The Australia Parliament and several federal agencies, including the Federal Police and Centrelink, have been bastardizing the Briginshaw Principle for years.This principle based is upon: Briginshaw v Briginshaw  HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336 (30 June 1938). The principle is based upon the legal concept that if there could be serious consequences for a person accused of a wrongful act, then EXTREME CAUTION should be applied and no decision made unless there was absolutely no doubt, i.e. ZERO DOUBT, that the right decision is being made.
[Note: the short link for this URL is: http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-r4 ]
When it comes to unconstitutional actions like breaching and automatically deciding that if welfare recipients have been over-paid, then it is definitely THEIR FAULT because they must have done something wrong in order to get these over-payments. The idea that the system itself is extremely dysfunctional is simply not on their radar, because that would mean admitted having made a $5 Billion blunder and there is huge shortage of politicians and bureaucrats who would be prepared to do that.
- This sought of justice is a joke because it is a gross, unconstitutional injustice, but it is also much more than that:
- It violates the Briginshaw Principle by placing lives in danger.
- What really sucks is that the Centrelink bureaucrats know this!
- In 1998, the National Health Priority Areas report – Mental Health, revealed that more people die a violent death from suicice than from all other forms of violent death, e.g. car accident, murder, drowning, eaten by a shark, et cetera.
- This report identified in very clear terms the potentially lethal dangers posed by unconstitutional over-payment recovery actions by Centrelink against welfare recipients with mental health problems.
- Here are some points from the 1998 report which used suicide statistics data dating back to 1990 and earlier.:
Suicide (page 23)
Suicide is a leading cause of death in Australia, resulting in a total of 2,393 deaths (1,931 males, 462 females) in 1996. Since 1990, suicides have exceeded road injury deaths and have been the leading cause of death due to injury in Australia (DHFS& AIHW 1998a).
Several known factors can, under certain circumstances, contribute to a person attempting suicide. Mental disorder, and specifically Depression, consistently emerges as the largest single risk factor for suicide and suicidal behaviour (Patton et al 1997). It is estimated that about 88 per cent of people who died from suicide suffered from a diagnosable mental disorder at the time of their death (Henriksson et al 1993). People with a history of mental disorder are 10 times more at risk of dying from suicide compared to the general population (Gunnel & Frankel 1994).
The following data from the report described the symptoms of Depression. People suffering from this disease can easily be mistake for “dole bludgers”, a bigoted viewpoint that can be harmful or even lethal to a person with Depression.
Box 2.1: DSM-IV major depressive symptoms (Chapter 2, page 38)
- Depressed mood most of the day.
- Loss of interest or pleasure (in all or most activities, most of the day).
- Large increases or decreases in appetite (significant weight loss or gain).
- Insomnia or excessive sleeping (hypersomnia).
- Restlessness as evident by hand wringing and similar other activities (psychomotor agitation) or slowness of movement (psychomotor retardation).
- Fatigue or loss of energy.
- Feelings of worthlessness, or excessive or inappropriate guilt.
- Diminished ability to concentrate or indecisiveness.
- Recurrent thoughts of death or suicide.
On page 40 of this national health priority report the following information is provided:
Box 2.2: Summary of risk and protective factors associated with depression (Chapter 2, page 40)
Risk factors: Environmental and social
Social disadvantage (e.g. poverty, unemployment)
Protective factors: Environmental and social
- Good interpersonal relationships (e.g. supportive relationship with at least one person/parent, perceived social support)
- So how does either “breaching” someone and leaving them totally destitute constitute “a supportive relationship”?
- How also does running someone through the administrative appeals machine after hitting them for thousands of dollars for a mistake that was in probability a Centrelink error and therefore does not have to be repaid?
- What is happening with both “Breaching” and Centrelink’s attempts to recover some $5 BILLION (see my last posting) is that the health and safety of people who have been over-paid is not considered a ‘relevant’ issue, which explains why those responsible for these homicides consider them to be “irrelevant”.
- Social disadvantage is the primary factor in suicides, a fact known since 1990, and ignored every time an impoverished person is breached or subjected to a tort claim by Centrelink.
THE MINDSET OF MURDER
As Justice Brooking stated in R v Faure  VSCA 166 (24 September 1999) at 29: “The second additional point worth mentioning concerns the case of reckless murder. The crime requires knowledge that it is probable that death or grievous bodily harm will result from the act. The requisite state of mind is predicated upon an objective fact – a probability. It is reasonably foreseeable that tortious conduct by the Federal Government, for any reason, can kill. These torts effectively bastardize the Briginshaw principle by wilfully and recklessly placing vulnerable people in extreme danger.
This brief news item underscores the willingness of federal governments to ignore not mere the Briginshaw principle, but also human rights obligations that are protected by the constitution, statute law and international treaties, i.e. the Right to Life.
Paragraph 5 of the constitution states the laws of the Commonwealth shall be binding on the Courts, judges, and the people. The right to life is enshrined in Schedule 2 of the Human Rights Act and no government or politicians had the jurisdiction or right to suspend this most fundamental of rights. However, as the above news article makes quite clear, “The guidelines, which instruct police officers to consider the possibility of the death penalty before giving information to foreign police have been reinstated.”
There was never any jurisdiction right or authority for any government, or for any politician, to suspend the “guidelines”, which were in fact statute laws under Schedule 2 of the Human Rights Act and s 115 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act. The unconstitutional, unlawful act of “suspending” these laws also bastardized the Briginshaw Principle and as a direct consequence of these violations of the constitution, statute laws and natural justice principles, Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran were executed on April 29th 2015.
- The legal situation in regard to their deaths is that in 2005, the Australian Federal Police broke the law and as a result, 2 people died.
- Although the Bali 9 may have been smuggling drugs, that is not a death penalty sentence in Australia, and the Federal Police officers broke the law when the blew the whistle on the Bali 9 knowing that all 9 could possibly be executed.
- What the Federal Police did not expect was that the arrest of the Bali 9 would turn into a 10-year long international media event of disastrous proportions.
- The Abbott Government tried, post-crime, to “legitimize” this criminal misconduct which was quite probably a violation of s 115 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act, with the unconstitutional “guidelines” that had nothing to do with upholding the law or the constitution.
- Do not kid yourselves; you cannot uphold the law by breaking the law – is like being a prostitute to preserve your virginity – it just does not work when you do that!
If those who govern our nation are prepared to violate the constitution, statute laws and international human rights treaties, it is not a great leap of logic to conclude that some senior public servants who work under the leadership of these politicians may have the same mindset.
The possibility that the Secretary of the Department of Social Services withheld evidence in order win tort actions against welfare recipients is a frightening spectre that must be given very serious consideration.
If I am correct in my assessment of suicide statistics, the unreported, secretly classified death toll from “Breaching” and Centrelink’s “Waivergate” rip-off is probably somewhere in the range of 15,000 – 60,000 death s from all causes.
The question for all readers who receive a welfare payment, or have ever received a welfare payment, is the frightening question, who’s next. Please, read the following news article that I posted a couple of days ago and ask yourself this question, are they calling you a “cheater, i.e. are you one of the 1,100,00 people being “hunted”?
“federally relevant serious organized criminal activity” Both “Breaching” and the “Waivergate” rip-off fit in this category. The only problem is that these crimes are “governemt approved” and so the cops, and everyone who should stop this criminal activity think that it is okay.
It is not! Breaching is an act of Persecution under Article 7 (2) of the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court of Justice whilst the deaths are MURDER under article 7 (1)
NEXT POSTING: The role of the Office of the Ombudsman in NOT HELPING to stop this holocaust.
Ron Medlicott – Christian lay advocate for justice in Australia.