Skip to main content

Norman Scarth Freed

The Court of Appeal have reduced his sentence so he is now free. However, there really is a question asked when recording a court hearing is thought to be worse than looting.

Indeed if courts are now to be televised should we not compromise and keep out the cameras, but allow recording (even if the recordings are not broadcast).

Comments

Anajinn said…
Here, here. It's about time audio recording was allowed in court.

Maybe people will sign the petition

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/abolish-the-ban-on-recording-court-proceedings.html
Anajinn said…
The story which our current Attorney-General, Robert McClelland, tells about Lionel Murphy's comments from the bench of the High Court of Australia on the Aboriginal man, Mr Neal, are entirely appropriate to the situation of Mr Scarth: You are entitled to be an agitator.

Regards, Bill Rowlings, CEO


UNCLASSIFIED
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
HON. ROBERT McCLELLAND MP

SPEECH

LIONEL MURPHY LECTURE

‘VIGILANCE AGAINST INJUSTICE IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM’

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

CANBERRA

7 SEPTEMBER 2011

CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY

Acknowledgments continued ..........
Anajinn said…
1. Good Evening, and thanks Professor Dietze for your very kind introduction.
2. First, I would like to acknowledge the traditional custodians on whose land we are meeting today – the Ngunnawal people - whose cultures we honour as among the oldest continuing cultures in human history.And I would like to pay my respects to Elders past and present.
3. I’d also like to recognise
- Our hosts this evening – the ANU College of Law and in particular Associate Dean Fiona Wheeler and Head of School Stephen Bottomley;
- Members of Lionel Murphy’s family;
- Trustees of the Lionel Murphy Foundation;
- Dr Kristine Klugman – President Civil Liberties Australia and Mr Bill Rowlings – CEO Civil Liberties Australia;
- Dr Helen Watchirs – ACT Human Rights and Discrimination Commissioner;
- Mr Daryl Dellora;
Ladies and gentlemen.

Introduction
It’s a great honour to have been asked to speak this evening. I have entitled this year’s address as Lionel Murphy’s Legacy – Vigilance against Injustice in the Justice System.
And I wish to speak to the national shame that is the over-representation of Indigenous Australians in the criminal justice system.
And to the practical steps the Commonwealth and the States and Territories must take to right this enduring wrong.
This problem has been brought to the public’s attention this year particularly because of the 20th Anniversary of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody and the release in June of the House of Representatives Inquiry Report Doing Time – Time for Doing: Indigenous Youth in the Criminal Justice System.

Lionel Murphy
But before turning to that I’d first like to pay a brief tribute to Lionel Murphy, whose memory we are here to honour tonight - a great Labor leader, an accomplished Attorney-General and an inspiring High Court Justice.
And in doing so, I would like to speak briefly of a judgment he wrote as a judge of the High Court - Neal v R.
The case was that of an Aboriginal man, Mr Neal.
Mr. Neal was Council Chairman in Yarrabah, a community in Northern Queensland. This community had a deep sense of grievance about the paternalistic treatment by white authorities, including the management of the store which was reportedly selling rotten meat. Mr Neal had argued with the store manager about the management of the reserve. When the discussion reached an impasse, Mr. Neal swore at the store manager and spat at him.
For this, Mr Neal was sentenced to two months hard labour. On appeal to the Queensland Supreme Court, Mr Neal’s sentence was increased to 6 months.
Mr Neal then appealed to the High Court where Lionel Murphy presided.
The year was 1982, and Murphy noted in his judgment the appallingly high rates of Indigenous incarceration at that time – that although Indigenous Australians made up only 1 per cent of the total population they made up nearly 30 per cent of the prison population.
In addressing the question of Mr Neal’s relatively harsh sentence for what was a seemingly trivial offence,
he said:
“That Mr. Neal was an ‘agitator’ or stirrer in the magistrate's view obviously contributed to the severe penalty. If he is an agitator, he is in good company. Many of the great religious and political figures of history have been agitators, and human progress owes much to the efforts of these and the many who are unknown. …Mr. Neal is entitled to be an agitator.”

Needless to say, Mr Neal’s appeal was allowed.
So I’d like to draw some inspiration from Lionel Murphy tonight as I speak to the challenges that we currently face in terms of the overrepresentation of Indigenous Australians in the justice system - an injustice which remains nearly 30 years after Neal v R.

On 11/09/2011, at 2:58 PM, CLA Webmaster wrote:





Lance
Lance Williamson
webmaster@cla.asn.au
Webmaster
Civil Liberties Australia
www.cla.asn.au
0416 266 130 or
02 6288 0401
Jake Maverick said…
THEY do record audio in court at least, I actually noticed one turning soem kind of device off as i was leaving once....i wa staught to believe it was ILEGAL to record someone without their knowledge and consent. But then again I thought shooting people repeatedly in the ehad was also illegal, never mind kicking in doors and attacking people in thier own homes...raping, torture dropping bombs on children....

Kiddyprinting? declared illegal to i think couple of years ago now probably....still going on though isn't it? As well asDNA colelction....

Recording/ filiming someone against their will isa form of rape and i will never consent to that, whetehr it's strapped to some yobs head in the street oron a pole poiting through my window 24/7 again....
so even if i was 'allowed' to have soemwhere to live where can i live? not even able to get out of the country (if i had the means) unless i changed my name and 'consented' to being irradiated......
Jake Maverick said…
any comment on Maurice?

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).

KING’S BENCH DIVISION

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

LORD HEWART CJ:
It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…