Amendment of Appeal (19 November,
2003)
IN THE MATTER OF a conviction (or order or adjudication)
made on the 5th day of June, 2003 by the Court of Summary Jurisdiction
of Darwin in the Northern Territory of Australia on the hearing of a
certain information (or complaint) wherein PAUL FRANCIS TUDOR-STACK
of Darwin, was the informant (complainant) and MICHAEL PAUL LAMBE the
Defendant.
TO: Mr Wallace SM a Stipendiary Magistrate for the Northern Territory
of Australia and to the Clerk of the aforementioned complainant.
TAKE NOTICE that MICHAEL PAUL LAMBE of ----------------- intends to
institute and duly prosecute an appeal AND HEARBY APPEALS to the Supreme
Court of the Northern Territory of Australia against a certain conviction
(sentence, or order of adjudication) made on the aforementioned date
by the said Stipendiary Magistrate, sitting as a Court of Summary Jurisdiction
at Darwin in the Northern Territory.
Whereby you convicted and sentenced the defendant on one count of 'intentionally
disturbing the Legislative Assembly' while it was in session on Tuesday,
14 May, 2002, contrary to section 61(a) of the Northern Territory Criminal
Code to 16 months imprisonment, suspended to four months.
AND TAKE NOTICE that the appellant intends to institute and duly prosecute
the appeal at the sittings of that Supreme Court which will be in accordance
with the rules of that Supreme Court if practicable commence at Darwin
on a day which is the first day after the expiration of 21 days from
the service of this notice on which sittings of that Supreme Court for
hearing appeals under the Justices Act have been set down to commence.
AND TAKE NOTICE that the grounds for
the appeal are
1. The Magistrates Court had no jurisdiction to try this case.
a) there has been no definitive declaration by the Legislative
Assembly in accordance with s.5 of the Legislative Assembly (Powers and
Privileges) Act 1992.
b) It is the exclusive jurisdiction
of the Assembly to state if an offence has occurred and especially to
prosecute in the Legislative Assembly sitting in its judicial role under
ss. 5,25, and 26 of the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act
1992.
c.)
The constitutional requirement of the separation of powers applies
to the exercise of the powers of the house of representatives and exercise
of similar powers vested in the legislative assembly by s.12 of the northern
territory (self-government) act, as enacted under the legislative assembly
(powers and privileges) act. There is a constitutional requirement that
the judiciary does not have power to declare whether legislative assembly
has been improperly interfered with or to punish persons for their exercising
of their right to freedom of expression within the legislative assembly.
Only one of the branches of Government
has jurisdiction over the Act in question, and in this case clearly it
is the exclusive jurisdiction of the Legislative Assembly, and in fact,
there can be no offence without a vote under s.5 of the Legislative Assembly
(Powers and Privileges) Act 1992.
2. The Defendants
who were unrepresented were not adequately advised of their rights.
a) The hostile media campaign (epitomized by Attorney General
Peter Toyne's public remarks on the court case) made an unbiased jury
trial seem unlikely to Defendants.
b) The Defendants were emotionally and physically
exhausted by the government and Police campaign mounted against them.
We were dealing with a statistically improbable number of other cases
and legal matters at the time.
3. The politicization of the trial was evident.
Particularly during the sentencing/press conference finale. Political
bias.
a) The Magistrate and Public Prosecutor seemed bound by a need
to exonerate Superintendent
Bert Hofer, who I witnessed assault a defenseless female in parliament.
b) I absolutely refute all of Magistrate Wallace's comments to
the assembled press (during sentencing) about this assault.
c) I will rely on the (Police doctored) video tape and the transcript
to demonstrate why.
d) The Court was used at times by the Prosecutor to help Police
gain evidence in matters unrelated to the alleged offence for overtly
political reasons.
e) Evidence was withheld and tampered with.
f) Cross examination and evidential criteria were grossly prejudicial
to the Defendants.
4.) The Defendant
does not believe the Constitution has been correctly interpreted in
light of Mabo and other changes in Australia's social and legal framework
since its inception.
5.) The Defendant believes a Parliament that presides over a
racist and corrupt state has less rights under the Constitution than
those people that protest said racism and corruption.
6 . The sentencing was manifestly excessive and ignored the circumstances
of the Defendants. Namely…
a. The stressful political situation and economic disadvantages
of the Defendants.
b. Their political motivation. This is the criminalisation of
political protest.
c. The enormous amount of evidence revealing a campaign by NT
government and Police to marginalize and destroy NAP (Network Against
Prohibition) and PARIAH People Against Racism In Aboriginal Homelands.
Conceded by the Magistrate.
7. Evidence of 'selective prosecution' on
political grounds -- some examples being the refusal of Police to even
investigate complaints made by the Defendants assaulted in Parliament.
Despite the best efforts of Magistrate Wallace to whitewash these assaults
to the Press they remain a demonstrative reality. The complaint I made
against Prosecutor Paul Frances Tudor-Stack has also 'vanished'. Magistrate
Wallace defended Mr Tudor-Stack's bigoted remarks, despite having little
knowledge of the circumstances.
a) Attempts to bring NT
Attorney General Peter Toyne's comments on the trial -- which I
believe amount to Contempt of Court -- to the attention of the court
have yet to meet with success.
mick lambe - Dated 19th day of November, 2003
|
