Tasmanian Legal Watchdog

Portrait:3/4/1675 John Bunyan, Vanity Fair

To Her Majesty the Queen and Tasmania's DPP Ellis

A copy of this letter is being forwarded to Her Majesty the Queen in London, UK, via Alastair Goodlad, British High Commission in Canberra.

Copies are also being sent to the individuals and organizations.

This letter deals mainly with your own conduct and statements in the legal proceedings which have been -- and are being -- pursued against me by Tasmania's Director of Public Prosecutions Mr TJ Ellis; ostensibly 'on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen'.

Ellis is a Tasmanian-raised solicitor and former member of the Law Society of Tasmania like yourself.

I am a British subject presently residing in Tasmania. I do not believe that the Queen knows anything of Ellis's activities in Tasmania reputedly in her name; and my intention now is to provide Her Majesty with complete details over the weeks to come.

This first letter focuses upon your own role in extensively assisting Ellis -- whether that be by accident or design.

1) On 1 September 2003, you sentenced me to three months imprisonment for contempt of court, on charges brought by Tasmania's DDP Ellis ' on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen'.

2) You suspended that sentence for three years on the proviso that I ceased making allegations about Ellis and certain of his Law Society cohorts. However you imposed no restriction on Ellis, who continued his campaign of psychopathic harassment.

3) In February this year, Ellis launched three new --and 'separate' -- actions against me within a two week, period; each reputedly 'on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen'.

4) The first action was seeking my imprisonment for alleged breach of your suspended sentence In September 2003 -- with which demand you obliged him ( I was released from Tasmania's infamous maximum-security prison a few days ago).

5. The second action was seeking another trial and imprisonment for what he and or you called 'fresh' allegations (thus before you jailed me for the first breach on 22 March this year, he was already arranging for you to jail me for a 'fresh' breach when I was released!)

6) You appeared - to me - to throw yourself most enthusiastically into meeting Ellis's demands; which may be exemplified by your unconventional comments to be quoted from transcripts, below.

7) Ellis's third plan 'on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen' was to sue me for criminal defamation for Mr William Cox, Tasmania's former Chief Justice - now Governor.

(Another judge, Mr Crawford, explained at an earlier hearing that if Mr Cox sued me himself, in a civil case, he would have to pay. But if Ellis sued me for criminal defamation, the public would have to pay?).

The result of Ellis's blitz on new actions ' on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen' in February this year were that:

a) you jailed me for three months, on 22 March

b) you began quote 'fresh' proceedings against me for contempt of court -- with the presumed intention of jailing me again -- before I got to prison the first time!

c) and in relation to the Governor Cox you said: "Where that goes, how long it takes and where it travels is a matter for the DPP's office and you."

8) To begin the 'fresh' proceedings for Ellis it was necessary -- you decided -- to bring me in handcuffs from jail on two occasions, to expedite the case for your former Law Society colleague.

9) As the transcripts of the three hearings, on 22 March ( the day you jailed me) then 4 May followed by 15 June, total more than 150 pages, this letter does not attempt to do any more than sketch-in the 'flavour' of your comments during those hearings.

10) Example -- in discussing 'convenient dates' for Ellis to have me brought back to court, handcuffed, from prison, you said to him on one occasion (transcript 4 May 2005, page 36, para 40):

Slicer (sniggering): " It gives him a day out".

11) My main concerns regarding my forced appearances in court from jail, were expressed at the hearings as follows:

a) there were NO FACILITIES in Risdon prison (word processors, copiers, etc) for preparing legal documents -- which you told me to, quote "Write them - by hand".

b) The Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania had refused to provide assistance 'unless I pleaded guilty'.

c) You were determined to push ahead with the case for Ellis -- whether I had a lawyer or not..

12) At the hearing on 4 May (transcript page 4 of 38) you said to the Legal Aid representative, Ms Mainwaring:

Slicer: Your answer is that at this stage the Legal Aid commission will not provide assistance to him?"

Mainwaring: "That's correct. At this stage' adding, "unless he pleads guilty."

13) Substantial segments of the first two hearings were devoted to my asking you to clarify whether the proceedings being brought by Ellis were civil or criminal?

Your long and evasive answers mostly created more confusion than clarification e.g (transcript 4 May 2005, page 33 of 38, para 35):

Slicer: 'Well, it sort of IS -- and sort of isn't. You don't get a jury."

14) After further attempts by me to make sense from your replies you told me (transcripts page 33, para 45) referring to Ellis's 'fresh' charges:

"At the end of the line, this one COULD be a gaol sentence. So when I say it's not criminal, it's sort of kind of like it isn't -- but it's sort of kind of like it IS, okay?"

15) During the 4 May 2005 hearing I also said to you (transcript page 13, para 30): "the big question is this, Sir. The documents which Ellis served on me" (prior to my being jailed on 22 March) "were headed Criminal Code?"

Slicer: " I can tell you about that. In terms of the Criminal Code, if I take evidence on oath and you admit that you WROTE them, your answer can be used in civil proceedings."

"But I'm also empowered to give you a CERTIFICATE -- so they can't be used against you in criminal proceedings. We solve the problem here -- and protect you somewhere else."

16) On the basis of your explanation regarding quote 'protection' at the hearing on 4 May 2005, I then told you which documents I had written.

However when I reminded you of your explanation regarding certificates at the following hearing, you replied (transcript 15 June 2005, page 5, para 10)

Slicer: "No -- you said you didn't want them. Didn't need them."

Trustrum: "Well, if I gave that impression I misled you sir. Because I wouldn't have made those admissions without them."

17) In response to your insistence that I defend myself without legal aid or advice, I several times asked, you during the three hearings while I was in prison what was your reason for all the haste -- and one of your typical replies was (transcript 15 June 2005, page 10, para 30).

Slicer: "Okay. Then let me cut to the chase. When are you due out?"

Trustrum: "Next Tuesday."

Slicer: "I don't HAVE to let you out. But what I don't want to happen is that this thing just wanders and meanders along -- and goes here, there and everywhere -- so that we're still having this discussion in six months."

18) Therefore despite your efforts to fog the real nature of the charges and to force me to answer Ellis's allegations without legal representation (while I was still in JAIL) the real situation was:

Slicer: "At the end of the line, this one COULD be a jail sentence". (Transcript 4 May 2005, page 33, para 45)

19) For these reasons I am completely satisfied that Her Majesty the Queen will now wish to know what is being done by judges and officers of the court in distant Tasmania -- 'on her behalf; where there is unlimited money to 'hunt down' critics of its justice system; but no money at all to legally represent them (unless they plead guilty)!

20) I remind you (though you much prefer to forget it) that these entire hostilities began -- and the Legal Watchdog was established -- in 2001, after Tasmania's DPP Ellis had me arrested and committed for trial for allegedly stalking Devonport solicitor Mr Leon Wootton of the law-firm Levis Stace & Cooper.

( I had paid Wootton $26, 000 deposit on a property, but he never completed the conveyance).

21) It was later discovered that the police officer DPP Ellis had used to ransack my home for Levis Stace & Cooper documents and arrest me, was a new detective-constable, Michael Aaron Ashwood.

22) Ashwood had just joined Tasmania Police, after resigning his job as a solicitor and member of the Law Society of Tasmania because the law-firm he had been working for was under investigation for robbing clients of about $4-million.

23) That firm was Levis Stace & Cooper.

24) Ellis's charges against me were obviously fraudulent and he dropped the case some months later, without explanation.

25) I noted that while you sentenced me to three months in Tasmania's Maximum Security jail, the Levis Stace & Cooper partner who robbed clients of $4-Million was relaxing at the 'farm' without bars, at New Norfolk.

That is why Her Majesty the Queen needs to know what Tasmania's DPP has been doing -- ' on her behalf'.

Yours faithfully
Tom E Trustrum
Tasmania's Legal Watchdog

At a hearing on 5 July 2005 Mr Trustrum asked judge Slicer for an adjournment as the Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania had not acknowledge his written application.

Mr Slicer said: " I am going ahead with the case on 5 September whether you've got Legal Aid or not. Your Legal Aid is not my problem."

THE AGE: Scutt fires farewell salvo
By Andrew Darby, Hobart 28 October 2004

Barrister and author Dr Jocelynne A Scutt has ended a troubled term as Tasmania's first anti-discrimination commissioner with a sweeping rebuke the state's legal institutions.

Not even the state's Supreme Court escaped the broadside that extended to lawyers, TJ Ellis the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Ombudsman and the Justice department.

Dr Scutt said that attempts were made to destablise her office right from the start and she had been bullied and coerced. Support in the job was denied her, as was natural justice and duty of care.

She had considered instituting proceedings for defamation, false imprisonment, abuse of process, contempt of court and victimisation -- but she said such steps would have required confidence in Tasmania's justice system.

In her dealings with Tasmania's Supreme Court, she said she had been denied procedural fairness. 'In my extensive experience, I have never encountered such an approach, outside Tasmania".

She said that only in Tasmania could DPP Ellis also act as a solicitor in civil matters; meaning he could appear in anti-discrimination cases.

She said a number of Tasmanian lawyers habitually used abusive and unprofessional language when talking to her and her staff. One member of the Law Society of Tasmania sent her correspondence containing pornography and a death threat. She had to obtain police protection.

By Tom E Trustrum posted 29 July 05

Above Portrait: 3/4/1675 John Bunyan, Vanity Fair

On this day in 1675 John Bunyan went to prison for the third time, convicted of preaching his Baptist faith without a license. In over twelve years of confinement Bunyan wrote numerous books and pamphlets, including Part I of A Pilgrim's Progress. It sold 100,000 copies in his lifetime, and is still reported to be the most sold book in the world, next to the Bible.

Related:

'A Nice Day Out' From Risdon Prison
Arranged for maximum-security prisoner 43637 Trustrum, Thomas Edward, by Justice Pierre W Slicer, Tasmania's Supreme Court human-rights an social-justice crusader.

Parole Board Membership

NSW: The Law Society is aware that two former long standing police officers Mr Robert Inkster, an Mr Peter Walsh, were appointed to the Parole Board as Community Members for a period of three years from 17 January 2005 until 16 January 2008.

The Law Society is concerned at the potential perception of bias on the Parole Board due to the strong representation of former police officers serving as Community Members.

The NSW Police Service has representative serving as and Official Member on the Parole Board pursuant to section 183(2)(b) of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999. At least ten community members are appointed to the Parole Board who are to reflect as closely as possible the composition of the community at large (s183(2)(e)).

The Law Society acknowledges that it would be unfair to preclude someone with a police service background being appointed as a community member on the grounds that he or she is not representative of the community.

However, members of the public may perceive that Parole Board members who are former police officers may tend to favour the interests of the NSW Police, which are narrower than the interests of the community.

Including two former members of the NSW Police as Community Members is not keeping with the need for a broad range of views being available to the Parole Board, preferably from parties who are not open to being accused of bias because of their present or former careers.

While the Law Society is not suggesting that there will be actual bias on the Parole Board, it is concerned that the perception of bias should be avoided.

The Law Society suggests that when future Community Members are appointed that the perception of bias is an important matter to be taken into consideration.

NSW Legislative Council Hansard 01/03/2005

The Hon, Peter Breen: My question is directed to the Minister for Justice and Minister for Fair Trading. Is the Minister aware that Robert Bruce Inkster and Peter John Walsh, both policemen, have been appointed as community representatives to the Parole Board?

Does the Minister agree that those appointments do not reflect the composition of the community at large, as specified in the relevant legislation?

Does the Minister acknowledge a potential conflict of interesting that Mr Inkster and Mr Walsh may have had previous dealings as serving policeman with inmates whose parole the are reviewing?

Does the Minister acknowledge that the relevant legislation has a provision for at least one police officer to be appointed to the Parole Board?

Is it the Minister's intention to stack the Parole Board with current and former police officers?

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: The answer to the questions seriatim are: Yes, no, no yes and no.

NSW Parole Board and the Politics of NSW Prisons

Case No 1 Prisoners Letter to Bob Carr. Dear Premier, I refer to my complaints that the Parole Board and the Department of Corrective Services are acting contrary to imposed sentences and sentencing law principles.

Unlawful Parole Considerations

Probation and Parole Officers fulfill an important role within the criminal justice system by supervising, managing and providing assistance to offenders on conditional liberty?

Probation and Parole in NSW

Since I requested some help from Justice Action and the authorities just before Xmas for the then corrections personnel to assist me I was moved so that my parole prospects would be thwarted even further.

PAROLE

Well firstly thank you for sending the latest copy of Framed Magazine to me. I was very surprised, as I had no idea that I was still on your books. If you like I can send some more drawings for possible submission in the future.

Probation and Parole in NSW

I am a prisoner at the Goulburn Prison I refer to the New South Wales Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 Sect 135.

By Just Us 21 May 05

Related:

Corrected or Corrupted
A psychiatrist from the prison Mental Health Team attached to Queensland Health made the comment that 25 per cent of inmates suffer from a diagnosed mental illness.

ICOPA XI International Conference on Penal Abolition
We are excited to announce that ICOPA X1, the eleventh International Conference on Penal Abolition will happen in Tasmania, Australia from February 9 - 11,2006. Please pass this onto all networks.

Ex-Prisoner Locked Out of Prison
The NSW Department of Corrective Services (DCS) has revealed a policy which bans ex-prisoners from entering prisons.

Justice Action: Access to our community
NSW: Justice Action went to the NSW Supreme Court before the last Federal election on the constitutional right for prisoners to receive information for their vote. The government avoided the hearing by bringing prisoners' mobile polling booths forward. We pursued it after the election. This is the report.

Why We Oppose Home Detention
NSW: Justice Action opposes the use of Home Detention (HD). It damages the family and the home for others without any consideration of the effects, or acknowledgement of the costs. It discriminates by disproportionately effecting women. Families become prison guards to their loved ones, and the home becomes an extension of the State.

MORE PRISONERS LOCKDOWNS HAVE OFFICERS ON EDGE
NSW POLICE Commissioner Ken Moroney has issued an ultimatum as well, to the lawless youths holding Sydney's streets to ransom?: Learn some respect or face jail?

Tough line on crime fills jails
The tough law-and-order policies of governments around the nation are behind an explosion in the prison population by almost 80 per cent in the past two decades.

LEGAL VISITS AT PARKLEA PRISON
I am a prisoner in NSW and I am currently held in Parklea Prison. I am concerned about what is going on in NSW prisons and this is my story.

Parklea Prison: No calls for six days
The last calls that were made out of Parklea Correctional Complex by my partner, an inmate in remand at Parklea, was on Wednesday 2 February. The phone lines for the inmates have been out of service to this date.

Prison visits in crisis in NSW
The reason I am writing today is to address a difficult situation that my husband and my family are going through. My husband is currently serving a sentence at Lithgow Correctional Centre in NSW.

Prison boom will prove a social bust
Hardened criminals are not filling NSW's prisons - the mentally ill and socially disadvantaged are, writes Eileen Baldry.

The prison system requires assiduous oversight
As NSW Attorney General Bob Debus noted in 1996: "The kinds of complaints which occur in the system may seem trivial to outsiders but in the superheated world of the prison, such issues can produce explosive results."

Crime and Punishment
Mark Findlay argues that the present psychological approach to prison programs is increasing the likelihood of re-offending and the threat to community safety.

Justice Denied In NSW Corrective Services
There used to be a (VJ) or Visiting Justice who would go into the prison and judge any claim or accusation that was made by any prisoner or prison guard. If it were found that a prisoner had offended then punishment was metered out.

Prison guards test positive for drugs
NSW prison visitors banned from using the toilet The visit is only for about one hour and any thing less than that is an insult. If it's proved that a visitor has broken the rules the punishment should apply to them. But collective punishment on all visitors should not be made general when others haven't broken the rules especially if it restricts all visitors from normal human needs like using a toilet.

NSW prison visitors banned from using the toilet
The New South Wales Government has introduced several initiatives to stop contraband getting into prisons they said last Friday. But under the guise of "stricter rules" the department had also introduced banning all visitors including children from using the toilet unless they terminate their visit at any NSW prison after using the toilet.

NSW Legislative Council's Inquiry on Home Detention
Justice Action's submissions Justice Action opposes the use of home detention, whether front-end or back-end, as a sentencing option in our criminal justice system.

Watchdogs slaughtered in NSW
On Tuesday the Carr Government reduced transparency and accountability yet again and New South Wales is in danger of becoming entrenched with cronyism and intimidations with the Carr Labor Government that continues to slaughter the watchdogs.

Chiselling the Bars

A second forum from the:
Law Society of NSW
Public Defenders Office NSW
Lawyers Reform Association NSW
Criminal Defence Lawyers Association of NSW
Coalition on Intellectual Disability and Criminal Justice

SPEAKERS

Peter McGhee, Principal Solicitor, Intellectual Disability Rights Service
Doug Payne, Coordinator Behaviour Support, Southern Region,
Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care
Kelly Fishburn, Forensic Casework Team Leader,
Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care
James Condren, Director, NSW Council for Intellectual Disability
Anne Langford, Manager, Disability Services Unit,
Department of Corrective Services
Graeme Smith, Director, Office of the Public Guardian

CHAIR

Jim Simpson, Lawyer and Disability Advocate

5:30-7:30 pm Thursday 17 March
Common Room, NSW Bar Association
Basement Level, 174 Phillip Street, Sydney
2 CLE or CPD points for lawyers

For bookings and enquiries, contact
Jennie Pakula, Law Society of NSW
jap@lawsocnsw.asn.au 9926 0390

Our first forum "Gaol as Community Housing?" highlighted the barriers to diversionary and non-custodial options for offenders with intellectual disabilities. This sequel will concentrate on how to make the best of things when you are helping a person with an intellectual disability who is in trouble with the law.

By CID and The Law Society posted 2 March 05

Related:

Gaol as Community Housing?
A Forum on Intellectual Disability and Criminal Justice

People with Mental Retardation in the Criminal Justice System
How many people with mental retardation are in the criminal justice system? Based on the 1990 census, an estimated 6.2 to 7.5 million people in the United States have mental retardation. Various studies have suggested between 2 percent to 10 percent of the prison population has mental retardation. Denkowski & Denkowski (1985) found that about 2 percent of all inmates in either state or federal prisons have mental retardation (about 14,000 people). Another study conducted by the state of New York found similar results: between 1.8 percent and 2.2 percent of people with mental retardation were imprisoned (Sundram, 1990). Residential programs that house offenders with mental retardation support another 12,500 people who have been convicted, or suspected of, committing a crime (Noble & Conley, 1992).

Mental Illness and the Criminal Justice System
Violence and violent crime are commonly regarded by the public as the domain of the mentally ill (Australian Institute of Criminology, 1990). Public misconception about the true nature of mental illness, as distinct from personality disorder or behavioural disorder, frequently links extreme violence with mental illness. This misconception is enhanced by media depictions of the involvement of the 'schizophrenic' or 'psycho' in violent crime. The Victorian Government's health information website, BetterHealth Channel, gives the following content analysis:

Justice Action criticises Govt's victim voice policy

Victims are not being properly considered in compensation and no expression is given to them, of community goodwill. A spokesperson for Justice Action Mr Brett Collins said, "No community expression or concern is given to the victims of crime. They feel their pain is not acknowledged by the government which tries to balance pain against pain. Never! The community is being misled."

The Sun-Herald reported on Sunday Edward Lee's mother she said, "Then maybe they listen to the mother and father of dead boys," Mrs Lee said.

Mr Collins went on to say, "The community needs to offer victims goodwill, generosity, compassion and preparedness to listen. Not stimulate anger, more damage and vengeance in the mind of the victim." He said.

The New South Wales Law Society is concerned retribution and vengeance will become a part of sentencing under a state Government proposal to give victims a greater voice in court.

New South Wales Premier Bob Carr says the victims of crime should be allowed to participate in the court system by explaining during sentencing how the crime affected them.

However Law Society president Robert Benjamin says the changes are fraught with danger and has urged the Government to reconsider.

Mr Benjamin says it is undesirable to involve emotion in the sentencing process, and he fears judges may be influenced by victims to hand down harsher penalties.

"This has to be done in a balanced and sensible sense so that all the needs of justice, the needs of the community, the needs of the victim and the needs of the person who's committed the crime are all met in a measured way."

By Justice Action 17 Feb 03

Related:

Victims should benefit from criminal assets, not police: NSW Opposition
The New South Wales Opposition wants the victims of crime to benefit from the confiscation of criminal assets, rather than the state's police service.

Crime victim group wants say in money allocation
A spokesperson from Justice Action Mr Brett Collins said, "Victims should be properly compensated regardless of the source and that is currently the law. The law says you don't need to find even the offender to get compensation. This is an attempt by the opposition to create a law and order issue-involving victims when there is in fact no issue!

Abolition of 800 year old double jeopardy law a crime
The 800-year-old rule prevents a person who's acquitted of a criminal charge from ever being re-tried for that offense.

When real safety is jeopardised in NSW
Perception of crime is still a problem in NSW, with a new Productivity Commission report showing the state's citizens feel less safe than most of their counterparts.

Chronology - A History of Australian Prisons
[Allegedly:] The events that have shaped NSW prisons - from convict days through royal commissions, to the Supermax of today. [I say allegedly because no one should trust Four Corners [Walls], why? Because they spill out the propaganda of the day for the Government, whether it be wrong or right. A government that lies and has no remorse about it.]