by Scott Balson, 14th January 2000:
| 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.
(The Lindeberg Petition can be obtained free
of charge by contacting |
In July last year I was charged and arrested on the allegation that I published the name of a "political identity" facing sex charges. 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 have, six months later, yet to be interviewed by police on the charge and have yet to have my day in court to clear my name. I am still on bail.
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 6th January I lodged a complaint against two organisations. Yesterday, after over a week, the Office of Crown Law finally responded to the complaint. Here is an extract. Full scan at this link:
I cannot, at this stage, name the two organisations central to my complaint but will do so as soon as charges have been laid by police.
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.
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 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.
In August and September 1998, just days before a Labor MP was charged on child-sex offences, The Courier-Mail named him 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 allegedly broken a section 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 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 am still on bail today six months after the complaint was lodged by 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.
Interestingly, the document which was subsequently obtained by the police from The Courier-Mail under a search warrant reveals an extraordinary case of double-standards... and a twist which would have made Agathy Christie proud.
The fax headers on the document secured by the police from The Courier-Mail are now central to my complaint being investigated by police.
It is a crime under the Criminal Law Sexual Offences Act of 1978 to fax/publish the name of a person facing child sex charges in Queensland before he/she is committed to trial.
This fact is spelt out by no lesser an authority than David Solomon, 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.
Somehow, sharp legal reporters like David Solomon had not recognised the fact that two other organisation were allegedly in breach of the Act despite having the opportunity to view the document that the police took away from The Courier-Mail and which resulted in my complaint.
Maybe The Courier-Mail were not expecting the police to conduct the search... this search only happened after Solomon's article went to print - the day of my arrest.
| 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 |
Incredibly it was the police who acquired the document from The Courier-Mail. The police have never acted against the two organisations despite having evidence that they allegedly breached the Criminal Law Sexual Offences Act of 1978 since late July 1999.
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.
| 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 |
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.
| 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 |
I raised the breach of the Criminal Law Sexual Offences Act of 1978 by the two organisations with the Office of Crown Law on 6th January 2000 directly following my appearance in the Ipswich Magistrates Court on 5th January 2000.
After the hearing I had said to the media, "I was singled out by the office of Crown Law"
My letter to Crown Law reads:
6th January 2000
Acting Crown Solicitor
The Office of Crown Law
Brisbane
Dear Sir,
I wish to bring your attention to the fact that two organisations based in Brisbane have published the name of a man facing child sex charges in Queensland in contravention of the Criminal Law Sexual Offences Act of 1978.
The proof of this offence was provided by the police to me in their brief of evidence against me. I have been waiting for them to act on the breach but apparently they have not done so resulting in this formal complaint.
I refer you to the attached document which was sourced by the police from The Courier-Mail. The document displays two fax headers :
As the document was obtained from The Courier-Mail it is fair to say that both parties had faxed/published the document in Queensland in contravention of the aforementioned Act.
May I refer you to Leanne Meyers from the taskforce ARGOS to seek clarification and confirmation on the source of this document. She will have a copy of it in her possession as she provided my lawyers with the brief of evidence. Page two of the same fax, with the same fax headers, clearly names the man facing child-sex charges. Again Ms Meyers at ARGOS can provide you with documents in her possession which will confirm this fact.
I look forward to your early reply on this matter.
Yours sincerely
Scott Balson
Here is an extract. Full scan at this link:
I received a formal response from the Office of Crown Law only after the ABC Radio had reported an incident on 13th January in which a national publication had allegedly breached the Act by publishing the man's name in Queensland. The report saying:
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".
Before the magazine had allegedly broken the law, on Tuesday the 11th January, Pat Dwyer from the Office of Crown Law responded after I had sent a letter to the Attorney-General (below) and made several follow-up phone calls:
"That his advice to the Attorney-General was that it was inappropriate to make any comment because of the actions currently before the courts."
When I said that this is a completely separate complaint and should be treated differently he said that the Acting Crown Solicitor (to whom my letter last week was addressed) was away until 24th January and that my complaint was, quote, "BEING CONSIDERED".
It was the Office of Crown Law who confirmed the role of The Courier-Mail as the primary complainant against me, despite the paper's fudged article suggesting that it was Terry O'Gorman.
Page One. Page two. (Scan of Crown Law letter)
| 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 |
When the Office of Crown Law refused to act on my complaint I contacted the Attorney-General.
The letter below clearly sets out my case:
10th January 2000
The Attorney-General
The Hon Matt Foley
Parliament House
Brisbane
Dear sir,
I am writing to you as the First Law Officer of the State and Guardian of the Public Interest.
In July last year I was arrested on your instructions over the allegation that I named a MP facing child sex charges, including rape, on the Internet. The instruction to arrest me, despite never have been interviewed by the police, took just two days from the date of the alleged offence. After being fingerprinted and photographed at the Watchhouse I then had my house and office searched by the police - again on your written instruction (according to the police).
In the brief of evidence against me provided to my lawyers, at a later date, by the police was a fax document which reveals that two organisations breached the same act (Criminal Law Sexual Offences Act of 1978). They did this by faxing/publishing the name of the person in the state of Queensland to another party in this state. The two organisations, as can be seen in the fax headers on the attached document, are the legal firm of "X" and a media outlet "Y". The second page of this fax, which is held by the police, carries the same fax headers and names the MP. The document was discovered during a search by the police on The Courier-Mail in late July last year. Leeanne Myers at the police's ARGOS department will be able to provide you with a copy of this second page.
I am also enclosing a copy of a fax which I sent to Crown Law last week. (see Office of Crown Law above) Joshua Fenton at Crown Law confirmed having received the fax last week and says that it is now in the hands of Pat Dwyer. I am concerned about the impartiality of Crown Law - especially in the light of the revelations made in the Lindeberg Petition which was tabled in Parliament on the 27th October last year. When I spoke to Mr Fenton earlier today he refused to discuss the issue with me saying that he had been informed to say nothing to me.
I am taking the liberty of faxing copies of this letter and attachments to the opposition Attorney-General, Laurence Springborg, Bill Feldman of the City Country Alliance, Peter Wellington and Liz Cunningham as I am concerned about this issue being dealt with in an equitable fashion.
I trust that in your role as First Law Officer of the State you will look into the issues with the same veracity that you did when the allegation was raised against me.
Yours sincerely,
Scott Balson
The Attorney-General's office has never responded to my complaint despite this admission from The Courier-Mail's Chris Griffith:
7th January 2000
Hi Scott,
I've read you page today (Thurs 9th Jan 2000). I'm more than comfortable with the explanation we ran this morning. What happened is documented in letters from O'Gorman to Foley & visa versa on the 28th. I suggest you seek these.
Chris Griffith.
The Courier-Mail
Note the speed with which Foley, as the First Law Officer of the State and Guardian of the Public Interest, responded personally to the complaint against me by O'Gorman.
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 are not accountable and are abusing the separation of powers... their willing partners The Courier-Mail are at the centre of the power game which is played against, not for, 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.
