Australia’s other “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity: The Chilcot Report on the unauthortized invasion of Iraq.

Australia’s other “irrelevant”

Crimes against Humanity.

[The short link URL for this posting is: http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-zk  ]

The invasion of Iraq was never ever justified as these Pearls of Truth  from the English Parliament’s July 6th 2016 Iraq Inquiry, i.e. the Chilcot ReportExecutive Summary, make very, very clear:

573. …the [US] Intelligence Community was dead wrong in almost all of its pre-war judgments about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. This was a major intelligence failure.

 574. The evidence in Section 4.4 shows that, after the invasion, the UK Government, including the intelligence community, was reluctant to admit, and to recognise publicly, the mounting evidence that there had been failings in the UK’s pre-conflict collection, validation, analysis and presentation of intelligence on Iraq’s WMD.

576.  Almost immediately after the start of the invasion, UK Ministers and officials sought to lower public expectations of immediate or significant finds of WMD in Iraq.

 The lack of evidence to support pre-conflict claims about Iraq’s WMD challenged the credibility of the Government and the intelligence community, and the legitimacy of the war.

  1. The Government and the intelligence community were both concerned about the consequences of the presentational aspects of their pre-war assessments being discredited.

  1. Although the UK expected to be involved in Iraq for a lengthy period after the conflict, the Government was unprepared for the role in which the UK found itself from April 2003. Much of what went wrong stemmed from that lack of preparation.

  1. In any undertaking of this kind, certain fundamental elements are of vital importance:

  • the best possible appreciation of the theatre of operations, including the political, cultural and ethnic background, and the state of society, the economy and infrastructure;

  • a hard-headed assessment of risks;

  • objectives which are realistic within that context, and if necessary limited – rather than idealistic and based on optimistic assumptions; and

  • allocation of the resources necessary for the task – both military and civil.

  1. All of these elements were lacking in the UK’s approach to its role inpost-conflict Iraq.

  1. Ground truth is vital. Over-optimistic assessments lead to bad decisions. Senior decision-makers – Ministers, Chiefs of Staff, senior officials – must have a flow of accurate and frank reporting.

A “can do” attitude is laudably ingrained in the UK Armed Forces – a determination to get on with the job, however difficult the circumstances – but this can prevent ground truth from reaching senior ears.

 At times in Iraq, the bearers of bad tidings were not heard.

On several occasions, decision-makers visiting Iraq (including the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Chief of the General Staff) found the situation on the ground to be much worse than had been reported to them.

Effective audit mechanisms need to be used to counter optimism bias,whether through changes in the culture of reporting, use of multiple channels of information – internal and external – or use of visits.

  1. “…In relation to Iraq, the risks involved in the parallel deployment of two enduring medium scale operations were not examined with sufficient rigour and challenge.

We were deceived, and as a consequence:

  1. About 250,000 people, mostly civilians are dead, i.e. the ‘collateral damage so beloved of cowboy commanders who see the destruction of the enemy but fail to see the deaths of innocent men, women and children;

  2. Islamic State poses a deadly threat to anyone, anywhere in the world;

  3. The politicians responsible for the deaths of a quarter of a million people are not willing to accept accountability for what I consider to be Crimes against Humanity under Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

  4. The decision as to whether or not President George Bush II(USA),Prime Minister Tony Blair (Britain), and Prime minister John Howard (Australia) should face criminal charges for the unauthorized invasion of Iraq is a matter for the United Nations who, in deciding, should look solely at the massive, constantly rising death toll from what was a politically motivated jingoistic act of military adventurism.

Australian Citizens take note:

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull had a powerful vested interest in holding the federal election on July 2nd, i.e. 4 days BEFORE the release of the Chilcot Report. Had he waited until the election was due in September, minor parties and independent candidates would have had a field day pointing out the macabre horrors and massive blunders being revealed in the Chilcot Report.

John Howard lied about having “irrefutable evidence” that Iraq had WMD’s and;

SO FAR:

a quarter of million people, including some of us Aussies, have died because of those politically motivated lies.

These lies parallel the official viewpoint of Australia’s establishment, i.e. the Parliament, the Public Service, the police, the mass media, and even some individuals in the legal professions, that saving money is far more important than saving the lives of welfare recipients.

For this reason, I have linked the Chilcot Report to the Emcott Report which deals with Australia’s unreported, secretly classified, “irrelevant” welfare penalties murders.

  1. Readers of this posting, especially Centrelink clients, such as Uni’ ot TAFE students, people on pensions, part-time workers on low incomes, and (soon to be)  unemployed people, should check out these 4 videos:

  2. CHILCOT REPORT ISSUES (and John Howard’s other lethal lies)

  3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_kltEXaNcY 

  4. Waivergate – Part 1

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEfQ7PuBz60

    Waivergate – Part 2

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23bBEfN_H8I

    Waivergate – Part 3

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktBNxr7iY7E

Ronald Medlicott.

(A Christian lay advocate for justice in Australia.)

Posted in Human Rights violations, News and politics, Political, Uncategorized, Welfare rights | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

2016 Federal Election: THE PETER PRINCIPLE – We need more patriots, and far fewer politicians, to fix the mess created by 20 years of Liberal and Labour incompetence.

The Peter Principle is very simple – People get promoted to their level of incompetence. In Australia we have done this at every federal election for the last 20 years, which explains why we now need patriots, not politicians running the country.

[Note: The short link URL for this post is: http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-yc   ]

THE PETER PRINCIPLE: Do a good job and you get promoted to a position with more authority and responsibility, but the consequences of bad decisions are much worse when a person makes a decision that is beyond their level of competence to comprehend and deal with. Two well known examples of the Peter Principle are:

Appointing Peter Garrett as the Minister for Environment.

That seems like a safe, harmless job but 4 young men wound up dead, a young woman suffered horrific burns, and 200 homes around Australia caught fire.

  • Appointing Tony Abbott as Prime Minister.

Within 100 days he had trashed and destroyed Australia’s 100-year-old car industry, nearly destroyed what is left of Australia’s canning industry, and by stalling on defence contracts, put hundreds of people out of work in the northern suburbs of Adelaide, a region where unemployment runs as high as 15% of the population in some suburbs. pg 5 1250 jobs dead

  1. The article above was published on page 5 of the Advertiser on January 29th 2016. Below are the grim statistics published on page 14 of The Sunday Mail on 13th March 2016.
  2. NOTE: The last time unemployment in Australia was this bad, John Howard was Prime Minister and Tony Abbott was the Employment Minister.AA Unemployed
  3. Holden’s manufacturing plant at Elizabeth is in the City of Playford where unemployment fluctuates between 12 -15% because full-time permanent jobs are very scarce in this region.
  4. In fact, when it comes to employment, South Australia is the nation’s  “Basket Case” state, especially amongst workers over the age of 40. Here is another page 1 article from The Sunday Mail on May 22nd 2016:p1 wAGE Discrimination

P14 DOME statistics

Seeking a second shot at running the nation into the bog, the Liberal Party began the election campaign with the empty promise that:

“Malcom Turnbull expects to create 200,000 jobs in 2017.”

If he expects to do it in 2017, why didn’t he do it in 2016?

Oh! Maybe he “expected” to create 200,000 jobs in 2016, but it did not happen.

What guarantee is there that 200,000 full-time permanent jobs will be created in 2017 if Malcolm Turnbull is re-elected as Prime Minister? Realistically, ZIP, ZERO, ZILCH because it is employers who employ, not politicians seeking to scramble back into a job that costs taxpayers’ about $7.5 MILLION PER POLITICIAN PER YEAR, mostly in privileges and perks rather than the $200,000 – $500,000 annual salary. (How would you like a $225,000 a year printing allowance or $1,092 to sleep in your spouse’s home in Canberra when the parliament is in session?) Having killed off a multi-billion car industry in Playford, cop the small change $24million solution which does nothing, other than employ trainers, who train people for non-existent jobs!

P1 Jobs No Silver Bullet

The Peter Principle can be found in Malcolm Turnbull’s recent federal budget which is scaring the living daylight out the university students, and with good reason. In 1996 when John Howard was elected Prime Minister, university education was free, so check this out:

The independent Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) projects the total value of the student loans program will grow from around $60 billion now to $180 billion by 2026 – a surge it attributes largely to the Coalition’s policy to allow universities to set their own fees.

What happened? Today university and TAFE students struggle under a massive burden of $60 BILLION in HECS fees. Re-elect the Liberal Party to run the country and it will blow out to $180 BILLION. (a 560% increase) How many parents want their children to grown up, go to university and be hit with a HECS fee of hundreds of thousands of dollars that they will spend the rest of lives paying off? ARE YOU THAT MEAN TO YOUR KIDS?

Remember, until 1996, university education was free.

PANDEMIC: HECS fees assume that our children or grand children will survive the next pandemic.

Check out this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1918_flu_pandemic

The 1918 -19 Flu pandemic wiped out 10% of the entire world population, i.e. 1 person in 10 died and the flow-on consequence for the survivors was that their life expectancy dropped by an average of 12 years.

The recent budget changes will drive many people out of the medical system, e.g. welfare recipients such as pensioners, people with disabilities, tertiary students, and unemployed people, along with many low-income families. If you subsist on $40 a day, can you afford a $20 co-payment to see a doctor or $100 for an X-ray? Collectively, people in these categories make up a massive 37.4% of the population and the recent Medicare white-anting will hit low-income families very hard. too hard in fact..

Early detection is the key to stopping a pandemic but the exclusion of a third of the population from the medical system due to irresponsible and recklessly dangerous, ill-considered penny-pinching by Malcolm Turnbull and Scott Morrison could be the key to a pandemic that in a matter of weeks could affect millions and kill unnumbered thousands.

The recent federal budget is NOT sound economic management -rather it is a recycled version of the Rudd Government’s ill-fated Home Insulation Program.

Why is this so?

Both the Home Insulation program and the recent federal budget share a common focus, money instead of public safety.

The criticisms leveled by the Queensland Coroner, Michael Barnes, about the Rudd Government being focused upon stimulating the economy with thinking about the real-world impact of the Home Improvement Program is equally valid for the recent federal budget which ignores the human impact, both in the short-term and in the longer term.

We need new people in the federal parliament, if only to avoid  self-serving politicians who soak up every dubious or up-front rip-off “entitlement” they can lay their hands on. Check out the stark contrast in these 2 news article from The Sunday Mail on 22nd March 2016:

p4 Aged homeless

Aged pensioners homeless – how do the Canberra Brigade cope with that?

 

P18 Double Dip MPs

Note that both Liberal and Labour politicians are exploiting overly generous “entitlements whilst aged pensioners are homeless. Please, check out the following statement:

“A young, homeless couple and their dog have been found dead in their car, apparently killed by a gas heater they were using to keep warm. Police say the 27-year-old man and 24-year-old woman, both from Ballarat and believed to have been living in the car, were using a butane gas heater to keep the chill away when they died.”

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/young-homeless-couple-in-ballarat-found-dead-in-car-from-heater-20140725-zx3du.html

Yesterday, I took my 93 year-old mother to vote and also voted whil;st at the polling booth. Many of the names and political parties on the ballot papers were totally unknown to me and so I asked myself why this is so?

The current system favours the established parties, as grossly incompetent as they are, whilst candidates from smaller political parties, and independent candidates, may be far more patriotic in outlook and possibly even far more more competent because they are less blinded by ideology that politicians from the ‘established’ parties, they are over-looked.

WHY A DOUBLE DISSOLUTION?

A double dissolution of parliament was unnecessary. in fact, the election could have been delayed until early November. So why a double dissolution now?

One reason is that the car industry will start shedding jobs in September and those job losses are mega-bad news for the Liberal Party and equally bad news for the ALP which has no solution as to how to get these people back into the workforce once the car industry shuts down.

  1. Things will only get worse, not better, so an early election is a way of avoiding the fall-out from the AUB, i.e. the Abbott Unemployment Bomb.pg 4 Cost 2 shut GMH
  2. The new voting massively favours both the Liberal-National Coalition and the ALP and effectively ensures that in the future, one or the other will have total control of the parliament. That is a very dangerous situation as the bloody-minded arrogance of Tony Abbott and members of his government demonstrated all to clearly with the human rights violating  “People have a right to bigots” law and the failed attempt to pass another law that would have dangerously deprived hundreds of thousands of young Australians of their constitutional right to a survival allowance when unemployed.

HOWEVER,

If voters take advantage of the new voting rules and boycott both Liberal-National Coalition parties and the ALP and VOTE BELOW THE LINE FOR PATRIOTS the scheme spectacularly backfires on Malcolm Turnbull and Bill Shorten.

Australia needs a patriot vote rather than a donkey vote.

When voting in this election, voters need to heed the advice given by Commissioner Ian Hanger in 14.6.7 and 14.6.8 of his royal commission report, i.e. think outside the box, look at the big picture and consider the long-term implications. Ask yourselves this:

  1. Do we really want our children struggling with a $560 billion HECS debt?

  2. Are you willing to risk shutting a third of the population out of the health system and increase the risk of a dangerous pandemic?

If the answer to those questions is NO, consider a PATRIOT VOTE for minor parties and independent candidates ahead of a traditional vote or a DONKEY VOTE.

Ronald Medlicott – A Christian advocate for justice in Australia.

 

 

 

Posted in Human Rights violations, News and politics, Political, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

2016 Federal election: The Posen Mindset influence in Australian politics,

The Posen Mindset may explain why the deaths of breached welfare recipients are considered to be “irrelevant” by federal politicians but the deaths of 4 young workers is worth a senate inquiry, a coroner’s inquest, a royal commission, and numerous prosecutions for fatal violations of state occupational heath & safety laws.

[Note The short link URL for this posting is: http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-y0   ]

The Posen Mindset

Below is a copy of quote from a 1943 speech by Heinrich Himmler that encapsulates the Posen Mindset. Check it out and then use it as a guideline for working out what Australian politicians sometimes leak from their minds into their mouths:

Posen mindset

Example set #2 stars Scott Morrison, who despite having a law degree, does not seem to understand that just because he is a federal government minister, he is not exempt from either Australian or international laws:

Posen Mindset 2

Given his prominent role and responsibility as the former Minister for Social Security, i.e. the Minister responsible for “Breachgate”  and “Waivergate” fatalities, Scott Morrison would do well to keep in mind this more recent quote by a judge from the International Criminal Court of Justice:

“Karadzic was the only person with the power to intervene and protect those being killed. Far from that, the accused ordered Bosnian male detainees to be transferred elsewhere to be killed. With full knowledge of the on-going killing, Karadzic declared a state of war in Srebrenica.”

O-Gon Kwon – Presiding judge: International Criminal Court of Justice 24-03- 2016.

  1. Australian politicians with Posen Mindsets have no place in our nation’s federal parliament and voters should boycott any politician, or any political party, with Posen Mindset policies and practices, i.e. DO NOT VOTE FOR POSEN MINDSET POLITICIANS UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.(Vote below the line when voting on the big Senate candidate ballot paper.)
  2. By doing so, you will help to stop Posen Mindset politicians from continuing to place vulnerable people in harm’s way.
  3. Who knows, by not voting for the Posen Mindset brigade, the life that you save may even be your own.

PARENTS: Given the rising suicide toll amongst university and TAFE students who are struggling under the burden of  a mind-blowing $61 BILLION HECS debt, one of the other lives that you could save MAY BE YOUR OWN CHILD.

THINK ABOUT THAT BEFORE YOU VOTE FOR THE POSEN MINDSET BRIGADE.

Ronald Medlicott – A Christian advocate for welfare justice in Australia.

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

2016 Federal Election: Promises and Reality,

The election of Saturday 2nd July 2016 is an opportunity to rectify decades of wrong by the Australian Federal Parliament.

[The short link URL for this posting is: http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-x6  ]

When voters go to the polls, it is crucial to remember that they are voting for major political parties that legislated for and ideologically  the humanitarian disasters known as:

  1. The White Australia Policy: [Indigenous aboriginals who fought in Boer War were not allowed to return to Australia because they were not ‘White’ citizens!]
  2. The Stolen Generations; [Children kidnapped at gunpoint from their homes and all-to-often placed in the “loving care” of child sex abusers.]
  3. Gulf War 2The illegal Invasion of Iraq; [245,00 estimated to be dead, the 1st time Australia bailed out in 2013, and tens of thousands more since then.]
  4. “Fathered” the establishment of the world’s worst terror group, Islamic State; [The illegal invasion of Iraq, removed the barriers to the formation of Islamic State and provided both billions of dollars in unguarded conventional weapons stored in Saddam Hussein’s arsenals AND also provided highly motivated supporters who did not appreciate “Christian nations” dropping billions of dollars worth of explosives on their families, friends and neighbours.]
  5. The violation of the human rights of some 5 million Australians and the consequent unreported, secretly classified, “irrelevant” deaths of unknown numbers of:
  • TAFE students;
  • University students;
  • People with disabilities;
  • Carers of people with disabilities;
  • Aged people aka ‘senior citizens’;
  • Carers of aged people;
  • Under-employed people;
  • Unemployed people.

If you are an indifferent voter or worse, a sociopath who actually supports these unconstitutional, civil rights violating, Crimes against Humanity, and do not care who gets killed by politicians who have not learnt anything from a seemingly endless string of ideology and vested interest policy disasters, e.g. the Home Insulation Program disaster that killed 4 young men and saw 200 homes go up in flames, then I strongly recommend that you check out these points BEFORE YOU VOTE and do YOURSELF (and others)  some really serious, possibly fatal, harm:

Promise and reality

Yes, in 2013, some workers at Holden’s in Elizabeth, and car industry workers in other states, actually voted for the Liberal-National Coalition.    WHY DID THE DO THAT?

Within 3-months, Australia’s 100-year-old car manufacturing industry had been destroyed so as to save a paltry $500 million in subsidies.

  1. “Governments don’t employ people” was Tony Abbott’s bizarre excuse for destroying the car industry, almost destroying Australia’s struggling horticulture & Cannery industry, and badly damaging Australia’s hi-=tech defence industry, all in the name of a budget surplus that is now down the tube because of the $50 BILLION BAIL-OUT to save Coalition seats in South Australia.
  2. Given that Tony Abbott was a Public Servant, i.e. a government employee (like all members of the Federal Parliament), the “Governments don’t employ people” statement was not exactly an intelligent comment, especially after wiping out an entire private sector industry!

“LIBERALS DELIVER MORE JOBS FOR SA”

Will they really do that or is it a yet another ‘Vote-for-me’ con job?

  1. Empty promises of “jobs for (now unemployed) Holden workers” in South Australia conveniently over-look the fact that TRADESPEOPLE who work for military contractors, e.g. the SA Submarine Corporation, must be ‘Mil-Spec’ certified.
  2. Check Mil-Spec out by Googling ‘mil spec accreditation” (no “) hand have a look at http://www.milspecservices.com.au/compliance-certifications/
  3. Download some of the technical PDF files if you are keen to discover the incredibly high standards required for military hardware suppliers that apply around the world, e.g AS 2062, and other “Mil spec” standards.

Remember, the pay and perks for running the Federal parliament cost us taxpayers’ a massive $1.5 BILLION per year. That is about $7.5 MILLION per politician and senators get a 6-year term at a cost to us of $45 MILLION per senator per term.

Nick Xenophon’s slogan:

“It’s all about jobs” is true. He just does not say whose job it is all about.

  • Keep that in mind when you vote.

  • Also Keep in the fact that you do not have to vote for politicians that you believe may be liars, thieves, civil rights violations or possible socio-pathic killers who do not care about the harm they cause.
  • A RECOMMENDATATION: In the Senate vote VOTE BELOW THE LINE (24 NUMBER, NOT 12) AND ONLY TO ELECT INDEPENDENT AND MINOR PARTY CANDIDATES.

THE POSEN MINDSET.

In my next posting, I shall provide information about the POSEN MINDSET”, the underlying reason why some politicians do not care about the sometimes lethal harm that their decisions cause.

Once you know what the “Posen mindset” is, you’ll know how to spot it.

MUST WATCH VIDEO: If you have been hit with a fraudulent Centrelink “Account payable” demand, or are being prosecuted by Centrelink, watch and download this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEfQ7PuBz60

Ronald Medlicott – A Christian lay advocate for justice in Australia.

 

 

 

 

Posted in Human Rights violations, News and politics, Political, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Part 28: Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity. Why are the “irrelevant” breaching fatalities legally Crimes against Humanity?

Australia’s ‘No Show. No Dole’ triggered Crimes against Humanity violate Australia’s laws and if these crimes are not dealt with under Australian law, then they default to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court of Juctic3e at The Hague in Holland.

Why is this so?                                      

The answer to that question is found within the provisions contained in Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court which are set out below.

[NOTE: The short link for this posting is:      http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-wM  ]

In reading this information, please note the following:

  • 1 (d) and other points are purposely left blank as I believe that they do not apply to Australia’s breaching laws and penalties.
  • My personal comments are inserted in [ italic plain text ] and should not be confused with the Article 7 provisions.

 Article 7: Crimes against humanity

 For the purpose of this Statute, “crime against humanity” means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:

            (a)     Murder;  [ In 1839 an English Royal Commission defined Murder as the placing of life in peril, a definition still used by Australian courts*, courts throughout the British Commonwealth of Nations, and courts in many other nations, e.g. the United States of America. ]

            (b)     Extermination;  [ With the possibility that the death toll may exceed 100,000, this term is appropriate. In addition, statements by the former Australian Treasurer in his “The Age of Entitlement is over speech in London in 2012, indicate that the extermination of impoverished people was deemed to be a positive achievement. Joe Hockey’s speech was in many ways a re-hash of Heinrich Himmler’s speech at Posen in 1943 in which he lauded the benefits of exterminating the Jews. ]

            (c)     Enslavement; [ “Work for the Dole” is another way of saying “Civil Conscription”, a form of enforced labour that is specifically prohibited in paragraph 51 (xxiii) (a) of the Australian Constitution. Since civil conscription is unconstitutional, it is therefore unlawful, and this makes it unlawful under ICCPR article 8 (3) (a)  “No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour;” Because civil conscription is prohibited, the exemption under article 8 (3) (b) (iv) does not apply. ]

            (d)                (e)      

            (f)     Torture;  [ Please refer to 2 (e) below for the definition of torture. It is important to note that state and territory criminal laws in Australia contain similar definitions of torture, i.e. the emotion impact and harm caused by criminal misconduct. ]

            (g)     

            (h)     Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court; [ Readers should refer to my comments at the end of this document re ‘socio-economic apartheid that is a deliberate act of persecution against a clearly identifiable group, i.e. welfare recipients. ]

            (i)     

            (j)     The crime of apartheid; [ Ditto to my comments above. ]

            (k)     Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.  [ Ditto to my comments above. ]

 For the purpose of paragraph 1: 

            (a)     “Attack directed against any civilian population” means a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of acts referred to in paragraph 1 against any civilian population, pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit such attack; 

            (b)     “Extermination” includes the intentional infliction of conditions of life, inter alia the deprivation of access to food and medicine, calculated to bring about the destruction of part of a population;  

            (c)                

            (d)    

            (e)     “Torture” means the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the control of the accused; except that torture shall not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions; 

            (f)      

            (g)     “Persecution” means the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights contrary to international law by reason of the identity of the group or collectivity;  

            (h)     “The crime of apartheid”** means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime;  

[ ** “The crime of apartheid”.]

In Australia, “apartheid” most definitely applied to “The Stolen Generations” laws that were not phased outuntil the 1970s. However, that racially based apartheid has been replaced by socio-economic apartheid. The Serious Compliance Failure Penalties are “committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression”.  Domination by one socio-economic group, affluence politicians and their affluent supporters, over another socio-economic group, impoverished welfare recipients, and is committed with the intention of maintaining that regime by enabling political parties convince voters that they are sound economic managers when the truth is that they are defrauding welfare recipients of their constitutional and statutory and human rights to a subsistence allowance that enables these people to exist. Breaching is therefore socio-economic apartheid rather than racial apartheid; however, the means and the motive of socio-economic apartheid are the same as racially motivated apartheid. ]

 The “irrelevant” Breaching Penalties Fatalities and the responsibility of Australian Politicians who “ought to know” that their “No Show. No Dole” laws were lethal and violated human rights laws and state/territory homicide laws.

It is absolutely impossible for federal or state politicians, Department of Human Services senior management, the Australian Federal Police or other police forces and federal government agencies to claim that they did not know that breaching fatalities were homicides under Australian state, territory and federal laws.

Faure v. The Queen

 In the findings handed down by Justice Brooking in Faure v. The Queen* in the Victorian Supreme Court of Appeal on 24th September 1999, at paragraph 29 Justice Brooking stated that “It is the placing of life in peril that constitutes the crime.” [ Breaching is a crime that deprives people of the ability to ‘subsist’. ]

Boughey v. The Queen [1986] HCA 29 on 6TH June 1986

 “…ought to know”

“ …it amounts to murder if the offender actually knows that the act is likely to cause death in the circumstances or if the offender ought to know that the act is likely to cause death in the circumstances (s.157(1)(c)). The elements of murder drawn from par.(c) of s.156(2) and from par.(c) of s.157(1)

Justice Brennan at paragraph [10]

[NOTE to readers]

s. 156 (2) and s. 157 (1) are some of the murder statutes contained in the Tasmanian Crimes Act. Under South Australian laws breaching a person suffering from Depression and causing the emotional distress, i.e. “torture” mentioned in 7 (1) (f) and 7 (2) (e) of the Rome Statute is a homicide under s. 13 (7) of the SA Criminal Law Consolidation Act (1935).

Similar statutes are contained in the criminal laws of other states

 Queensland:            s. 295, s. 296 and s. 302 (4);

Western Australia: s. 279 (4)

New South Wales: s. 18 (1)

Victoria:        s. 9 and several other sections, e.g. 22. Conduct endangering life

A person who, without lawful excuse, recklessly engages in conduct that places or may place another person in danger of death is guilty of an indictable offence.

Penalty: Level 5 imprisonment (10 years maximum).

UNCONSTITUTIONAL:

Breaching laws do NOT provide lawful excuse as these laws are a criminal act of reckless endangerment, a crime that violates Article 7 of the Rome Statute AND the states laws mentioned above. The also violate paragraph 51 (xxiii) -(a) of the Australian constitution which requires that the Federal Parliament make laws for: “The provision of maternity allowances, widows’ pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness and benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription), benefits to students and family allowances:” The key phrase in this constitutional obligation is the phrase, “The provision of …”. Since this amendment was added by referendum in 1946, has the Federal Parliament has not had the right to make laws that DEPRIVE people of a welfare allowance.

  • Breaching laws are inhumane acts …intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.
  • Below are extracts from the Victorian “Charges Book” of the Judical College of Victoria which explains fairly clearly what is meant by the various forms of murder – yes, there really are different types or forms of murder!

7.2.1 – Intentional or Reckless Murder

7.2.1.1 – Bench Notes[1] (Source: Judicial College of Victoria.)

Forms of Murder

There are three ways in which murder can be committed:

    1. The accused can cause the victim’s death while intending to kill or cause really serious injury, or being reckless as to that result;[2]
    2. The accused can unintentionally cause the victim’s death in the course or furtherance of certain violent crimes; and
  • The accused can unintentionally cause the victim’s death in order to escape arrest. [Not applicable to Breachgate or Waivergate fatalities.]

[HOWEVER: The principle of “Automatic Murder” applying to breaching triggered fatalities is almost certainly valid under Article 7 (1) (a) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court of Justice as breaching is an intentional act of deprivation with such a reckless disregard for loss of life that fatalities are officially deemed “irrelevant”.]

  1. These notes address the first category of murder outlined above. See Constructive Murder: Bench Notes for information concerning the second and third categories.

Overview of Elements

  1. Murder is a crime at common law. It has the following four elements, each of which the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt:
    1. The accused committed acts which caused the victim’s death;
    2. The accused committed those acts voluntarily;[3]
  • The accused committed those acts while:
    1. intending to kill someone or cause them really serious injury; or
    2. [if reckless murder has been left to the jury] knowing that it was probable that death or really serious injury would result.

The accused did not have a lawful justification or excuse for those acts (such as self-defence, provocation, duress or sudden or extraordinary emergency).

 Note to readers.

JUDICIAL COLLEGE OF VICTORIA ACT 2001 – SECT 1

Purpose

The purpose of this Act is to establish the Judicial College of Victoria with the function of assisting the professional development of judicial officers and providing continuing education and training for judicial officers.

The purpose of the Bench Notes is to train and assist judges in Victorian courts to understand the laws of Victoria, and to also aid them in the vital task of explaining these laws to jurors.

[1] This document was last updated on 2 November 2014.

[2] This type of murder will simply be referred to as “murder” throughout these notes.

[3] Although this element is often said to require the accused’s acts to be “conscious and voluntary”, consciousness is simply one aspect of the broader voluntariness requirement (see, e.g., Ryan v R (1967) 121 CLR 205). This issue is addressed in more detail below.

MY COMMENTS: Breaching is literally a criminal act of reckless endangerment for the purpose of the government-of-the day obtaining a benefit that it is not entitled to receive, i.e. the so-called “savings” gained by not paying welfare benefits that both the constitution and international treaty obligations require be paid to impoverished people who are unemployed and have no other means of subsistence.

JURISDICTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT OF JUSTICE IN BREACHING CRIMES.

If Australian law enforcement agencies do not act to deal with these murders, then under Article 17.2 of the Rome Statute the International Criminal Court has jurisdiction to deal with these murders:

Article 17

Issues of admissibility


  1. Having regard to paragraph 10 of the Preamble and article 1, the Court shall determine that a case is inadmissible where:

(a)     The case is being investigated or prosecuted by a State which has jurisdiction over it, unless the State is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution;

(b)     The case has been investigated by a State which has jurisdiction over it and the State has decided not to prosecute the person concerned, unless the decision resulted from the unwillingness or inability of the State genuinely to prosecute;

(c)     The person concerned has already been tried for conduct which is the subject of the complaint, and a trial by the Court is not permitted under article 20, paragraph 3;

(d)     The case is not of sufficient gravity to justify further action by the Court.

  1. In order to determine unwillingness in a particular case, the Court shall consider, having regard to the principles of due process recognized by international law, whether one or more of the following exist, as applicable:

(a)     The proceedings were or are being undertaken or the national decision was made for the purpose of shielding the person concerned from criminal responsibility for crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court referred to in article 5;

(b)     There has been an unjustified delay in the proceedings which in the circumstances is inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice;

(c)     The proceedings were not or are not being conducted independently or impartially, and they were or are being conducted in a manner which, in the circumstances, is inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice.

  1. In order to determine inability in a particular case, the Court shall consider whether, due to a total or substantial collapse or unavailability of its national judicial system, the State is unable to obtain the accused or the necessary evidence and testimony or otherwise unable to carry out its proceedings.

For 100 years in Australia, children were stolen from their families, sometimes with police or State  Troopers pointing hand guns or rifles at protesting parents. Breaching murders for gain effectively superseded the ‘Stolen Generations’ crimes against humanity. Article 17 (2) (a) is confirmed by the secret classification of these murders and the refusal of the Australian Federal Police, along with a soccer team of other agencies, who have refused to investigate them.

 

AAAAA11 Pearce email page 1

OOPS! Federal agent Pearce did not know that the 2004 decision not to investigate Travelgate and the Quotagate rip-offs had been secretly classified as confidential. That’s the trouble with such secrets; no-one knows when to keep quiet!

The “Irrelevant” MURDERS”

EWRE Irrelevant

Under John Howard, there may have been as many as 8,850 “stupefy & overwhelm” proxy murderers in which the overwhelmed victims, like the “9/11 jumpers”, murdered themselves. Those responsible need to be held accountable, even if they are (former prime ministers or governor-generals, or federal police officers who chose to look the other way and not ‘see’ these murders.

The “confidential” MURDERS.

LEGCON committee gag - undated but posted to me in November 2005

A Check on submissions to the Anti-Terrorism Bill #2 Inquiry will show that submission 287 is officially “Not yet available”. As this letter reveals, it is secretly classified as confidential.

The Prime Minister who “OUGHT TO KNOW” but says nothing.

Turnbull email 1

PLEASE, DO NOT VOTE FOR THE POLITICAL PARTIES RESPONSIBLE FOR THESE CRIMES – YOU MAY ONLY BE HELPING THEM TO KILL MORE PEOPLE BY DOING SO.

Ronald Medlicott – A Christian lay advocate for justice.

 

 

 

Posted in Human Rights violations, News and politics, Political, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Part 27: Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity: The 3 ‘Elements of Murder’ according to the Justice College of Victoria Charge Book.Victorian

Why are Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity actually crimes?

[Note: the short link for this web page is:   http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-wG   ]

The Justice College of Victoria Act (2001) established the Justice College as a vital resource for judges, prosecutors and police officers. Note the purpose of the Act as set out in the  s 1 of this Act. (Extra lines deleted in this posting.)

Version No. 011
Judicial College of Victoria Act 2001
No. 20 of 2001
The Parliament of Victoria enacts as follows: PART 1—PRELIMINARY

1 Purpose: The purpose of this Act is to establish the Judicial
College of Victoria with the function of assisting the professional development of judicial officers and providing continuing education and training for judicial officers.

[TRANSLATION] Laws and court decisions are now so complex that the Justice College was set up to help judges to understand the law. The beauty of this that complex laws are explained in plain language that any Year 8 student should be able to understand. It also means that anyone who reads Justice College material has insight in both the Law and the mindset of judges.

The 3 Elements of Murder are set out below with my take on the Justice College statements added in [brackets]. It has been my consistent viewpoint ever since I first posted on this website 177 postings and over 1 million words ago that Breaching is a serious crime and that breaching triggered deaths are murders. So check out the Justice College “Charge Book” explanations below. My comments are in [bracketed BOLD print] and I am still working through this information:

7.2.1.1 – Bench Notes[1] (Source: Judicial College of Victoria.)

Forms of Murder

  1. There are three ways in which murder can be committed:
    1. The accused can cause the victim’s death while intending to kill or cause really serious injury, or being reckless as to that result;[2]
    2. The accused can unintentionally cause the victim’s death in the course or furtherance of certain violent crimes; and
  • The accused can unintentionally cause the victim’s death in order to escape arrest. [Not applicable to Breachgate or Waivergate fatalities.]
  1. [HOWEVER: The principle of “Automatic Murder” applying to breaching triggered fatalities is almost certainly valid under Article (1) (a) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court of Justice as breaching is an intentional act of deprivation with such a reckless disregard for loss of life that fatalities are officially deemed “irrelevant”.]
  1. These notes address the first category of murder outlined above. See Constructive Murder: Bench Notes for information concerning the second and third categories.

Overview of Elements

  1. Murder is a crime at common law. It has the following four elements, each of which the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt:
    1. The accused committed acts which caused the victim’s death;
    2. The accused committed those acts voluntarily;[3]
  • The accused committed those acts while:
    1. intending to kill someone or cause them really serious injury; or
    2. [if reckless murder has been left to the jury] knowing that it was probable that death or really serious injury would result.
  1. The accused did not have a lawful justification or excuse for those acts (such as self-defence, provocation, duress or sudden or extraordinary emergency).
  1. Each of these elements is addressed in turn below.

Acts which Caused the Victim’s Death

  1. The first element that the prosecution must prove is that the accused committed acts which caused the victim’s death. There are three aspects to this element:
    1. The accused must have committed the relevant acts;
    2. Those acts must have caused someone to die; and
  • The victim must have been a human being.

Accused must have Committed the Relevant Acts

  1. For the accused to be found guilty of murder, the prosecution must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that s/he committed the act or acts which are alleged to have caused the victim’s death.
  2. In most cases it will be clear which act or acts were the cause of death, and so little time will need to be spent addressing this issue (other than directing the jury that before they can convict the accused, they must be satisfied that s/he committed the relevant act or acts) (Ryan v R (1967) 121 CLR 205).
  3. Specific directions may be required where the death may have been caused by one or more acts in a series of acts. See Causation: Bench Notes.
  4. Where additional directions are appropriate, the jury should be directed about the different ways the causal act can be identified, and instructed that it is for them to determine:
    • What acts caused the victim’s death (see below); and
    • Whether the accused committed the relevant act or acts (Ryan v R (1967) 121 CLR 205).

Acts That Caused Someone to Die

  1. The accused’s acts must have caused the victim’s death. That is, his/her acts must have “contributed significantly” to the death, or been a “substantial and operating cause” of it (Royall v R (1991) 172 CLR 378; R v Rudebeck [1999] VSCA 155). [Breaching is a willful act of destitution that violates constitutional rights, statute law rights, common law rights, and supposedly inalienable human rights that are supposedly protected by internal conventions, laws and treaty obligations that all (supposedly) apply in Australia.]
  2. The acts must be such that an ordinary person would hold them, as a matter of common sense, to be a cause of the death. The mere fact that the accused’s conduct contributed causally to the death, or was a necessary cause of it, is not sufficient (Royall v R (1991) 172 CLR 378). [“a cause” of the death which is not the same as ‘the cause’ of a death. 63% of Australians are obese which has the potentially lethal co-morbidity problem of hypertension. Unconstitutional and a crime against humanity, breaching could easily be “a cause” that triggers a fatal stroke or heart attack. Suicide is the most common form of violent death and since breaching laws were upgraded in 1986, unemployed people with Depression top the list for suicides. Breaching could easily so stupefy and overwhelm an unemployed person with Depression that the emotion duress caused by being breached is the reaction trigger for a successful suicide attempt.]
  3. The accused’s acts do not need to be the sole cause of the death. A person can be criminally liable for a death that has multiple causes, even if he or she is not responsible for all of those causes (Royall v R (1991) 172 CLR 378). [See my comments above for my opinion on this point of law.]
  4. Previously, the law held that a delay of more than “a year and a day” between the accused’s acts and the victim’s death meant that the accused’s acts could not be regarded as a cause of that death. That limitation has been abolished (Crimes Act 1958 s9AA), and now applies only to offences alleged to have been committed before 19 November 1991. [Nowhere in Australia is there a statute of limitations on breaching triggered murders.]
  5. In many cases it will be unnecessary for the judge to do more than simply identify causation as an element of the offence. However, more detailed directions should be given if:
    • Causation was a live issue in the trial; or
    • An undirected jury might consider causation to be a live issue.
  6. The cases where causation will be a live issue will include those where:
    • There were multiple possible causes of the death;
    • The death was delayed;
    • There were intervening acts between the accused’s actions and the victim’s death; or
    • The accused is alleged to have caused the death indirectly (Royall v R (1991) 172 CLR 378). [My opinion on this is simple: Breaching legislation is mass murder by federal legislation. The act of breaching may precipitate a chain reaction of events that result in a fatality. For example, a breached person who suffers from acute Asthma has no money to purchase preventative medication, e.g. an Asthma ‘puffer’ such as Ventolin or Pulmacort, and died for lack of medication during an Asthma attack. Such risks are easily foreseen and Recommendation 14.1.1 of the Report of the Royal Commission into the Home Insulation Program underscores the fact that the failed attempt by the Abbott Government in August and September 2014 to deprive hundreds of thousands of young Australians of subsistence allowance for 6 months is evidence of the willingness of some Australian federal politicians to abuse their power and enact legislation that is at odds with state and territory murder laws and homicide case law decisions for spurious, “Posen Mindset” ideology driven reasons.]
  7. See Causation: Bench Notes for further information about this issue.

Victim a Human Being [Logical for a homicide.]

  1. The accused must have caused the death of a “human being” (R v Hutty [1953] VLR 338).
  2. “Death” is defined to mean the irreversible cessation of circulation of blood in the body, or the irreversible cessation of all function of the brain (Human Tissue Act 1982 s41).
  3. An unborn child is not classified as a “human being” for the purposes of murder and manslaughter (R v Hutty [1953] VLR 338).
  4. A child is treated as being “born” (and thus a “human being”) when “he or she is fully born in a living state”. This occurs when the child is “completely delivered from the body of its mother and it has a separate and independent existence in the sense that it does not derive its power of living from its mother” (R v Hutty [1953] VLR 338).
  5. Any evidence of independent existence will be sufficient for a child to be classified as a “human being” for the purposes of the law (R v Iby [2005] NSWCCA 178).
  6. The mere fact that a child is still attached by the umbilical cord does not mean it is to be regarded as unborn (R v Hutty [1953] VLR 338).
  7. While killing an unborn child will not be murder or manslaughter, it may be child destruction (Crimes Act 1958 s10).

Voluntary Acts

The second element that the prosecution must prove is that the acts which caused the death were voluntary (Ryan v R (1967) 121 CLR 205).

  1. The issue of “voluntariness” concerns, at least, the accused’s conscious control of his or her bodily movements (He Kaw Teh v R (1984) 157 CLR 523).
  2. The terms “deliberate” and “willed” are sometimes used to describe the voluntariness requirement (Ryan v R (1967) 121 CLR 205). [When it comes to “deliberate” and “willed”,  could anything be more so than Acts of Law by a Federal Parliament, or the failure of public servants, police officers, and even Officers of the Court to uphold the constitution, statute laws, and United Nations human rights conventions, treaties and laws?]
  3. In murder trials it is orthodox to describe this element as requiring that the relevant acts be “conscious and voluntary”, or “conscious, voluntary and deliberate”. See R v Schaeffer [2005] VSCA 306. [See my comments above.]
  4. While a judge may use these terms to help explain the voluntariness requirement to the jury (R v Schaeffer [2005] VSCA 306), they do not need to be used in every case. The use of such alternative terms, and the extent to which they need to be explored, will depend on the circumstances of the case. [See my comments above at 25.]
  5. If the term “conscious” is used care should be taken to ensure that it is not equated with voluntary action. The fact that an accused was conscious at the time of an act does not necessarily mean that act was committed voluntarily (see, e.g., R v Edwards [2005] VSCA 92). [See my comments above at 25.]
  6. Knowledge of the circumstances that give an offence its criminal character is generally a component of intention, not volition. Thus an act remains voluntary even if it is performed in ignorance of fundamental facts that will determine culpability (R v O’Connor (1979) 146 CLR 64). [See my comments above.]
  7. While the jury should always be directed to consider this element, where voluntariness is not in issue it need not be examined in detail (Ryan v R (1967) 121 CLR 205).
  8. Terms such as “accidental”, “unintentional”, “involuntary” and “unwilled” all possess a degree of ambiguity. They can be used to signify either that:
    • The accused acts were not voluntary (addressing the second element); or
    • That the accused lacked the requisite intention to commit the crime (addressing the third element) (Ryan v R (1967) 121 CLR 205).

If such terms are used by counsel, the judge should take care to ascertain precisely which element is being addressed, and charge the jury accordingly. [See my comments above at 25.]

Mental States: Intention and Recklessness

  1. The third element that the prosecution must prove is that when the accused committed the acts that caused the victim’s death, s/he either:
    • Intended to kill someone or cause them really serious injury (“intentional murder”); or [See my comments above at 25.]
    • Knew that it was probable that death or really serious injury would result from those acts (“reckless murder”) (R v Crabbe (1985) 156 CLR 464). [See my comments above at 25 and read them in the context of rates of suicide stated on page 29 of the 1998 National Health Priority Areas Report – Mental health, and the causes of suicide and profiles contained in Box 2.2 of this report.]
  2. The accused does not need to have intended to kill or injure the person who actually died, or to have been reckless about killing or injuring that particular person. It is sufficient if they had the necessary level of intention or recklessness in respect of some person, whether or not that was the person who was ultimately killed (La Fontaine v R (1976) 136 CLR 62).[4]

Reckless murder [Breaching – a reckless disregard for the potentially fatal consequences because deaths are not monitored and have even been dismissed as “irrelevant”. You cannot get more ‘reckless’ than that.]

EWRE Irrelevant

  1. It is not appropriate to direct a jury about reckless murder in every case. The jury should only be directed about “reckless murder” where the evidence can properly support a conclusion that the accused acted recklessly (Pemble v The Queen (1971) 124 CLR 107; R v Barrett [2007] VSCA 96).[5]
  2. In the context of murder, to commit an act “recklessly” is to commit that act knowing that someone will probably die or suffer really serious injury (R v Crabbe (1985) 156 CLR 464). [The 1998 National health Priority Areas Report – Mental health, spelt out the risks very clearly, i.e. more people die violently from suiicde than all other forms of violent deaths due to accidents or murder, et cetera, and unemployed people topped the list of people who ‘topped’ themselves. Politicians and bureaucrats knew the risks and considered them to be “irrelevant’.]
  3. The word “probable” means “likely to happen”. It can be contrasted with something that is merely “possible” (R v Crabbe (1985) 156 CLR 464).
  4. To have acted recklessly, the accused must actually have known that death or really serious injury would probably result from his or her acts. It is not sufficient for that danger to have been obvious to the reasonable person, or to the members of the jury (Pemble v The Queen (1971) 124 CLR 107; R v TY (2006) 12 VR 557; R v Barrett [2007] VSCA 96).
  5. The jury may use the fact that a reasonable person would have appreciated the probability of death or really serious injury to infer that the accused had such an awareness (Pemble v The Queen (1971) 124 CLR 107). [How about the secret classification of these deaths, senate suppression orders, and DHS/Centrelink management failing to collect this information even after the 4 Home Insulation Program deaths and the 3 official inquiries – THEY KNEW, and the are hiding these deaths.]
  6. However, where such reasoning is open the jury must be warned not to conclude that the accused foresaw the probability of death or really serious injury simply because a reasonable person would have appreciated that probability (Pemble v The Queen (1971) 124 CLR 107; R v TY (2006) 12 VR 557).
  7. Use of the word “reckless” should be avoided when charging the jury in murder trials, as it is liable to be confusing (La Fontaine v R (1976) 136 CLR 62).
  8. Similarly, the word “might” should not be used. Recklessness is not established when the accused knew that particular consequences “might occur”. The accused must have known that those consequences “would probably occur” (R v Crabbe (1985) 156 CLR 464; R v Campbell [1997] 2 VR 585). [In the 10-year period 1997 to 2006, there were 23,254 suicides and 1 in 3, about 7,700, were unemployed people. There is no ‘might occur’ in thousands of of suicides triggered by unconstitutional, human rights violating acts of total destitution.]
  9. “Probable” is not a mathematical term. The accused does not need to have mathematically weighed the probability of death or really serious injury occurring, and the jury should not attempt to translate the accused’s knowledge into terms of mathematical probability (Boughey v The Queen (1986) 161 CLR 10). [Many members of parliament, perhaps too many, are lawyers with what Justice Duncan Kerr described as “privileged expertise”. Politicians with law degrees like Tony Abbott, Julia Gillard, Malcolm Turnbull, Bill Shorten, Kevin Andrews, Bronwyn Bishop, Julie Bishop, Scott Morrison and Senator Nick Xenophon, as people with law degrees, “OUGHT TO KNOW” (to quote Justice Brennan in Boughey at 10,) that depriving potentially suicidal people of their only means of financial support, i.e. the Dole, could trigger a suicide. Knowing this, these politicians did not help to breach one or two people, but millions.]
  10. It will generally be sufficient if:
    1. The jury is directed to consider whether the accused knew that death or really serious injury was the probable or likely consequence of his or her acts; and
    2. Reference is made to the distinction between what is probable or likely on the one hand, and what is only possible on the other (R v Crabbe (1985) 156 CLR 464; Boughey v The Queen (1986) 161 CLR 10; R v Faure [1999] 2 VR 537).
  11. If a jury is to be directed on both reckless murder and involuntary manslaughter (whether by unlawful and dangerous act or by criminal negligence), it is vital that the directions draw an appropriate contrast between the mental states required for the two offences (Pemble v The Queen (1971) 124 CLR 107; R v TY (2006) 12 VR 557). See Manslaughter (Topic Not Yet Compete) for further information.
  12. Where recklessness is to be found by inference, the trial judge must identify the relevant evidence, and the inferences which can legitimately be drawn from that evidence (Pemble v The Queen (1971) 124 CLR 107; R v TY (2006) 12 VR 557).
  13. The jury should be directed that the accused’s circumstances are relevant to their determination of his or her state of mind. These circumstances may include age, educational and social background, emotional state and state of sobriety (Pemble v The Queen (1971) 124 CLR 107; R v Barrett [2007] VSCA 96).

Really serious injury

  1. For the third element to be satisfied, the accused does not need to have intended that someone die, or known that death would probably result from their actions. It is sufficient if s/he intended to cause someone serious non-fatal harm, or knew that such harm would probably result.
  2. In Victoria, the degree of harm that must be intended is “really serious injury”.
  3. The phrase “really serious” should be used to properly indicate the gravity of the required intent (Wilson v R (1992) 174 CLR 313; R v Perks (1986) 41 SASR 335; R v Schaeffer [2005] VSCA 306; R v Barrett [2007] VSCA 95).
  4. It appears to be necessary that the “really serious injury” intended or risked should be a bodily This includes unconsciousness (R v Rhodes (1984) 14 A Crim R 124), but may not include purely psychological injuries.
  5. The meaning of “really serious injury” is a matter for the jury to determine. It is unwise to elaborate on its meaning. The law gives only very general assistance to juries in this regard. While some injuries are manifestly too slight and some injuries clearly sufficient to answer the legal test, there remains an infinite variety of situations in which a jury might reasonably take either view (R v Rhodes (1984) 14 A Crim R 124).
  6. There is no requirement that the harm intended be a life-threatening harm (R v Cunningham [1982] AC 566.)

Defences to murder

  1. Conduct that would otherwise be murder can be excused or justified by a number of discrete defences, including self-defence, provocation (for homicides committed before 23 November 2005), intoxication, duress and sudden or extraordinary emergency. Each of these defences is examined in detail in Part 8: Defences.
  2. The issue of intoxication may also be of relevance when considering the accused’s mental state. See Intoxication: Bench Notes (Topic Not Yet Complete) for further information.

Order of the Charge

  1. In murder trials it is commonly necessary to direct juries about available alternative verdicts, such as manslaughter.[6] It may also be necessary to direct the jury about a number of different defences or excuses, such as self-defence and provocation. The interrelationship between these issues means that the order in which they are addressed can affect the clarity of the charge.
  2. For offences alleged to have been committed prior to 23 November 2005,[7] it is recommended that judges approach these topics in the following order:
    • The elements of murder;
    • Self-defence (to murder);
    • Voluntary manslaughter (provocation);
    • The elements of involuntary manslaughter;
    • Self-defence (to manslaughter).
  3. For offences alleged to have been committed on or after 23 November 2005 and before 1 November 2014,[8] it is recommended that judges approach these topics in the following order:
    • The elements of murder;
    • Murder self-defence (s9AC);
    • Defensive homicide (s9AD);
    • The elements of manslaughter; and
    • Manslaughter self-defence (s9AE).
  4. For offences alleged to have been committed on or after 1 November 2014, it is recommended that judges approach these topics in the following order:
    • The elements of murder;
    • Self-defence (to murder) (s322K);
    • The elements of manslaughter; and
    • Self-defence (to manslaughter) (s322K).

Jurisdiction

  1. If the victim dies in Victoria, the matter may be tried in a Victorian court, regardless of whether or not the causal acts occurred in Victoria (Crimes Act 1958 s9).

[1] This document was last updated on 2 November 2014.

[2] This type of murder will simply be referred to as “murder” throughout these notes.

[3] Although this element is often said to require the accused’s acts to be “conscious and voluntary”, consciousness is simply one aspect of the broader voluntariness requirement (see, e.g., Ryan v R (1967) 121 CLR 205). This issue is addressed in more detail below.

[4] This is known as the doctrine of “transferred malice”.

[5] See R v Hegarty [2011] VSC 111 for a detailed discussion about the types of situations in which a direction on reckless murder may be appropriate.

[6] See Alternative Verdicts: Bench Notes for guidance concerning the requirement to leave alternative verdicts to the jury.

[7] On 23 November 2005 the Crimes (Homicide) Act 2005 came into effect, introducing two statutory self-defence provisions (Crimes Act 1958 ss9AC and 9AE) and a new offence of Defensive Homicide (s9AD), as well as abolishing provocation. See  See 8.9 Self-Defence and Defensive Homicide for further information.

[8] On 1 November 2014 the Crimes Amendment (Abolition of Defensive Homicide) Act 2014 came into effect, introducing a single statutory self-defence provision for all offences (Crimes Act 1958 s322K), and abolishing the previous statutory murder self-defence, manslaughter self-defence and the offence of Defensive Homicide. See 8.9 Self-Defence and Defensive Homicide.

37.4%

I hope that you found this readable and now understand some of the reasons for this website. If you do, may I recommend that when you vote, that you do not vote for any of the politicians or political parties implicated in the serial murders of thousands of welfare recipients. By doing so, you indicate your support for and approval of these crimes. Only vote for candidates that are NOT linked to Breaching or Centrelink’s fraudulent rip-offs. Basically this means that major party candidates, The greens, family First and current “Independent Members” should all be boycotted because of there lack of concern for the brutal murders of so many vulnerable people. If you are receiving a welfare payment, then you are just 1 of 7 million people who do. You help to make up the largest, and therefore potentially the most powerful, voting group in Australia with a massive 37.4% of the vote.

Boycott, or veto, the major parties and supportive minor parties responsible for the murderous human rights violating breaching laws and they then have to fight for the remaining 62.6% of the vote, which on a 50/50 split would only be 31.3% of the first preference vote per major party. If minor parties pick up 10% of the vote, then the major parties only score a pathetic 26.3% of the vote; well below the 37.4% of the vote that welfare recipients collectively hold.

That’s 6/4 odds in favour of welfare recipients and therefore you should vote very carefully for new candidates and dump or ignore the “Old Brigade”

Ronald Medlicott – A Christian lay advocate for justice in Australia.

 

Posted in News and politics, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Part 26: Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity. Has Malcolm Turnbull made it possible for Radovan Karadzic to win a Manifest Ostensible Bias appeal in the International Criminal Court of Justice?

Australia’s “irrelevant” crimes against humanity could be the key to Radovan Karadzic winning an appeal of his recent conviction in the International Criminal Court of Justice for the alleged massacre of over 8,000 men and boys in the Srebrenica Enclave in 1995. If this happens, the email below from the Australian Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, may prove to be a useful “straw” to add to the camel’s back.

Turnbull email 1Whatever else Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull may say during the upcoming federal election, he cannot say that he did not know about the death toll triggered by Australia’s unconstitutional, human rights violating welfare penalties laws. It is an absolute farce that neither the Department of health nor the Department of Human Services have an accurate record of the deaths of Australian residents/citizens. It is even more of disgraceful farce that the DHS actively avoids collecting the statistical data on breaching triggered fatalities, possibly because they are fully aware that these deaths are crimes against humanity under Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Court of Justice.

Skill certified

The full test of the email to Prime Minister Turnbull is posted at http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-vm

[ Note the shortlink for this posting is:  http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-wg   ]

The reality is that any person in Australia who is accused of a homicide can use this email to mount an Apprehended Bias or a Manifest Ostensible Bias appeal against the charged which they have been accused of. Anyone who is not comfortable with that legal reality should demand that those responsible for breaching triggered deaths be investigated and prosecuted for if that happens, then there are no grounds for any appeals on the basis of apprehend bias or manifest ostensible bias.

Re “irrelevant”

EWRE Irrelevant

Australian voters please note: There is no such thing under either Australian law or international human rights conventions as an “irrelevant” death.

Ron Medlicott – A Christian lay advocate for Justice in Australia.

 

 

Posted in News and politics, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment