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. ]
(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. ]
(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. ]
(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;
(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;
(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  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 
[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).
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
188.8.131.52 – Bench Notes (Source: Judicial College of Victoria.)
Forms of Murder
There are three ways in which murder can be committed:
- The accused can cause the victim’s death while intending to kill or cause really serious injury, or being reckless as to that result;
- 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”.]
- 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
- Murder is a crime at common law. It has the following four elements, each of which the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt:
- The accused committed acts which caused the victim’s death;
- The accused committed those acts voluntarily;
- The accused committed those acts while:
- intending to kill someone or cause them really serious injury; or
- [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
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.
 This document was last updated on 2 November 2014.
 This type of murder will simply be referred to as “murder” throughout these notes.
 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:
Issues of admissibility
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.
- 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.
- 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.
The “Irrelevant” MURDERS”
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.
The Prime Minister who “OUGHT TO KNOW” but says nothing.
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.