003/11/57879.php
Racism entrenched in Court Processes
by steve b
Sunday December 07, 2003 at 09:37 AM
Sorry that my last comment was such an unwieldy piece of work but a reading of how the legal processes in the NT operate is important on the basis of keep ypur good friends close and your enemies even closer.
Information is power and knowing how to counter their favourite arguments is crucial in getting a progressive movement to grow. Court wins also allows a reason for the mainstream media to get your views out into the wider community.
Even in South Africa during the worst of the apartheid era courts which routinely rubberstamped government decisions were embarrassing the government by jailing protesters who the government thought should have been acquitted and releasing protestors who the Government wanted jailed.
Courts are unpredictable beasts and the best defence against their inbuilt bias towards the wealthy and privileged is to be well- prepared. By putting their cases publicly on the internet it is far easier for protest groups to find out what the argument most likely to produce a favourable result is.
Demystifying the law is a very much an important part of breaking the hold of the wealthy over the poor. High incarceration rates of the indigenous population in the Northern Territory are no accident.
In my view it is a result of institutionalised forms and processes built up over many years. Other states seem to have a much better understanding of political and civil rights than is apparent in the Supreme Court cases listed on the Northern Territory website perhaps because there has never been a Fitzgerald Royal commission or a Woods Royal Commission etc in the Northern Territory yet which shakes the complacency out of the Criminal justice system.
Everyone hates Half Man
by Bushy
Sunday December 07, 2003 at 10:59 AM
English born and self proclaimed "Radical Intelectual" Micky Boy Lambe is going to jail and he is sooking like a little girl.
It is only because Half Man is such a grandstanding show off that he is going. Half the people who invaded Parliament house avoided jail and even a conviction when they had their day in court.
Micky Boy instead drags half the NT Parliament through the courts wasting everyones time. If it wasnt for him being such a wanker he wouldn't be doing any prison time at all.
Even the judge who finally sentenced him said that Lambe was only a tag along who rode the coat tails of NAP's action. The judge even gave him a lesser sentance.
Then Micky Boy has a go at the NT "Left" dissing them yada yada yada. Well he has so few supporters in the Left it is no wonder. He has so few supporters fullstop.
Everyone hates the prick including most in NAP.
But that is alright because he has invented a group called "PARIAH" which is him. PARIAH aint no group, collective, association or network of activists. It's just stinky Mick pretending there is.
Nerve touched...
by bushybasher
Sunday December 07, 2003 at 01:34 PM
You sound the way the people that Mick describes would.
And you forgot to refute the facts.
Where is that tape?
Pairing?
by pr
Sunday December 07, 2003 at 01:41 PM
In Parliament there is a 'gentlemen's agreement" (broken in 1975 by fascist nutcase Jo Beserker Peterson)
that pairs off those members who cant attend for some reason.
Well it looks like the web fascists have hit on pairing strategy that knocks out those of us like Leon, myself and Mick. That is stalk, harrass, slander and libel and spit till everyone gets so sick of the wire degradation that both parties are asked to take it outside.
CongRATulations 'Bushy' and your Troll mates. You win...for now.
Hey Mick did ya hear Geoff Clark got 19 charges dropped so that means 90% of the Portland police are lying sacks of shit. Score one for the strugglers!
My case has been adjourned to Feb to give me a chance to review late evidence. I have a VCAT hearing on the 12th of Dec to see why various pollies and VIP's are allowed to review their LEAP files access logs and I get a letter saying the corrupt rotten stinking lying PIGs wont even confirm or deny that my file exists. HA!
We'll soon see what the rule of law means in this state.re LEAP
Someone's telling porkies
SO what can we do???
by charley PHAM
Wednesday December 10, 2003 at 03:42 PM
nwn_webmaster@yahoo.com 0412871985
so what can we do , how can we band togther to deal with these issues...
Standing alone is so...well LONELY
Troll indicates the hatred we face here
by bushybasher
Tuesday January 27, 2004 at 08:32 AM
[Please note that "Bushy" has been identified as a troll who's main interest is in starting flame wars, by the MelbIndy collective. He has posted under numerous psuedonyms, nearly always to flame someone or post an EdPol breaching post.
His post below is a clear example of this.
Please keep this in mind as you hear its protests about having its posts pulled - Ed. (ZB).]
---------------------------------
Mick Lambe the big fucking sook
by Bushy, Sunday May 25, 2003 at 01:21 PM
You cunts on the Indymedia collective are just as pathetic as Micky Boy.
You are the most fucking gutless bunch of poofters that I have ever come across. You alow a known "child molester" like Mick Lambe to crap on non stop and then act like his fucking servent and remove any comment that is in anyway critical of him.
You make me want to vomit.
Where are the censors when you need them?
by bkm(c)
Tuesday January 27, 2004 at 11:37 AM
What are MIM doing letting that bullshit through? If you're going to censor, at least censor bullshit wankers like that last post. Where's the substance? What's the dickheads point? It's slanderous shite.
Some sooking pussy has a problem with Pariah and loses the plot...piss it off, it's bullshit.
THE NAP
by LSJM
Saturday December 04, 2004 at 10:49 PM
DV8CRIM@HOTMAIL
THIS GROUP OF PEOPLE ARE A BUNCH OF JOOBIT COCKSUCKERS WHO IF ANYTHING HAVE MADE IT HARDER (not easier) TO GET A CONSTANT SUPPLY OF POTAND ITS BECAUSE OF MR MEYRHOFF THAT THE POLICE ARE TARGETING PEOPLE WHO TELL EVERYONE THEY SMOKE POT . IF YOU WANNA SMOKE UR POT FOR FUCKS SAKE DONT TELL EVERY TOM DICKAND HARRY KEEP IT 2 USELF YA BUNCH OF DUMB CUNTS
Robert Inder-Smith ::: BUSHY the Troll?
by angry womyn
Sunday March 27, 2005 at 10:10 AM
robert-inder-smith_sexist_pig.gifjhpn6z.gif, image/gif, 444x270
IS NAP - CORE MEMBER - ROBERT INDER-SMITH SACKED BY THE NT NEWS - 'BUSHY' THE HATE-FILLED TROLL?
Is that why he goes on about Mick Lambe being called a "radical intellectual" by the NT News?
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2005-10,GGLD:en&q=site:melbourne%2Eindymedia%2Eorg+radical+intellectual+bushy
This creepy sexist who was a Sports journo wanted to run, "a story relating to, as I recall, escort agencies or something of that nature, and Rob suggested this was a good story for The Sunday Terra."
yuk
-----------------------------
He stated that Mr Inder-Smith's manner towards him was rude, aggressive and obnoxious.
"In the context of that conversation, that particular person said that you had been aggressive to a member of their staff.
That was the word they used?---Yes.
Aggressive?---Mm.
Pretty common recurring theme, this word. What else did they say after that?---They were really just asking whether it was a fair dinkum story." (page 102)
[21] Ms Johnson stated that the next day she and Mr Inder-Smith discussed the incident. She stated that an incident occurred on the following day.
"...I went over to the library and Mr Inder-Smith was laying down at the end compactus right at the bottom of the library, on a carpet, reading a paper. He saw me, and I went straight back to my office. He got up and come to the office and stood in the doorway and started abusing me. He really, really abused me. It could have been 5 minutes, it could have been 10, it could have been 20, but I just lost track of time, and he just told me I was a stuck-up snob, I was a smart-arse, and everybody in the building didn't like me, and they had to get on their knees if they wanted something from me. I've never had one bad word with anybody in that building in all the time I've been there." (page 58)
------------------------------------------
1420/99 N Print S1406
Printed with the authority of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission Dec 1420/99 N Print S1406
AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION
Workplace Relations Act 1996
s.170CE application for relief in respect of termination of employment
Robert P Inder-Smith
and
Nationwide News Pty Ltd
(U No. 80145 of 1999)
COMMISSIONER LARKIN
SYDNEY, 3 DECEMBER 1999
Alleged unlawful termination
DECISION
[1] On 9 July 1999, Mr Inder-Smith (the Applicant) lodged an application pursuant to s.170CE(1) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (the Act) for relief in respect to the termination of his employment from Nationwide News Pty Ltd (the Respondent). Conciliation proceedings were unsuccessful. Mr Inder-Smith elected pursuant to s.170CFA(1) of the Act to proceed to arbitration on the grounds that his termination was harsh, unjust or unreasonable.
[2] On 26 March 1998 Mr Inder-Smith commenced employment with the Respondent as a sub-editor/journalist on the National Territory News. On 9 July 1999 Mr Inder-Smith's employment was terminated by the Respondent. The Notice of Employer's Appearance form R21 states the reason for the termination of the Applicant as "Refusal to obey lawful directions, abuse of employees, inappropriate and unauthorised activities as employee and improper dealings with public". The Applicant disputes these allegations as "trumped-up charges". He acknowledged that he had received warnings, however, he disputes their validity. The incident which lead to the Applicant's termination occurred on 3 July 1999 and involved Mr Inder-Smith and Ms Lloyd, who was at that time the deputy sports editor.
[3] The matter was heard in Darwin on 4th and 5th of November 1999. Mr Inder-Smith conducted his own case. He summonsed 15 witnesses to appear and give evidence. He also chose to give his evidence as sworn testimony. Fourteen of the 15 witnesses summonsed by the Applicant appeared and gave evidence. They were:
Mr Kennedy General Manager
Ms Bonanni Deputy Editor
Mr Flynn Chief Sub-editor
Mr Hurt Deputy Editor
Ms Johnson Librarian
Mr Branston Editorial Assistant
Ms Foster Sub-editor
Ms Lloyd Deputy Sports Editor
Mr Thompson Chief-of-staff
Mr Betley Sub-editor
Mr Holbrook Senior Sub-editor
Mr Jackson General Sub-editor
Mr Scott Managing Editor of the Centralian Advocate Newspaper in Alice Springs
Mr Coren Editor of the Northern Territory News and Sunday Territorial
[4] Mr Grove, by leave, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. The Respondent called two witnesses. They were:
Ms Urvet Sports Journalist
Mr Morris Sports Journalist
[5] Mr Inder-Smith was employed in the sports department which was part of the editorial department of the Northern Territory News. The editorial department has approximately 60 people which includes photographers, editors, sub-editors, reporters, librarians and clerks involved in a seven day a week operation. Mr Inder-Smith outlined the duties he performed for the respondent as follows:
"I was a sub-editor which meant I processed the stories that the journalists wrote. The three stages of print news dissemination: reporting, sub-editing and printing, and you know, we are the middle ones. The sub-editors are the most important safety net of any newspaper. They have to correct spelling mistakes of the journalists which are often and common. They have to rewrite sentences, phrases, that might be ambiguous, or clumsy, or whatever. They put the headlines on the stories and they write captions." (page 6)
[6] All of the witnesses, except Mr Kennedy, worked within the Editorial area during Mr Inder-Smith's tenure with the Respondent.
[7] The Applicant advised that reinstatement was not sought. The remedy sought by the Applicant was compensation to the maximum limit that the Commission could award.
[8] In arriving at a decision in this matter I will not outline all the submissions, material and evidence as presented. I have, however, taken account of all the material submitted in support of the respective arguments.
Was the termination harsh, unjust or unreasonable?
[9] Subsection 170CG(3) of Part VIA, Division 3, establishes a framework for an arbitration once an election, pursuant to ss.170CFA(1), has been made by an applicant. The subsection states:
"In determining, for the purposes of the arbitration, whether a termination was harsh, unjust or unreasonable, the Commission must have regard to:
(a) whether there was a valid reason for the termination related to the capacity or conduct of the employee or to the operational requirements of the employer's undertaking, establishment or service; and
(b) whether the employee was notified of that reason; and
(c) whether the employee was given an opportunity to respond to any reason related to the capacity or conduct of the employee; and
(d) if the termination related to unsatisfactory performance by the employee - whether the employee had been warned about that unsatisfactory performance before the termination; and
(e) any other matters that the Commission considers relevant."
Valid Reason
[10] The first question to be addressed is;
Did a valid reason exist, which was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable, for the Respondent to terminate Mr Inder-Smith's employment?
[11] The Applicant was employed by the Respondent for a period of sixteen months. The reasons stated for the Applicant's termination by the Respondent were: refusal to obey lawful directions, abuse of employees, inappropriate and unauthorised activities as employee and improper dealings with the public.
[12] In addressing the material relevant to the above allegations I will reproduce a very small section of the evidence given by the witnesses which, in my opinion, is representative of the total evidence presented at the hearing.
The evidence
[13] Ms Bonanni, deputy editor in charge of the Sunday Territorian paper, has been employed with the Respondent for 6 years. Ms Bonanni had not personally been involved in an incident with Mr Inder-Smith, however, in her evidence she stated:
"...I can say that I did see you sort of behave a little aggressively to some people...I think it was because it happened - it didn't happen once or twice. I think it happened a few times and the subs area is fairly calm, I think, and perhaps, yes, it was a bit disruptive." (page 30)
[14] She also stated that on one occasion she thought that Mr Inder-Smith had been rude to Mr Holbrook.
[15] Ms Bonanni witnessed the incident between the Applicant and Ms Lloyd which occurred on 3 July 1999. She stated that while she could not hear what was being said it "seemed to be quite heated as their voices were raised...I became a bit concerned when I saw Rob actually shake his finger at Di. I sort of thought that was sort of, you know, a bit threatening, threatening behaviour..." (page 27)
[16] Mr Flynn, chief sub-editor, has been employed by the Respondent for 10 years. His evidence was that he didn't have dealings with Mr Inder-Smith on a regular basis and that their relationship was "okay". He stated that he had heard about incidents with other people, however, "[t]he only things I'd seen first hand or heard, I should say, was Rob making remarks about peoples' work louder than was necessary so that they would hear it, and I believed at the time that he would have been better off just telling the person if there was a problem." (page 37)
[17] Mr Hurt, deputy editor, has been employed by the Respondent for approximately one and a half years. Mr Inder-Smith submitted that the incident with Mr Hurt had lead to his second warning from the Respondent. Mr Inder-Smith put a question to Mr Hurt in relation to stress and the following exchange took place:
"What about in the times during discussing our story, the story that I had for The Sunday Territorian, were you stressed then?---Yes.
Why?---I was stressed by the discussion, by the manner in which it was held. I would describe it as a confrontation.
So too would I. Do you remember what I said to you at that time confrontation?---We had more than one discussion. In what sense?
More than one discussion, that is interesting. Can you take me through the more than one discussion that we had?---As I recall, and this would have been around May, I believe, early this March - earlier this yea, Mr Inder-Smith came to me suggesting a story that he had for publication in The Sunday Territorian. At the time I was still deputy editor but my responsibility was The Sunday Territorian, and Rob, who works in Sport came to me with a general news story which he wanted published in The Sunday Territorian. It was a story relating to, as I recall, escort agencies or something of that nature, and Rob suggested this was a good story for The Sunday Terra." (page 41)
[18] Mr Hurt's evidence was that he referred the story to the editor. He continued:
"I was walking back towards my desk and Mr Inder-Smith virtually stopped me in my tracks and stood very close to me and said, 'What is happening with the story?' I said, 'Well, we are holding it, we are not running it at the moment.' He asked me why and I said, 'Dave is not sure about the story and he's referred it to Don.' Rob said, 'What has it got to do with Don Kennedy?'...I could only describe the incident as a confrontation. It was kind of - I felt like almost trapped, in a sense. I was stopped in my tracks and it became an eyeball to eyeball situation. I felt very uncomfortable about it. I felt that I was being - my integrity was being challenged." (page 43)
[19] In cross examination Mr Hurt described Mr Inder-Smith's manner as:
"Assertive would be an understatement. I would say aggressive and confrontational at least, and demonstrative. There was certainly eyeball into eyeball. There was a, if you like, it was a kind of a sneer, supercilious air about him, and I recall a waving of the finger at me." (page 46)
[20] Ms Johnson, librarian, has been employed by the Respondent for 7 years. Ms Johnson gave evidence of an incident in approximately October 1998, between herself and Mr Inder-Smith where she had requested an early draft of a section of the paper. She stated:
"So I went back to ask him and then he started getting rather mad, thumping the keyboard and complaining that it would take him so many moves in this computer to get these stories from the computer, and I said, 'Well, forget it, don't worry.' He said, 'I'll give them to you,' which he did." (page 58)
[21] Ms Johnson stated that the next day she and Mr Inder-Smith discussed the incident. She stated that an incident occurred on the following day.
"...I went over to the library and Mr Inder-Smith was laying down at the end compactus right at the bottom of the library, on a carpet, reading a paper. He saw me, and I went straight back to my office. He got up and come to the office and stood in the doorway and started abusing me. He really, really abused me. It could have been 5 minutes, it could have been 10, it could have been 20, but I just lost track of time, and he just told me I was a stuck-up snob, I was a smart-arse, and everybody in the building didn't like me, and they had to get on their knees if they wanted something from me. I've never had one bad word with anybody in that building in all the time I've been there." (page 58)
[22] Ms Foster, sub-editor, was employed by the Respondent for approximately 5 years. An example of Ms Foster's evidence went as follows:
"Mr Inder-Smith: Did I ever threaten you in the workplace?---Yes.
How so?---A particular incident on November the 14th last year, on the Saturday night in which we were talking about a style matter at the NT News and by the way you spoke to me and the way you came across at me, I felt quite threatened by you.
How was the way I came across to you?---You spoke very loudly to me. You spoke to me in a way that I felt belittled me and I also found the way you spoke to me quite arrogant....
What was it?---It was to do with back slash in kilometres per hour." (page 71)
[23] Ms Foster further stated "I felt quite angry about the way he spoke to me in front of other staff members. I was in a senior position that night", "I felt scared enough to get up and walk away so that there would not be any further confrontation." (page 76)
[24] Ms Foster also gave evidence of other incidents that she had witnessed in relation to Mr Inder-Smith's behaviour and manner.
[25] Mr Betley, sub-editor, has been employed by the Respondent for 8 years. Mr Betley's evidence was that he and Mr Inder-Smith "worked fairly well most of the time", and, that on one or two occasion they had "a frank and honest exchange." (page 106)
[26] One frank and honest exchange was to do with "ellipses", as follows:
"We had a chat about that, didn't we?---You spoke to me the next day, if my memory serves me correctly, and accused me of stuffing up the paper." (page 107)
[27] Another exchange between Mr Betley and Mr Inder-Smith concerned a particular style of headline which Mr Inder-Smith questioned. The selection of style was the responsibility of Mr Betley on that occasion. It appears from the evidence that Mr Inder-Smith had changed Mr Betley's preferred style without authority. His evidence was that during the discussion Mr Inder-Smith's manner was "Surly, arrogant". (page 112) In general, Mr Betley stated:
"You weren't aggressive all the time and I don't recall you swearing at anyone else when I was there...I think you were a little unfair and a little hard on some of the reports that I saw you deal with when you were next to me but that wasn't by bailiwick, I didn't interfere. It was not my responsibility. My opinion is, but I thought you were a little unfair on some of the younger ones in particular." (page 114)
[28] Mr Holbrook, senior sub-editor, has been employed by the Respondent for approximately 7 years. Mr Holbrook's evidence was that Mr Inder-Smith was aggressive and that, in his opinion, he used stand-over tactics. Mr Holbrook explained his opinion in the following manner:
"Mr Inder-Smith: ...Again, just tell me, please, how I stand over people besides if they are sitting down?---Stand-over tactics is a phrase used for your manner. That was affecting the office badly to be honest.
Could I be seen as disagreeing with you?---Frequently.
Right. Did I criticise you for mistakes you had made?---Frequently." (page 118)
[29] Mr Holbrook gave evidence of another incident as follows:
"...we have a style, and Mr Inder-Smith refused point blank to follow it. There was an editorial meeting where Mr Inder-Smith carried on for about 10 minutes saying that, you know, he would not follow the style that was a paper. The actual style book is laid down, A, by News Limited, B, by a sort of quorum up here and he just would not follow it. It came down in this particular meeting to the editor or to Mr Coren saying, you know, this is the style, and he carried on. The editor of the day just said: look, it's been decided. This is what will happen...As the check sub I'm the final arbiter...I had instances where I would change things, like the ellipses, and I would get home, look at the paper and find them changed back." (page 119)
[30] On Mr Inder-Smith's manner, Mr Holbrook's evidence was:
"I didn't say you said it, I say that you had the attitude that you thought you were better than anyone else...your mannerisms when you were in the office were that you thought you were better than anyone else, that basically the NT News was a bunch of jerks, really. That is the attitude you exhumed." (page 121)
[31] Mr Jackson, general sub-editor, has been employed by the Respondent for over 11 years. His evidence was that he and Mr Inder-Smith had a "few altercations" and disagreements associated with style. He stated that Mr Inder-Smith's manner towards him was rude, aggressive and obnoxious. Further, that Mr Inder-Smith would not follow direction. Mr Jackson evidently requested a move from the sports department because, as he put it to Mr Inder-Smith:
"Because I could not tolerate you.
Because of my abrasiveness or obnoxiousness as you say?---That's correct." (page 125)
[32] Mr Scott, Managing editor of the Centralian Advocate Newspaper in Alice Springs, has been employed by the Respondent for 12 years. From March 1998 to approximately July/August 1999 Mr Scott was deputy editor of the Northern Territory News. Mr Inder-Smith asked Mr Scott:
"...how was I aggressive, abusive or threatening to you in the workplace?...
It's a bit of a broad statement. That refers to several occasions. Every time I sought to give you feedback you went on the offensive, became aggressive, abrasive. I wasn't intimidated but other people may have been." (page 136)
[33] Mr Scott then addressed occasions where Mr Inder-Smith had refused to accept directions from his superiors and his reaction to feedback on his performance.
[34] Mr Coren, editor of the Northern Territory News and Sunday Territorial, has been employed by the Respondent for 10 years. In relation to the allegation of "improper dealings with the public" Mr Coren stated, in reply to a question from Mr Inder-Smith:
"You antagonised the members of the police - they were detectives, I think or a detective, whilst working on a story involving escort agency advertising. We've heard a bit about the story today but to go over it, if you, it is a story that we didn't want. We certainly didn't want you to work on it. We never did run it, we were never going to and it was certainly improper to antagonise people that our reporters have to deal with every day with no authorisation and that you did in fact tell them that you were working for the Northern Territory News." (page 155)
[35] Ms Urvet, sports journalist with the Northern Territory News, has been employed by the Respondent for approximately 10 years. She commenced with the Respondent as a copy-taker and entered her cadetship in 1990. Mr Inder-Smith was Ms Urvet's sub-editor in the sports department. Ms Urvet gave evidence that she had a number of "confrontations" with Mr Inder-Smith. She stated:
"Basically my work wasn't up to standard in Mr Inder-Smith's eyes. I felt that I was writing to a good standard and it came to the point to where I started doubting myself as a good journalist because of what he was saying about my copy, basically." (page 211)
and,
"It got to the point where I was quite stressed coming to work. I didn't - I never - this my opinion I never indicated to anybody at work what my problem there was. I didn't enjoy working with the sports department any more. I had been there for 7 years and I began doubting my ability as a sports journalist. Then at that particular time I requested to go to general news, although at that time I didn't - and still to this day I didn't tell anyone the specific reasons for leaving." (page 212)
[36] Mr Morris, sports journalist, has been employed by the Respondent for approximately 5 years. His evidence was that he and Mr Inder-Smith did not have a relationship problem initially. He outlined occasions where Mr Inder-Smith had spoken to him in relation to his work which lead him to be "wary because I sort of didn't know what to expect from him at any time of the day...Tense. Every time I spoke to him I was very tense." (page 222)
[37] Two witnesses called by Mr Inder-Smith stated that they personally did not have any problem in working with Mr Inder-Smith. They were Mr Branston and Mr Thompson.
[38] Mr Branston stated that his position with the Respondent was that of an editorial assistant. Mr Branston has been employed by the Respondent for approximately 13 years. Mr Branston gave evidence that he had never had a problem with Mr Inder-Smith. Mr Inder-Smith asked Mr Branston the following:
"How was I regarded?---Not very well liked, I suppose, after a period of time." (page 65)
[39] Mr Inder-Smith asked Mr Branston "did you ever hear me being abusive and aggressive to my staff and fellow staff members?" Mr Branston replied "[y]es" and "I'm right in the middle so I hear everything so all I know is I heard, you know, when you spoke to people it was down to people most of the time" and "I saw you specifically on a few occasions talking down to people and pointing and carrying on intimidatingly." (page 66)
[40] Mr Thompson, chief-of-staff, has been employed by the Respondent for 3 years. Mr Thompson's evidence was that he had not had a problem with Mr Inder-Smith. Mr Thompson, however, stated that he had only worked with Mr Inder-Smith for approximately 4 weeks. On the incident involving the police department Mr Thompson had received the phone call. He stated:
"In the context of that conversation, that particular person said that you had been aggressive to a member of their staff.
That was the word they used?---Yes.
Aggressive?---Mm.
Pretty common recurring theme, this word. What else did they say after that?---They were really just asking whether it was a fair dinkum story." (page 102)
[41] Ms Lloyd was employed by the Respondent as deputy sports editor for approximately 5 months. The incident between Mr Inder-Smith and Ms Lloyd on 3 July 1999 involved a "headline" which was the responsibility of Ms Lloyd at the time. This incident was the catalyst for Mr Inder-Smith's termination. Ms Lloyd's evidence was:
"Mr Inder-Smith approached me at the end of the shift on 3 July to discuss it...started in a fairly aggressive manner telling me his disgust with the decision that I had made...I found him quite aggressive and intimidating. He was slamming things on tables. He was pointing at me. He was gesticulating quite wildly. He was also speaking quite loud and virtually shouting at me which I felt was inappropriate in front of the other staff...started discussing with me about various aspects of my personality. He suggested - and my professionalism. He suggested that I couldn't sub, that I had proven that I couldn't sub, that I certainly couldn't write headlines, that I certainly wasn't doing a very good job and that if he had told me to change something, I should have changed it. He also said to me that he was old enough to be my father and because of that, I should defer to him on all issues. He also said to me that as a woman, that I had come in, I had pretended to be reasonable. I had pretended that I was easy going, but women get together and they form a pack and they're very keen to sort of stab people in the back. He also made various other allegations about my ability to do the job and in the end, I did ask - say to Mr Inder-Smith that I didn't appreciate that he had become personal." (page 82)
and,
"Did I ever threaten you in any way apart from that alleged meeting?---You did not threaten me physically. However, I found that particular incident very intimidating and a previous incident two weeks previously I found quite intimidating.
Which one was that one?---That was when you had disagreed with a pointer on the back page." (page 87)
[42] Mr Inder-Smith's evidence was that he did become frustrated with errors in the copy and did have disagreements with people which, in his opinion, were disagreements on professional issues. He however denied that he shouted. He stated that he made his point and stated his case. He acknowledged the warnings received, however, he stated:
"Coincidentally, the three people who - Michelle Foster, Dave Holbrook and Di Lloyd - are the three people I disagreed with most and I consider it a coincidence that their evidence was pivotal in my warnings, which I consider were shams because I considered them nothing more than character assassinations. You know, I could do nothing - exactly what happened here today. I mean, I was alleged to have said all these things and done all these things. About 2 per cent are true. You know, you don't feed steak to pigs, okay, well, maybe I'd been just pushed a bit too far, I reckon and I just think that people are getting away with things there that I've been sacked for." (page 183)
[43] Mr Inder-Smith did not dispute the evidence of Mr Coren that he had been given an opportunity to explain the incident between himself and Ms Lloyd which lead to his termination. He stated however that the incident had been made a mountain from a mole hill.
[44] Mr Inder-Smith maintained that he had been the victim of an "orchestrated campaign, a conspiracy". (page 184) and that "the allegations lack substance, despite the number of people who have testified against me but none of them has been specific. The personality clashes, as I've mentioned, I believe them to be nothing more than personality clashes and I have been, what I consider, unfairly dismissed because of them." (page 185)
[45] I do not agree with Mr Inder-Smith. The evidence of the witnesses, which I accept, points to the fact that Mr Inder-Smith viewed himself as always right in his views and opinions when faced with a different view or opinion. In hearing this matter over the two days I had a first hand opportunity to see how Mr Inder-Smith approached people, both in his stance, facial expressions and tone. It appeared to me that he refused to accept that possibly he had a problem in his dealings and work relationship with both his peers and superiors. The problem appeared to exist with others and not him. I accept that Mr Inder-Smith was committed to his profession and, as his performance of duties was not an issue, he was a competent sub-editor/journalist. However, in attempting to persuade others of the legitimacy of his point, he, in my view, antagonised, intimated, frightened and upset a substantial number of people with whom he worked.
[46] While the small selection of the evidence outlined above does not touch upon the culture of a newsroom, the issue on occasions was raised. I do not believe that it was disputed that some newsrooms are volatile and aggressive work environments. Further, it is possible that Mr Inder-Smith felt comfortable in just such an environment. However, regardless of whether or not this type of environment was acceptable to Mr Inder-Smith his interpretation of this volatility was not acceptable to the Respondent.
[47] Mr Inder-Smith submitted:
"So by me coming to Darwin and finding the level of professionalism a bit lower than I would expect was a bit of a shock to the system and I think I was a bit surprised perhaps and therefore if I was construed as being aggressive in any way then I think I had a few mitigating circumstances in that maybe I was the one who was shocked at the lack of professionalism around me and I perhaps - yes, as I said yesterday, I might have got a bit firm or gruff with some of these people but, you know, I didn't go damaging property or swearing at them." (page 239)
[48] It is obvious from the evidence that Mr Inder-Smith, due in part to his perception of his own ability, refused to accept the direction of people who were either his superiors or in charge on particular shifts , especially if he viewed them as less experienced than himself. On his own evidence in cross examination he stated that he did not think Ms Lloyd, Mr Hurt or Ms Foster were good at their jobs. Further, in my view, Mr Inder-Smith was more than "gruff" or "firm" with the people he worked with. While he may not have damaged property it is possible that he damaged more than one person's confidence and faith in their own ability. I find this unacceptable behaviour. Further, based on the evidence, I consider Mr Inder-Smith's attitude towards his peers and superiors as unacceptable in any work environment regardless of its volatility.
[49] I find that a valid reason pursuant to s.170CG(3)(a) of the Act did exist for the Respondent to terminate the Applicant's employment based on the Applicant's attitude and behaviour towards his peers and superiors and his inability to follow the directions of his superiors.
Was the employee notified of the reason and given an opportunity to respond?
[50] The Respondent, in my opinion, did notify the Application of the reason for termination and afforded the Applicant an opportunity to respond.
[51] Mr Coren outlined the process in relation to the incident which lead to Mr Inder-Smith's termination from the actual time that he had become aware of it. He stated:
"Well, I was appalled. I mean, Di is the deputy sports editor and Rob has absolutely no right to question - I do allow discussion but I do not allow management decision to be questioned and I certainly don't allow abuse. I do not want a situation where anybody is scared or upset at work, ever. I think Rob was actually off that day. He didn't come in, for whatever reason....the next time I saw him when he did come in, it was a Thursday...I said to Rob, you know, we were going to have a meeting about very serious allegations that have been made. Sorry, the first thing I did was I spoke to other people who were either around at the time or had heard about it, Lisa Bonanni, Ashley - Richard and Luke. I spoke to Don Kennedy about the allegations that had been made and obviously to Jason. I then had a meeting with Rob witnessed by Jason and I think that one was witnessed by Ashley Hornsey, outlined the allegations made to Rob, he agreed with some, denied others. I suspended him on full pay until the next day so that I could do further investigations. The things I remember about it, he just said, 'Why don't you sack me now, you're trying to get rid of me, I'll take full recourse'. Which was a pattern with Rob, in all these meetings that we had he never admitted fault, he always tried to attack other people. Turn the focus off himself and talk about issues such as Ellipses and things like that that we really didn't want to know about at - didn't want to hear about it. Rob agreed on some things that surprised me, he agreed that he had told his superior that her work was not the work of a professional. He agreed that there was loud yelling. I have to look at my notes, Michael, to see exactly what he agreed with and what he disagreed with but certainly agreed with nothing and disagreed with enough that I thought it wise to investigate further." (page 169)
[52] Mr Coren stated that he again spoke to the people involved to ensure that the information was accurate. On 9 July 1999 Mr Coren, with Mr Hurt and Mr Hornsey, meet with Mr Inder-Smith. He stated that he advised Mr Inder-Smith that he had again spoken to the persons involved in the incident and that his employment was terminated.
[53] Mr Inder-Smith acknowledged that Mr Coren had put to him the allegations raised by Ms Lloyd in relation to the incident of 3 July 1999. He stated that while he was told that Ms Lloyd had been upset about the incident he however did not believe that she was upset. He stated that his reaction to the interview with Mr Coren was "[w]ell, the whole bit was so laughable that I didn't dwell on anything in particular other than to write those four lies down that she told which I left up in my car". (page 202) He also stated that he thought Ms Lloyd had overreacted.
[54] On 9 July 1999 Mr Inder-Smith received a letter of termination which stated that his behaviour had not improved as a result of previous warnings. The advice stated:
"I regret that you have not acted to improve your behaviour as a result of our previous warnings and discussions.
Specifically, you continue to refuse to follow instructions, continue to abuse your colleagues and abusively chastise your supervisors.
You have been told verbally and in writing that failure to correct such behaviour will result in termination of your employment with the Northern Territory News.
As a result of your own failure to heed these warnings, your employment with the company is terminated. Your termination pay is enclosed." (Exhibit R6)
[55] The Respondent has satisfied me that the requirements of s.170CG(3)(b) and (c) of the Act were complied with.
Was the employee warned in relation to unsatisfactory behaviour and conduct?
[56] The Respondent submitted that he spoke to the Applicant on a number of occasions in relation to his behaviour and attitude towards his superiors and peers.
[57] Mr Coren outlined the meetings and discussions in relation to the warnings received by Mr Inder-Smith. By March 1999 Mr Inder-Smith had received three written warnings in relation to his inability to follow direction and his behaviour and attitude towards his superiors, peers and members of the public (ie. police department).
[58] Mr Inder-Smith acknowledged that he had received warnings, albeit he disputed their validity. He submitted that the first warning (Exhibit R1) was on 8 July 1998 after a meeting with Mr Coren on 7 July 1998. Mr Inder-Smith addressed the warnings he had received from the respondent in his opening submissions as follows:
"I think the fundamental problem I have, Commissioner, is that the three warning systems, the three warnings that I was given are a sham. They were trumped up, they were merely exercises in character assassination where David Coren to start with, in this first meeting, sat at his desk and said: you have done this, this, and said this, this and this.
I denied a few of them and I might have said: yes, well, you have got a half point there, but anyway, the other two warnings after that I gave up objecting to anything he said. I just said yes because it was pointless arguing with him. Again, it came back to 'You've abused our staff', 'You've been abusive, aggressive and threatening to them.' You know, 'You've upset our librarian', who is also out there. I'm going to call in just to find out how I did upset her.
The police people, the policeman, and the third and final warning involving the outgoing deputy sports editor, Di Lloyd. Her evidence is going to be pivotal to my case because I think she was - I think they have all been manipulated by the editor. It sounds like a conspiracy theory." (page 14)
[59] The first warning letter states that the applicant is considered a "good sub" who cares about his work. The issues raised in the correspondence and apparently at the meeting of the 8 July 1998 were:
"1. You do not see yourself as part of the subs team. You said at a subs meeting, while arguing for style changes, that you were part of the sports team.
2. At that meeting you persisted in aggressively arguing for style changes after the editor had made it clear they were not on the agenda.
3. You have addressed fellow sub-editors in a manner they find aggressive and threatening.
4. You have chastised and abused sub-editors for making errors. This is not part of your job. You have no right to chastise anyone and if you have problems with other subs you are to bring them to the attention of the sports editor, deputy editors or editors."
[60] The letter concludes that "if there is no improvement in your behaviour towards other staff, it will be necessary for the company to review your continued employment". (Exhibit R1)
[61] The second warning letter (Exhibit R2) dated 17 November 1998, concerns the applicant's "abusive behaviour", the need to work as a team player and that "[y]ou must not: abuse staff, publicly criticise the newspapers or question directions from superiors". The warning is stated to be final and further occurrences will result in termination.
[62] The third warning letter (Exhibit R4), dated 24 March 1999, followed a meeting between the Applicant, Mr Coren and Mr Hurt on 23 March 1999. The Applicant's behaviour was discussed which:
"...included your aggressive behaviour toward Northern Territory News staff and police officers, and aggressively questioning management decisions.
...
Your reply was that people are precious. You need to realise that you are the common factor in these complaints, as you are in previous complaints made against you and recorded on your file.
You made derogatory remarks about Northern Territory News reporters and indicated you could do the story better than them.
...
If there is any repeat of the unacceptable behaviour detailed above it will be necessary for the company to review your continued employment."
[63] In my opinion, it should have been obvious to the Applicant by early 1999 that his employer did not accept his behaviour and attitude within the work environment. For whatever reason he continued to operate on the basis that he was right and that his superiors were wrong. On the Applicant's own evidence he had decided that there was no point in arguing with Mr Coren in the interviews associated with the behavioural issues.
[64] As stated earlier, Mr Inder-Smith gave sworn evidence at the hearing. The following evidence is indicative of his approach to the accusations and complaints directed towards him.
"Commissioner, I think I was the subject of a constant and ongoing campaign of harassment and vilification. Allegations have been leveled against me which cannot really be substantiated other than by those people who have come in, I called them as witnesses purely and simply because I wanted to ask them their version of events. As it happens, they confirmed everything that apparently has been put in writing but still there has been no specific about what or how I offended people...". (page 182)
[65] I do not agree with Mr Inder-Smith that the hearing did not produce specific incidents of his offensive behaviour towards people. The evidence of the witnesses on a number of occasions was quite specific as to what was said, how it was said, why it was said and where it was said. Further, the written warnings in my opinion were not ambiguous in what was required of Mr Inder-Smith to maintain his job with the Respondent.
[66] I am of the opinion that the Applicant was spoken to in relation to the many complaints and allegations associated with his behaviour and attitude. I conclude that the Respondent did not contravene s.170CG(3)(d) of the Act.
In final conclusion
[67] Mr Inder-Smith put a question to Mr Kennedy, General Manager, in relation to the dynamics of a print newsroom. Mr Kennedy replied:
"A newsroom by its nature can be a place where tempers fray purely because of the stress and everything, but there are certain limitations within which we all work and how you treat your colleagues, and that sort of thing, which I think were being frequently broken by yourself." (page 21)
[68] It appeared to me that in Mr Inder-Smith's questioning of witnesses he viewed the hearing of his application as a vehicle for proving his views and opinions on the professionalism of the newspaper and its staff. Further, he may have been of the view that if he proved to the Commission that in actual fact he was right in his opinion on content and style and in researching particular stories, this would vindicate his refusal to accept that a problem existed between him and his employer.
[69] Mr Inder-Smith was not dismissed due to performance issues. How Mr Inder-Smith dealt with feedback in relation to his performance of duties was one of the complaints alleged by the Respondent. The manner and attitude displayed by Mr Inder-Smith when a superior discussed performance with him, his treatment of people he worked with and the incident involving Ms Lloyd ultimately lead to his termination of employment.
[70] In conclusion, I find that Mr Inder-Smith's behaviour and attitude was such that a valid reason did exist to terminate his employment. The Applicant, in my opinion, was spoken to in relation to those allegations and provided with an opportunity to respond. Further, I find that Mr Inder-Smith during his employment with the Respondent was provided with ample opportunity to improve his attitude and behaviour. He chose not to. I therefore conclude that the termination of Mr Inder-Smith was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable.
[71] The application is dismissed.
BY THE COMMISSION:
COMMISSIONER
---------------------
AIVL-ELIST
Nomination - Robert Inder-Smith
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 09:07:07 +0930
From: "A darwin woman"
To: aivl-elist@drugsense.org
Email from "(A darwin woman)"
___________________________________
"(A darwin woman)" TUF & NAP member
Do you let total misogynist bastards on this e-list?
_________________________
_________________________
Email from Gary Meyerhoff
begins:
Begin AIVL Elist Nomination Form
--------------------------------
FYI
by Ema
Thursday March 31, 2005 at 05:22 PM
Firstly, I know for a fact that Rob is NOT Bushy.
Seccondly, the allegations and evidence against Mick by various people (several who have nothing to do with NAP or with me) are piling up. Sooner or later activists down south are going to have face up to the fact that Mick is nothing but an opportunist and egotistical thug.
get over it Ema
by who helped you?
Tuesday April 26, 2005 at 03:09 PM
Mick helped you when the NAP crew were throwing you out of their house after one of them had assaulted you.
You guilt tripping about ripping mick off and deserting your comrades?
.
by Ema
Sunday May 01, 2005 at 08:56 PM
Mick - you have shown the world what you are. An egotist and a bully.
not what the evidence shows
by pb
Friday February 16, 2007 at 06:05 AM
21] Ms Johnson stated that the next day she and Mr Inder-Smith discussed the incident. She stated that an incident occurred on the following day.
"...I went over to the library and Mr Inder-Smith was laying down at the end compactus right at the bottom of the library, on a carpet, reading a paper. He saw me, and I went straight back to my office. He got up and come to the office and stood in the doorway and started abusing me. He really, really abused me. It could have been 5 minutes, it could have been 10, it could have been 20, but I just lost track of time, and he just told me I was a stuck-up snob, I was a smart-arse, and everybody in the building didn't like me, and they had to get on their knees if they wanted something from me. I've never had one bad word with anybody in that building in all the time I've been there." (page 58)
|
|
