When power becomes absolute

by Scott Balson, originally 14th January 2000 (updated May 2001):

Published in the public interest

Extract from preamble to the Lindeberg Petition (tabled in Queensland Parliament 27th October 1999):

The rights of the Parliament of Queensland, and of the sovereign people of Queensland who empower it, have been abused by a disregard of the laws of its Parliament.

Disregard of law by executive branches of governments in any nation or state, when and where it may occur, amounts to tyranny and a mockery of democracy.

(The Lindeberg Petition can be obtained free of charge by contacting
"Bills and Papers" at the Queensland Parliament on (07) 3406 7111).

Introduction:

In July last year I was charged and arrested on the allegation that I published the name of a "political identity" facing sex charges. The Courier-Mail lodged the complaint. This was the first time in over 20 years that a charge had been made under this Act. It took the Attorney-General , Labor's Matt Foley, just 24 hours to authorise the police to arrest me. I was never interviewed by police on the charge and waited nine months to clear my name. I was on bail until being found not guilty in March 2000.

Image above right: D'Arcy and family with lawyer Terry O'Gorman on the week he was committed for trial meaning that he could be named - 21st January 2000.

My involvement with the One Nation party and on-line expose of Labor's Shreddergate fiasco was well-known by the Labor Government. My arrest, I believe, was politically motivated.

On the 14th January D'Arcy's lawyers lodged a complaint that The Bulletin magazine had breached the same Act under which I had been charged.

Over 15 months later the police service responded to his complaint - on the day they responded to my complaint to the Criminal Justice Commission . This complaint was made in October 2000 to investigate why the magazine had not been charged. The CJC are now investigating why the police took so long to respond against The Bulletin.

Full background with scanned CJC reports at this link

Quotable quote:

And there is no legitimate reason to believe that it (Criminal Law Sexual Offences Act of 1978) has not been administered in an even handed way by the Government's law officers throughout that time. David Solomon, The Courier-Mail - full article at this link.

This arsehole and others like him at The Courier-Mail, despite being fully informed about the double standards, have never questioned why in the paper... welcome to the "ethical reporting standards" at Murdoch's Courier-Mail. 

The Lindeberg Petition - a ticking time bomb:

The Lindeberg Petition chronicles gross abuse of power by the Labor government at the time, and since the shredding of the Heiner documents in 1990. The Premier of Queensland, Peter Beattie, has refused to establish a special prosecutor, as called for in the petition, to examine the claims and allegations raised. He has since (on 4th March 1999) misled Parliament over the shredding and resorted to using his numbers to prevent an investigation into this abuse of Parliament.

Interestingly, Queensland's only major daily paper, Murdoch's The Courier-Mail has played a leading role in covering up the ramifications of the Lindeberg Petition and keeping them from the Queensland public. The media are supposed to act in the public interest - not against it.

Clearly the Murdoch press does not understand or abide by this fundamental principle. It is a de-facto media arm of this Labor government.

The Lindeberg Petition clearly reveals the cover up and abuse of office by various arms of Her Majesty's Queensland Government. These arms named in the petition include:

These twelve arms of government include several (highlighted in red) which have been instrumental in singling me out in July 1999 for arrest on the charge that I named a Labor MP facing fifty child-sex charges on the Internet in breach of the Criminal Law Sexual Offences Act of 1978.

Disregard of law by executive branches of governments in any nation or state, when and where it may occur, amounts to tyranny and a mockery of democracy - Lindeberg Petition

Image right: Balson confronts Premier Peter Beattie on Australia Day 2000 over the Lindeberg Petition.

Background:

Extract from Hansard (Queensland Parliamentary Debates No 7, 1978 page 794):

Mr (Bill) D'Arcy: "Are you going to tell us about the little boys you take away on athletic trips?"

Mr Frawley: "I didn't want to mention this, but now that the Honourable Member for Woodridge has forced me into it, I will deal with it. He is only jealous. He is dirty on me. He told me during the 1972 Parliament that he was in love with me. He said I was a fine upstanding type of bloke; that I was a good athlete and that he had feelings for me, and he propositioned me over at the Bellevue. Because I wouldn't have anything to do with him he became jealous. He has been onto me for some time. I had to dodge him time and time again. I can't help it if I am an athletic type that attracts him." 

In August and September 1998, just days before a Labor MP was charged on child-sex offences, The Courier-Mail named the man, Bill D'Arcy, in prominent articles in the paper. The Premier of Queensland, Peter Beattie, named him as well at this time and that night the commercial television stations recorded the fact on their evening news.

On the 27th July 1999 The Courier-Mail's Sue Monk wrote to Royce Miller, the director of the Department of Public Prosecutions. In her letter she alleged that I had named the Queensland MP in breach of the Criminal Law Sexual Offences Act of 1978 on the Internet on that day. Her letter stimulated an order for my arrest on the written instructions of the Attorney- General just two days later.

On the 28th July 1999 the media ran a "front page" story stating (not alleging) that I had named a Labor MP facing fifty child sex charges on the Internet. The ramification being that I had contravened section 7 of the Criminal Law Sexual Offences Act of 1978.

I have subsequently pleaded not guilty.

On the 29th July 1999 Attorney-General Matt Foley, acting on advice from the Office of Crown Law, issued a written instruction to the police to arrest me, have my house and office searched and to place me on bail on what is a summary charge.

On the 30th July 1999 I was arrested in terms of Foley's letter and spent an hour in jail at the watchhouse while my documents were processed. I was then finger printed, photographed as a criminal and finally had my house and office searched by three police. One member of the police search team took a complete copy of my hard disk which included confidential information pertaining to One Nation.

In October 1999 my trial was aborted in the Brisbane Magistrates Court because the police "were not ready" to proceed.

In December 1999 my case was dismissed because I had been "charged in the wrong jurisdiction". As I left court I was summonsed to appear in the Ipswich Magistrates Court.

On 14th January 2000 The Bulletin breaches the same Act under which I was charged by stating that D'Arcy was facing child sex charges. Circulation 51,000 in Queensland - magazine NOT withdrawn.

On the 21st January 2000 Bill D'Arcy was committed to trial meaning that he could be named in relation to the child sex charges. On the 22nd January The Courier-Mail's front page headline read "D'Arcy on sex charges".

On the 24th February 2000, nearly two months after registering a complaint with the Office of Crown Law, I am told that Robertson O'Gorman and AAP Brisbane Newsroom have been exonerated by the DPP because of a "insufficient evidence". No police investigation was taken before my arrest on the orders of Labor's Attorney-General.

On the 8th March 2000 - nearly nine months after being arrested on this summary offence and weeks after everybody in Queensland has been alerted to his identity I appeared in court. In Court it was demonstrated that The Courier-Mail had misled the public in Queensland when it claimed that it had not been the complainant in my case.

On the 20th March 2000 magistrate Donna MacCullum finds me "not guilty".

In October 2000 I lodge an official complaint with the Criminal Justice Commission questioning why no charges have been raised against The Bulletin.

On 28th March 2001 the police send a report to the DPP recommending charges against The Bulletin on the same day as they belatedly respond to my complaint with the CJC.

On 2nd April 2001 the CJC demand an explanation from the police as to why they took so long to charge The Bulletin - as their response took more than 12 months charges cannot be laid.

The Courier-Mail

Murdoch's The Courier-Mail was central to the complaint lodged against me. Since the release of my book "Murder by Media" which exposes this paper as lacking credibility it has been on a mission to try to destroy me personally and financially.

In 1998, before Bill D'Arcy was committed to trial The Courier-Mail ran two articles in which Bill D'Arcy was named many, many times as a man facing child-sex charges.

MP will not quit over sex claims - 31st August 1998

Mr O'Gorman said the publicity underscored his view that it should be a criminal offence to publish the fact that someone was under investigation until a charge was laid.

and,

Premier hit over D'Arcy actions - 2nd September 1998

Here are extracts:

It was the first time the Premier has identified Mr D'Arcy as the person expected to be charged by police over (child sex) allegations that the backbencher has strenuously denied.......

Before the press conference concluded, the Premier again said: "I stress to you that I withdraw the references to his name that I mentioned earlier. I had no intention of doing that."

Later, the Premier's Department contacted journalists to get a "feel" for how they would report the matter.

Media outlets, including The Courier-Mail, have been criticised by the Premier for identifying Mr D'Arcy, ignoring presumption of innocence and "disgraceful" reporting.

Then, incredibly on the 22nd January 2000, the day after D'Arcy was committed for trial The Courier-Mail ran and editorial, "D'Arcy charges wounded government".

Here is an extract:

The Courier-Mail and other media were unable to mention the charges brought against D'Arcy until he was committed for trial by a magistrate. This is the law, detailed in the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1978. It prevents any publisher from giving the name, address or place of employment of anyone charged with sexual offences before committal for trial. It is based on the presumption of innocence and the fact that, in sexual cases in particular, it is unfair to name a person charged until a prima facie case has been made out against that person.

Now did I miss something.... scroll up and see who had named D'Arcy before he was even charged... "presumption of innocense" - what journalistic bullshit.

In the court case on March 8th Channel 9's Melanie Wendt, while giving evidence for the police, confirmed that copies of the "unlawful document" were being handed out to and read by members of the media in late July 1999 - in complete breach of the Act after which they pursued me through their media outlets.

This fact is spelt out by no lesser an authority than David Solomon (ex-Gough Whitlam employee), The Courier-Mail's legal expert who wrote, when justifying my arrest (on the day that I was arrested):

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.....

and...

The law applies to people who provide information through electronic means and people who gossip in pubs and clubs as much as it does to publishers of newspapers and broadcasters.

On 21st January 2000 Bill D'Arcy was committed to trial. His name being splashed across the front page of The Courier-Mail. The Courier-Mail ran this incredibly hypocritical editorial on Saturday 22nd January 2000 after having previously prominently named D'Arcy on 31st August and 2nd September 1998 - before he was charged.

(Remember that The Courier-Mail named D'Arcy on 31st August and 2nd September 1998 resulting in D'Arcy's lawyer, Terry O'Gorman, saying: "the publicity underscored his view that it should be a criminal offence to publish the fact that someone was under investigation until a charge was laid".

The Queensland Police Service:

Extracts from the Lindeberg Petition (tabled in Queensland Parliament 27th October 1999):

127. The police are required under the provisions of the Police Service Administration Act 1990 and their Oath of Office to investigate all allegations of criminal conduct without fear or favour, and malice to no one. The impartiality of the police constable in applying the law equally is a foundation policy principle in the maintenance of law and order in any free democratic society.

128. The undoubted enemy of equal justice is the double standards, and therefore, if policing is abused, biased or corrupted, it invites the law, its enforcement agencies and officials to be brought into contempt.

145. (c) having sworn an Oath to uphold its public duty pursuant to the Police Service Administration Act 1990 without fear, favour or ill-will to none, and to investigate all complaints of suspected criminal conduct; the police officers concerned did nothing to carry out their legal obligations in a matter which corrupted the administration of justice in the state of Queensland to its very core.

(The Lindeberg Petition can be obtained free of charge by contacting
"Bills and Papers" at the Queensland Parliament on (07) 3406 7111).

Incredibly it was the police who acquired the document from The Courier-Mail according to their brief of evidence against me. The police took 15 months to respond to a complaint by Terry O'Gorman against The Bulletin.. talk about double standards!

This evidence was submitted in the brief of evidence against me - resulting in my complaint to the Office of Crown Law and the Attorney-General six months later.

The Department of Public Prosecutions:

Extract from the Lindeberg Petition (tabled in Queensland Parliament 27th October 1999):

119. The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions prosecutes criminal offences for the state of Queensland. The Office is independent of government. It is not an investigative law enforcement agency. Prosecuting officers hold a public position of great trust, and are obliged by law to act impartially and in the public interest.

(The Lindeberg Petition can be obtained free of charge by contacting
"Bills and Papers" at the Queensland Parliament on (07) 3406 7111).

It was the Department of Public Prosecutions' David Bullock who told my legal council that "The Courier-Mail was the primary complainant in my case..." It was David Bullock who said in court on the day the allegation that I had breached the Criminal Law Sexual Offences Act of 1978 was raised in the media that:

"Yes, I think the Supreme Court could do it, and also it's an offence under - a possible offence under the Act. And the Attorney-General has asked Mr Miller QC, the director, to look into the matter."

This was before Terry O'Gorman, by his own admission, had lodged a complaint with the Attorney-General. The only complaint, at this time, was from Sue Monk of The Courier-Mail.

Despite this fact the DPP's Royce Miller QC (who gets a special mention in the Lindeberg Petition - 120) told The Courier Mail:

But yesterday Mr Miller said he had only received a normal journalistic inquiry from The Courier-Mail, not a complaint. He said the newspaper's fax was not responsible for Mr Balson being charged.

"In ordinary circumstances, I require the media to fax all requests for information in writing for purposes of accuracy," Mr Miller said.

Clearly Royce Miller's statement is in conflict with evidence put before the Court by David Bullock and The Courier-Mail did originate the complaint.

It was the DPP which exonerated Robertson O'Gorman and AAP Brisbane Newsroom with investigating officer Peter Assfalg leaving the following message on my answering machine on 24th Febriary 2000:

"Yes Scott it's Peter Assfalg here from the Child and Sexual Assault Investigation Unit. The time is 3.15pm on Wednesday the 23rd February.

"I am just ringing to advise that a report has just landed on my desk concerning the complaint you made regarding the D'Arcy matter. The legal opinion (from the Department of Public Prosecutions) is that there is insufficient evidence to proceed on this matter. As a matter of courtesy I am just advising of that fact. I am certainly contactable on the number that you have if you wish to discuss this matter further.

"But at this stage just to advise you formally that the legal opinion is that there is insufficient evidence to proceed on this matter.

"I thank you for your assistance and concern in this matter. Bye bye."

The Office of Crown Law

Extract from the Lindeberg Petition (tabled in Queensland Parliament 27th October 1999):

77. The failure of the Office of Crown Law to properly and impartially state the law and to comply with it at relevant times in this matter assisted and exacerbated the corruption which lies at the heart of the shredding; and by being and/or having a perception of being so compromised in this matter the Office of Crown Law can no longer offer Parliament requisite impartial advice relevant to this Petition (as might normally occur) or to any final resolution of the matter, as its own conduct cannot reasonably escape public scrutiny.

(The Lindeberg Petition can be obtained free of charge by contacting
"Bills and Papers" at the Queensland Parliament on (07) 3406 7111).

The Office of Crown Law never enquired into what was happening to the complaint against The Bulletin... and why would they? The magazine is owned by Kerry Packer..

After the hearing I had said to the media, "I was singled out by the office of Crown Law"

The Office of Crown Law has not , as of March 9, acted against The Bulletin magazine which, with a circulation of 51,000 in Queensland was allowed to continue selling a magazine in early January which named D'Arcy in contravention of the Act under which I was charged.

The ABC Radio report saying on 13th January 2000:

The President of the Queensland Council for Civil Liberties Ian Dearden says the magazine must be pursued for revealing the name of an alleged offender before he is committed to stand trial.

Dearden, "There is already one person before the courts charged on a similar allegation. It would be hypocritical if any other media organisation that had similarly, apparently breached the law that was not also charged."

Former One Nation webmaster Scott Balson will stand trial in March for allegedly also publishing the man's name on the Internet. Mr Balson has pleaded "not guilty".

In fact in early March I was informed that the complaint would probably be dismissed against The Bulletin because the DPP were "unsure who should be charged"... the Packer organisation, the truck driver who crossed the border or every news agent in Queensland that stocked the magazine.

The Office of the Attorney-General:

Extract from the Lindeberg Petition (tabled in Queensland Parliament 27th October 1999):

44. That, as the Crown acts in perpetuity as the Fountain of Justice, a heavy duty may rest on any prospective procedural consideration of this petition by the Office of the Attorney-General. The petitioner and public are aware that the current Queensland Attorney-General the Hon Matt Foley MLA participated in a debate on 4 March 1999 on this matter defeating an Opposition motion calling for a commissioner of inquiry. It was his undoubted right to speak out and publicly put his views. However, having put his view against holding an inquiry in Parliament while holding Her Majesty's Queensland public office of Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, it might now be reasonably put that when performing his statutory role in any consideration of this Petition, (as Her Majesty's first Law Officer in the State of Queensland) that he may already be tainted or predisposed to a certain outcome. Accordingly in the eyes of a reasonable person with knowledge of the facts, he may now find himself labouring under an unfortunate, unavoidable, but unacceptable, perception of bias in a matter (seen at its very least) of suspected official misconduct affecting the administration of justice in Queensland.

(The Lindeberg Petition can be obtained free of charge by contacting
"Bills and Papers" at the Queensland Parliament on (07) 3406 7111).

Summary:

There are very clear threads that flows through the facts raised above... you can assess for yourself what they are, but the bottom line is the fact that the Beattie Government is not accountable and is abusing the separation of powers... the government's willing partners, The Courier-Mail, are at the centre of the power game which is played against, not in the best interests of, the citizens of Queensland.

When power becomes absolute democracy is but a shallow crucible in which the sovereignty of the people is put to the torch... such is the state of Queensland today.

or as Kevin Lindeberg correctly states in the Lindeberg Petition...

The rights of the Parliament of Queensland, and of the sovereign people of Queensland who empower it, have been abused by a disregard of the laws of its Parliament.

Disregard of law by executive branches of governments in any nation or state, when and where it may occur, amounts to tyranny and a mockery of democracy.

I join Lindeberg's call for a special prosecutor to investigate his claims and allegations raised in the Lindeberg Petition.

Related Links:
Enemy of the State
My Day in Court
Outcome of complaint lodged with the Criminal Justice Commission
Balson confronts Beattie over the Lindeberg Petition - 26/1/2000
Balson's book "Enemy of the State" tabled in Parliament - 13/4/2000

Return to Australian Daily Issues paper