When it comes to Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity:- Yvette D’Arth, the Queensland Justice Minister, appears less than keen for Gerard Baden-Clay to have the information posted on this website. Below is the only response that I have received so far to my requests for the contact details for both Gerard Baden-Clay and his lawyer.
This letter does not tell me anything that I have already raised in my communications with Ms. D’Arth, i.e. the letter basically tells me what I already know but avoiding answering my request for contact details so that I can brief Gerard Baden-Clay and his legal team on the option of mounting an Apprehended Bias/Manifest Ostensible Bias rebuttal to the Queensland Director of Public Prosecutions appeal.
- To whom the benefit by NOT providing the requested information?
- I would suggest that the big winner would be the Queensland Government if it can have Gerard Baden-Clay’s murder conviction re-instated.
The problem with letting bureaucrats or politicians withhold information in court cases is that it allows them to uphold the law by committing a crime. I do not know about you, but by my standards, such actions are totally unacceptable. Everyone, including Gerard Baden-Clay, like Radovan Karadzic is entitled to a fair hearing, if for no other reason than the fact that if justice is compromised in some cases, the door is opened to justice being compromised at the discretion of politicians.
Can that happen? Check this out:
SCOTT MORRISON – “parliament decide conventions”
‘This parliament should decide what our obligations are under these conventions – not those who seek to direct us otherwise from places outside this country, such as foreign courts or the United Nations’
Scott Morrison Migration & Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylums Legacy caseload) Bill 2014 – Parliamentary Debate 25-9-2014
EXPERT COMMENTARY: “The Minister assured us that Australia would comply with its international obligations – which is presumably not difficult if international law is now simply what the government says it is.” Professor Ben Saul -Emeritus Professor of International Law – Sydney University: ‘The light of human rights is fading in Australia.’
ABC – ‘The DRUM’ 7 October 2014
Yes, Scott Morrison, now the Federal Treasurer, apparently stated that the Federal Government should decide what international law meant. In 1995 Radovan Karadzic had the same opinion when he was the President of Bosnia. On May 24th 2016, the International Criminal Court of Justice gave him a reality check with this statement:
“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.
The three-judge panel said Karadzic was “at the apex of power,” heading the self-styled Bosnian Serb Republic and Supreme Commander of its armed forces, when crimes were committed by his troops. Judges said the 44-month siege of Sarajevo could not have happened without his support; that he committed crimes against humanity in an attempt to purge Muslims and Croats from parts of Bosnia; and that he had intended to eliminate the Bosnian Muslim males of the town of Srebrenica.
Scott Morrison’s out-of-touch-with-reality statement highlights the problem of political parties holding power for too long. Like Hitler’s NAZI Party leaders in Germany in the 1930s and early 1940s, they tend to believe the rightness of their beliefs even when they are committing crimes against humanity.
Yvette D’Arth needs to allow Gerard Baden-Clay access to the evidence of the role of the Federal Parliament, and the Department of Human Services, in violating the rights of vulnerable people. If Gerard Baden-Clay wins an apprehended bias argument, lives will be saved. Even if the High Court does not accept that argument, exposing the uncollected, unreported, classified, “irrelevant” death toll caused by breaching policies and practices will still save lives because the High Court is unlikely to allow this murderous violation of constitutional and human rights to continue.
The idea that people convicted of murder or manslaughter may go free if the breaching triggered death toll is exposed in the International Court or the Australian High Court is not the ideal way to go. However, since I lack the $600,000 deposit to file an appeal in this court, plus the $30,000 a day for lawyers, other options are in short supply.
One practical alternative is for readers of this blog to demand an explanation from politicians; don’t hold your breath that you will get the truth.
Ronald Medlicott – A christian lay advocate for justice.