Since the Supreme Court of NSW has declined to hear this appeal, based on what I do believe is a false reason, I might as well put those three weeks of long days creating these documents to some use.
I post it here for the public of Australia to see what is occurring in the Albury Local court, in cahoots with corrupt Albury police, and is occurring in courts all over NSW under their leadership firstly by Gabrielle Upton, and continued by Mark Speakmann.
The Supreme Court Registry claims that a district court appeal has already occurred.
But that appeal never looked at the issues of the arrest itself. It only looked at whether or not my letter from a GP stating I had fluid on the knee was a good enough to have missed court when Murray wanted to jail me at the outset.
An incidence of violence against an interim AVO carries a mandatory jail term, I found out months after he tried to convict me of that, against the charge by BDS for writing to them.
It did not examine the evidence or transcript of a hearing, because it ruled that there had been none, and that one must occur.
That district court appeal only related to the first hearing of the charge, there has been no district court appeal in relation to the rehearing and new conviction and penalty.
The staff at Albury Court house tried to jail me illegally again in September 2017.
Two attempts, I don’t think that makes an appeal in their district court possible, nor safe, from my point of view.
And the Judge would have already been enlisted to send matters back to their Local Court for the evil Murray to keep control of them anyway.
So its off to the Federal Court we must now go. I’ll try it before the High Court, and because I already know that website accepts my concession details online, and allows me to book a hearing, whereas the Supreme Court one does not. A person on welfare must travel to their Registry to show their concession card, to be able to book anything with them.
I don’t think I will need these big long documents for that though, but I would simply have point on the errors in judgements described on the other post about the precedents Magistrate Cromptom has inadvertently set by waiving all Federal and State Laws just to be able to convict little ole me.
Criminal Appeal Act 1912
GROUNDS OF APPEAL
NAME OF APPELLANT: TRACEY GWENDOLINE BURT
The appellant relies upon the following grounds of appeal
Failure by the Local Court and the Crown to comply with rules of evidence as required by section 281 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) and sections of the Code of Practice for Crime which relate to police interviews, make this criminal charge under appeal not legally able to be heard in any Court of Law in Australia.
Failure by the Crown and Local Court to authenticate evidence under Federal Law Rule 901, and failure to adhere to the rules of both criminal and civil procedures.
I’d also even question if the charge does involve a criminal offence at all when it stems from unproven AVO (Domestic) applications and an Interim Order made without the accused’s consent or awareness that applications had been made against her and a hearing listed for same.
The Local Court failed to comply with the rules relating to granting Interim Orders in the absence of the accused when it failed to ask the complainants to provide additional statements about why that should occur. Had that Interim Order not been in place, this arrest and charge could not have occurred. The way in which the arrest was enacted, should have seen the charge dropped at its outset and first listing on 5 February 2016.
I am seeking a review under Part 5 of the Crimes (Local Courts Appeal and Review) Act 2001 of the conviction and penalty handed down on 22 November 2017, for the charge of contravene Interim AVO (Domestic) prohibition/restriction.
I appeal to the Supreme Court of NSW instead of the Albury District Court due to continued collusion between the court’s CJC mediator and the complainant(s).
I believe this relationship has affected all hearings involving the complainants’ matters and will affect any District Court Appeal at that same venue.
Evidence of this collusion lodged with the court as part of Notices for Motion on 11 November and 12 December 2016 should have seen all matters involving these complainants dismissed.
The CJC mediator was in violation of CJC legislation and the Mediators’ Code of Conduct in representing her personal friends’ matters before the court, but while not acting in any official capacity to do so. No order for mediation had been made when she appeared in the Local Court in their company on 18 January 2016, and when an order for mediation was made the complainant boasted to the Magistrate that their mediator friend had already been helping them.
The Court and Registrar were in violation of the CJC legislation when they allowed this situation to occur and continue, as was the CJC and Attorney General’s Office.
All of the allegations and manipulated evidence submitted to the court by the mediator’s friends was disproven by the defence cases lodged against them on 12 January 2016.
Without any hearing of those matters, nor mediation, the Local Court granted both of those applications using this criminal charge as a reason to do so on 29 February 2016. However, the arresting officer had offered no new evidence at all to the civil matters and had no admissible or even real evidence to submit to the court in relation to this charge.
This conviction being appealed was for the rehearing of the charge I was convicted for on 29 February 2016. That original conviction is also under appeal as it triggered the granting of two AVO applications which the Court has continued to pretend were proven and are enforceable by way of criminal charges against the defendant.
I believe that to be able to bring any charges of contravene against those two Final Orders, the court must first ensure the allegations have been properly tested and proven at hearing and in accordance with the law. Until they have been, I believe they were invalid for the whole year they claimed to have been in affect, and that the Local Court had no legal right to extend either of them.
This charge was bought against me for the collateral purpose of having those Orders granted without the defence evidence being considered. However, the defence evidence had already been lodged, as part of the civil process, and the applications both disproven.
The officer is guilty of having created with, and then tampered with, false evidence. He was did not submit that inadmissible evidence to the court with his initial statement of facts, nor did the Crown tender the transcript of the illegal conversation had with the accused.
The Crown asked the arresting officer to commit perjury under oath on 20 June 2017 when it tendered the transcript of the illegal recording during hearing, and asked him to confirm that it was a true record of his dealings with the accused on 19 January 2016. The Crown was aware the document was not legally admissible and visibly so in that it hold no signatures confirming it authenticity.
The original conviction of 29 February 2016 was set aside by the Honourable Judge Jefferies on 2 September 2016 in the Albury District Court, however, I believe he handed down a flawed decision when he directed the charge be reheard in the Local Court. Which is another reason I have chosen to bypass that court this time and seek a decision from a higher court.
I understand that I am required to have a question of law to be able to bring this appeal to the Supreme Court and pose several throughout this document and which I hope you will find that at least one of those meets that requirement.
A rehearing of the charge a second time in the Local Court did not make the evidence admissible and able to be tendered at hearing.
I believe there is no avenue for appeal at that court house due to the aforementioned reasons and continued refusal of the Albury Court to recognise the illegal aspects of this arrest and evidence.
I was denied the opportunity to formally present any defence evidence at hearing on 14 September 2017 when I abandoned proceedings due to what I believe amounts to both provable and actual bias on the part of the Magistrate in protecting the complainant from answering questions under cross examination.
I believe that was not only a violation of my common law rights to fair and impartial hearings, but is another example of procedural unfairness I have been experiencing and stems from the collusion between the complainants and Court via the CJC mediator.
I believe the events of the hearing of 14 September 2017 should be grounds to have the charge dismissed completely now, and the unproven AVO’s formally declared to be that.
Additional grounds for this Appeal are intimidation of witnesses for the defence, service of Final Orders, signatures on legal documents, AVO application ID requirements and the question of whether the Crown was legally allowed to enter new evidence to a rehearing of the same charge, and to have changed the date of the offence I’d originally been convicted of.
Violations of the Federal Regulations which govern taxation practitioners need to be considered, and my rights to free speech and fair and impartial dealings from all courts in Australia.
Also laws regarding conspiracy to bring false allegation need to be considered, especially when one considers that one AVO application was soley designed to protect a person from having allegations of misconduct made against them to their employer, and her co-accuser and the court mediator both had an interesting in assisting the complainant to retain her employment. The mediator’s daughter is the complainant’s landlady.
I believe that amounts to misuse of process and any criminal charges bought against me by herself and her employers to be breaches of the Public Disclosure Act, and the same applies to the charge the mediator later bought against me herself. One also has to consider the crime of perverting the course of justice, and bringing a charge against someone just to affect the outcome of a hearing.
I was arrested, charged and convicted for lodging my own defence statements in civil matters, with the Albury court house on 12 January 2016 by NSW police.
I question the legality of that. The court itself did not refer the letter this charge relates to police to investigate as a crime, and did not decide the AVO matters based on the letter when it was lodged with the court on 12 January 2016 as part of those civil processes at hearings on 18 January 2016 or 5 February 2016.
Instead, the court pretends to have granted the final orders based on this potential criminal charge, but which added no new information or evidence to those civil matters, apart from this false claim of a confession by the arresting officer but which was not tendered to the court and the accused deliberately denied access to the police evidence because it was fraudulent.
The one police charge was applied to two separate AVO applications without my awareness. I was charged with an allegation of breach on an interim AVO held by one person, but convicted of that charge against another person’s final order. I question the legality of both of those actions.
The court conducted the rehearing of the charge with the wrong police complainant in place and pretended that the conviction had been handed down against that Order at the outset. I believe that should result in dismissal of that conviction and penalty and even the charge itself.
While I appeal to the Supreme Court to overturn the conviction and penalty based all of on the above grounds, I would accept a judgement of imposed motion if this court is unable to hear this appeal and must send it back to a District Court.
However, I will only appeal in a District Court if that court is not in Albury or its parent court in Wagga Wagga which shares staff and Magistrates.
Do any of the above questions meet the requirement of the question of law necessary to bring an Appeal from the Local Court to the Supreme Court?
Or do they show that procedure has not been followed in a fair and legal manner, and that is what must be addressed in this Appeal and all previous decisions overturned due to same?
I elected to defend false allegations made by way of civil applications and for which police had refused to become involved. A criminal charge of breach was bought against me as a ploy to have those applications granted, and then more criminal charges bought against me for other collateral purposes and in an attempt to intimidate and hinder my ability to defend myself unrepresented.
I therefore request my right to be granted legal counsel at the state’s expense for any further hearings involving any criminal charges stemming from these unproven and contested civil AVO (Domestic) applications, if these matters are going to continue through NSW Courts.
- Authenticating or Identifying Evidence
Federal Law Rule 901 relates to authenticating or identifying evidence. To satisfy the requirement the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.
- The arresting officer claimed to have legally admissible evidence, but then attached none to his statement of facts. Why was that not checked and acted upon initially, and who was responsible for ensuring that it was not sent to the court for listing?
- The Crown should have noticed that the charge could not go ahead and withdrawn it in February 2016, and again in 2017 when it realized that without the proper signatures and confirmation from the accused and a superior office, the transcript could still not be used in court. Yet the Crown chose to proceed and tendered that transcript into evidence. Who should have stopped this local representative of the Crown from doing that?
- The Court should have noticed that no evidence accompanied the statement of facts when the charge and its documents were first lodged with the court house in January 2016, and dismissed it for that reason. Instead the Albury Local Court heard the charge and then refused an appeal against the conviction against evidence that was not even tendered at hearing.
- The complainants’ allegations were not checked or tested at hearing, but I believe the contents of all submissions in those civil matters would have been and read and summarised to the Magistrate by a clerk prior to the hearing of 18 January 2016.
- The Court appears to have tried to disassociate the complainant from their own submissions, and the defence evidence lodged against it, from that point on.
- The court claims it kept no record of the incidence of violence which saw matters revoked from mediation and doesn’t appear to have made any checks on that ‘evidence’ prior to revoking or when listing a hearing for a criminal charge in relation to that false allegation to be explored against the accused.
- I believe that so many unexplainable instances of true evidence not being considered and false evidence being used to convict, that the Magistrate cannot be accused of incompetence, but of deliberate misconduct.
- The Magistrate claimed at hearing on 20 June 2017 that the question of the Crown’s evidence being inadmissible is an argument that I must have with him. However, I believe section 281 of the Crimes Act was created to prevent making untrue claims, and creating a situation where it is their word against the accused in court.
The question of law becomes what legal right did the Albury Local Court have to hear this charge, and to have refused to consider any defence evidence which demonstrates that the Crown’s evidence was not obtained legally, and the transcript of the conversation between the accused and the arresting officer does not meet the requirements of Law and the Code of Practice for Crime?
- Service of a Final AVO Order
I understand the laws of service were changed and relaxed in 2017, but for the period from 29 February 2016 until August 2016 were police required to be in possession of a valid record of service of a final order to be able to bring any charges against me in relation to that AVO?
- I believe an Interim Order being in place can relax that requirement, however it was never the case that police could not find me to serve the final order, they were at my home a few days after the hearing of 29 February 2016 but only bought one with them, and which I refused to accept stating that ‘it had been disproven by evidence’.
- The arresting officers for the ensuring charges against this same AVO order quote the date of service of the interim order at first, and then none at all when they failed to find a record of service of a final order in their system. The one they tender as part of the Crown’s brief to the court and the accused, is fraudulent and not valid or real and only created after I had called for a dismissal of all charges of breach based on that issue.
A question of law becomes, did NSW police have the legal right to seek conviction for any charges of breach, when the Final Order of the AVO they apply to was never served on the accused, and who was not present in court on the day that order was made?
- Signatures and Legal Documents
I ask this Court to clarify the issue of the signature on the AVO application form not matching the name on the front, and whether or not that rendered the application invalid since the day it was made.
- The Registrar and court claims it is legal for the complainant to have deliberately failed to show current photo ID when she did have it available when applying, and instead used a document so old it displayed her maiden name. However, when looking into making my own application against the accused, I recall the legislation stated that one must show current photo ID.
- The complainant’s photo ID in the form of a driver’s licence was registered to an address in Victoria, and which would have disqualified her from starting any action at a NSW court house.
- The Court then has to consider the actions of the Registry staff member who accessed the computer file and changed the name on the form to match the signature, and therefore the print outs of ensuring summonses and orders, as having been an act of misconduct and is another sign of collusion between the complainant and all court staff.
- The Magistrate claimed at hearing on 14 September 2017 that it is only my belief that a signature on a legal document must match the name of the person who is to sign it. However, I believe that I am correct in that information and he is misguided if he does not share it.
A question of law is whether or not the application should have been allowed to proceed at all when the complainant was unable to show acceptable valid ID, and whether it can be considered to be a legal document able to be upheld, after the tampering of the name by court staff.
- Notices of Motion
- The accused lodged a Notice of Motion on 12 December 2016 again this charge and others charges arising from the same AVO, due to collusion with the court mediator and intimidation of a witness for the defence.
- A Notice of Motion had been lodged on 11 November 2016 against a charge bought against me by the court’s mediator for offence via telecommunications equipment, and which involved an assault by police on the accused and more false charges and more false evidence created by the NSW police acting on instruction of Mrs Bradley.
- These are serious allegations of misconduct towards the accused and which were backed up by evidence tendered with those requests for a change in venue, and were was denied by way of more acts of misconduct, and which involved illegally delisting one of those applications unheard and replacing it with all of the criminal charges of breach associated with this AVO.
- The Registrar has continued to refuse a change in venue in either of those complainant’s matters and insists that any appeals regarding same occur in the Albury District Court.
- From my viewpoint, this makes appeal not possible and is now another violation of my legal and common law rights to appeal.
A question becomes; how many times can a Magistrate accused of misconduct dismiss notices of motion against himself, his colleagues and his court, before the accused is granted a change in venue?
Is there any legislation I could have called upon to halt these proceedings when the court continued to act in an unlawful manner towards myself?
I lodged complaints with the NSW Judicial Commission and I believe their investigator deliberately covered up the misconduct I pointed out in my complaints, but would have seen even more in the transcripts due to his legal training and knowledge than I was unaware of.
Which is why I will not take these matters to the Supreme Court of NSW as a Judicial Review, but will progress them to the Federal Court or High Court of Australia if they are not overturned as a result of this appeal.
- Intimidation of a Witness
This is a criminal offence as outlined in section 315A of the Crimes Act 1900, Intimidating Victims or Witnesses. The complainant herself lodged evidence with police which demonstrated that both herself and the court mediator were guilty of this offence.
- The arresting offer for that charge of breach against myself, ignores the real crime, and tenders that evidence to the court in a charge against me.
- The charge bought against me was to intimidate myself for continuing to defend and complain about these criminal charges being bought against me in rapid succession against an unproven AVO final order.
- The arresting officers deliberately assaulted me, nearly broke my neck because they were unaware of the condition of my spine and which is the reason I am on disability pension, illegally detained me, illegally searched all of the defence evidence in relation to their continued false charges, and bought more false charges against me.
- The Sargent on duty, wrote on my bail documents that I have a long criminal history and will be sentenced to jail for this charge over two emails.
- The claim of a criminal history is not true and amounts to another count of the police creating false or tampering with evidence and of making false allegations against me.
- The paperwork he created is fraudulent and therefore another criminal offence.
- The duty Sargent and the arresting officer both advised me to leave town before the hearing, but had deliberately listed it on the same day as this complainant’s charges.
- The Court has continued to list that charge alongside that of this complainant for all of the time since then, forcing me to appear in the Local Court in relation to charge which I have always been are invalid for a variety of reasons, and would have appealed any convictions to the District Court.
The question of law again is at what point does the law protect a person who is legally entitled to motion but being denied it, and by what process?
- Bail Requirements
I believe it would be considered to be illegal to use bail conditions assigned to one person’s matter, in relation to another person.
- I was left on bail for what became an illegal amount of time while the complainant (mediator) failed to appear at any mentions of the charge, or for the Notice of Motion. The accused was never told what was creating the delay in the hearing of the charge after motion was refused.
- The court has failed to list the charge for hearing or mention next year, despite having listed it for mention on 18 September 2017 and tried to use its bail conditions to force me to come into the court house and be served with new orders protecting the same complainants illegally granted at hearing on 14 September 2017 after I had walked out of the court house.
A question of law must become how much police and court misconduct must a person endure before something is done to halt it, and when do the people who are guilty of real criminal offences towards myself come under investigation and by whom?
What process should have occurred when the NSW Ombudsman and NSW Justice and the Police Commissioners’ Office were all refusing to conduct a proper investigation and were only interested in telling the complainant to go away unheard?
- Testimony Not Admissible and Procedural Unfairness
- The Crown states at hearing on 29 February 2016 the accused had been phoning and emailing the protected person at her workplace. I believe he is referring to a witness statement given to police by Ross Griffin of BDS Huon on 16 February 2016, and which the accused was not aware of until many months later.
- Has the court punished myself for the same phone call twice, in using it on 29 February 2016 to pretend the complainant was under attack, and then bringing a separate charge in relation to it months afterwards?
- It is another police charge for which police have omitted the only evidence BDS Huon hold in relation to it, being the email sent as a follow up to that phone call and which shows it was about the issue of them having their employees accuser charged by police.
- I hold evidence of the two complaints I lodged with the Tax Practitioners’ Board about that arrest and phone call showing the dates as being 19 and 20 January 2016, therefore that I contacted their authorities before they contacted police about myself.
- Ward made this same exaggerated allegation on 5 February 2016 at the trial which was cancelled before I could address her statement and another false allegation regarding the court mediator and both of those remain unchallenged in the transcript and affects any appeals. The court refused to accept a Statutory Declaration prepared to refute those allegations.
- The complainant’s testimony on 14 September 2017 is not admissible due to myself not having seen a copy of the documents she was being questioned about by the Crown, and therefore no ability to address them under cross examination.
The question of law is should the hearing of 14 September 2017 been stayed until the defence had a chance to receive a copy of those documents, and had issued a Notice to Produce in relation to same after that hearing, and before sentencing had occurred?
Another question of law is if that was in violation of the Public Disclosure Act which forbids a company or an employee to bring a charge against a person who has made a complaint against them, and also in violation of the Federal Regulations which require Tax Practitioners to be of good conduct and to protect their clients’ personal and financial information at all times?
- While not required to give provide testimony or any evidence at the hearing of 29 February 2016, the arresting officer committed perjury on 20 June 2017 when asked to confirm that his statement of facts and recording and its transcript was true and correct and obtained legally.
- The perjury is proven by the lack of a signature by the accused confirming that he had acted legally and confirmation by a superior officer when there was one present.
- The complainants in both civil AVO applications committed perjury in their applications and their submissions to the court, both written and verbally at hearings. They swore under oath that their initial allegations contained in their applications were all true.
- The evidence for the civil AVO applications this criminal charge stems from is not before this court, apart form in the form of my defence statements as tendered by police.
- Please be aware that the handwritten notes on the right hand side of those statements made by the complainant are all false and are not to be considered in this appeal.
- It is instances of her claiming something is a lie when I can prove it is not, and that she is aware of that, are issues which needed to be tested at hearing but were not.
While this appeal cannot consider the original acts of perjury on the part of the complainants unless it chooses to, I believe it must find that Officer Weekley is guilty perjury under oath and of creating false evidence, and both must be grounds for the dismissal of the charge and for the conviction and penalty to be overturned.
- The Changing of Transcripts
Transcripts of court proceedings are to be prepared in accordance with legislation. I understand that provision is made for the tidying up of same, to make the words of the Magistrate or Judge clear. However, what is going on in Albury is not that, but deliberate and calculated changing of the words said in court, and myself ‘dumbed down’ and key defence statements removed.
- I lodged my first complaint about this issue with the Office of Public Prosecutions in Wagga Wagga after reading the first transcript I received being that of the appeal of 18 April 2016.
- When I saw it had happened again in the transcript for the hearing of 12 December 2016, and that Notices of Motion were illegally delisted twice in the two months following, I lodged a complaint with the Federal Police about both issues.
- I later mentioned the deliberate changing of transcripts in a complaint to the NSW Privacy and Information Commissioner regarding continued collusion between staff of the Court House and the complainants in particular in relation to their application to have both of those issued on 29 February 2016 to be extended for another two years.
- The Office of the General Counsel took over that complaint and confirmed in August 2017 the two instances I had given as examples.
- The issue affects the transcripts for both of these hearings which means the court has continued this practice even after that investigation occurred.
- Obviously this makes an honest and impartial appeal not possible.
I believe the Albury court house itself has lost the right to hear any matters against me on these grounds alone.
At what point does tampering with court transcripts become a crime, and grounds to investigate the people concerned and question their reasons for doing so, and re-examine the hearings which it relates to?
At what point does an honest citizen have the right to walk out of a court house which is acting illegally, and not have to go back there?
- Slander of Myself by the Magistrate
On 15 February 2016, the Magistrate made an allegation against myself at hearing, that an incidence of violence had been committed against one of the protected people. This charge of contravene is what he is referring to and which actually involves an allegation of writing to BDS Huon, and delivering that letter to an empty house and involved no violence.
- He implies that the incidence of violence did occur when he states it is why the contested AVO applications can no longer be dealt with by way of mediation.
- The complainant O’Bryan confirms that I have been charged with a breach but fails to explain that it did not involve any violence. Magistrate then fails to explore the allegation of an incidence of violence any further at that hearing, despite acknowledging both of the potential victims being present in court.
- The Magistrate mentions this allegation of an incidence of violence again on 29 February 2016, in his opening remarks for the hearing.
- That amounts to slander and defamation of myself by the Magistrate, and comes very close to being perjury.
- In convicting me at the end of that hearing, it is again implied that I was convicted of that incidence of violence. The Magistrate gives no description of the police charge against me when making his decision at the hearing, nor gives any reasons for making it.
- I believe that is contrary to legislation which governs his actions in handing down judgements, but is the cause of the face of the record not reflecting the truth.
- The levy for having committed a violent crime, also adds to the misconception on the face of the record.
My question of law is; should that hearing be declared a mistrial and the continuation of it ruled to have been the same and all decisions overturned, and the transcript containing those false allegations removed from the records?
- Charged Against One Interim AVO, Convicted Against Another Person’s
While this appeal appears to relate to having been convicted of a charge of contravene an Interim AVO held by Susan Ward, I was actually convicted of the charge after it was also applied to her mother’s AVO, and which the transcript of 29 February 2016 clearly shows.
That is the conviction I appealed, was set aside in the District Court and sent back to the Local Court for rehearing.
- The statement of facts for this charge was handed up to the Magistrate and used to ‘prove’, O’Bryan’s AVO application, and then myself convicted of it. I believe that should be considered improper considering I had not been advised of that extra charge, nor been given a chance to defend it.
- The Court granted Ward’s AVO application based on a court record that I have not been allowed to see, and was not aware had been created unless it is the Field CAN issued by the arresting officer on the same day he also issued a second CAN and a statement of facts for the same charge from the police station.
- When forced to service the original penalty handed down on 29 February 2016, I noticed two items listed in the State Revenue Office’s online records, and both stemmed from the hearing on 29 February 2016.
- One was marked as having a $560 penalty applied to it, and the other one was marked as attracting $0 penalty. That second entry made no sense and I assumed it was some kind of error. I did not take a screen shot and by the time I thought to the penalty had been set aside in the district court and I was no longer able log in to access those records.
- Only the Magistrates records would show what record was used to prove Ward’s application.
- If it was the allegation of breach lodged with the court by the complainant on 12 January 2016, and which she is questioned about by the Crown on 14 September 2017, it proves I was arrested and charged for lodging my defence against these AVO applications only.
Has there been a deliberate duplication of the same charge, but without a second penalty to disguise that? If there has, should the granting of that second AVO based on a duplication of the paperwork for one charge be overturned now?
The questions of law becomes why was civil procedure not followed properly by the court once all submissions had been lodged, and why did it defy the stay imposed by the order for motion and instead grant the Orders just so that it could convict the accused of this criminal charge?
- Freedom of Speech and Defamation and Libel
My rights to Freedom of speech are also being impinged and violated and these are Constitutional rights.
- The complainants claimed a blog I had on the internet which was slanderous and libellous towards them, contained harassment and threats and an attempt to blackmail them for money.
- Yet it was just a few true stories written and posted to the blog the more they threatened myself with physical violence and which became more embarrassing for the complainants.
- The complainants sought additional conditions in their AVO applications that I must not mention any family members on the internet.
- In granting their orders without considering their allegations and the evidence against them, the AVO final order restricts what I can say or publish both physically and on the internet.
- The complainants were not aware I had been blogging for the three years prior to them seeking their orders and how much that order would affect me, nor had I ever blogged about them previously.
- These original family argument did not involve internet offences, it was just a family argument being had via telecommunications devices being internet and text messages.
- Without presenting any copies of text message and a few selected pages of the blog, they have seized control of and limited my right to free speech.
- They seek to have me charged by police under these AVO Orders if I even state in public that I am innocent and being harassed by them or that BDS Huon do not protect their clients’ right to privacy.
A question of law becomes does the Local Court have the power to deny my right to freedom of speech, and without being able to provide valid reasons or any proof that my writings were criminally defamatory or libellous?
- Health Diagnosis by Way of False Conviction
The complainants both made false allegations that I was attacking them out of a long term mental illness. That is also not true, and there is no medical diagnosis or documentation that would support that. It is a lie they tell each other, and other people about me, and simply their own diagnosis.
- In granting the AVO orders without considering the defence evidence which disproved this allegation, the court has ruled that I have a medical condition that I do not have.
- Recently I attempted to issue Subpoena’s to both complainants asking them to provide proof of this allegation before the AVO’s could be extended.
- The Registrar refused to process it, and a second time upon an appeal of that decision.
If the Court deliberately refuses to provide any evidence of this allegation, then can that judgement be legally allowed to stand? I did not consent to the order being made, nor was I given any chance to defend that allegation, yet it can adversely affect other areas of my life and any appeal.
Why am I not being tried under a mental health act if I am mentally ill, and why is that condition not being taken into considering when handing down convictions and penalties if the court want to pretend that condition is real and true?
Summary of Violations
The arresting officer was in violation of Section 281 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) and the Code of Practice for Crime when he bought against me on 19 January 2016, and listed it for mention on 5 February 2016.
- NSW Police and the Crown are guilty of not checking the evidence as required by Federal Law Evidence Rule 901 as required before that date.
- The Registrar was in violation of both of the above when she allowed the charge to remain listed after being advised by way of a complaint lodged on 21 January 2016 regarding the circumstances in which the arresting officer obtained the recording.
- The Magistrate of the Local Court was in violation of Section 281 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) and the Evidence Rule when he revoked matters from mediation and listed the charge for mention in the Local Court on 15 February 2016 and when he listed that hearing to continue on 29 February 2016.
- Also when he convicted me of the charge on that same date, without asking the Crown to produce the evidence they claimed to have for this charge for his inspection and consideration.
- The Local Court was in violation of Section 281 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) and Federal Law Rule 901 when it granted two AVO final orders based on this charge, while failing to recognize that the evidence was inadmissible.
- The Local Court was in violation of the attributes of a Fair Trial when it summoned me to court on 15 February 2016 without advising that mediation had been cancelled, the awarding of the AVO’s already decided and I was now facing the hearing of a criminal charge stemming from one of those.
- The Local Court was also aware that I had not been provided with a copy of that evidence before those hearings on 15 and 29 February 2016, and therefore it had no right to proceed.
- The Local Court was aware that I still had not been given access to the police evidence when I appealed the conviction in April 2016, and supported the Crown when it refused to produce same at hearing.
- I believe the Albury District court was in violation of Section 281 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), when it set the conviction aside and ruled on 2 September 2016 the matter be reheard in the Local Court.
- The Registry was in violation of Section 281 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) when it relisted the charge for rehearing on 4 December 2016 and every time it relisted the charge for mention or hearing during the course of 2017
- The Local Court was in violation Laws regarding rights to motion when there is no chance of a fair hearing at the venue when it claims to have dismissed the Notice of Motion relating to this charge on 12 December 2016, and immediately listed this charge for hearing in February 2017.
- The Local Court was in violation Laws regarding right to motion when it dismissed the Notice of Motion relating to this charge on 6 April 2017 without proper hearing or consideration of the evidence lodged with those after the Notices had been relisted for hearing by a visiting Magistrate.
- The Crown was in violation of Section 281 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) on 20 June 2017 when it tendered the inadmissible evidence and without giving defence an opportunity to signify it if objected or not.
- The Court was in violation of section 281 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 when it commenced hearing this charge on 20 June 2017 and when it allowed that inadmissible evidence to be formally tendered and accepted by the Court.
- The arresting officer is in violation of laws against perjury and of creating and then tampering with false evidence.
- The court was in violation of Attributes of a Fair Trial on 14 September 2017 when it failed to allow the defence to cross examine the complainant.
- The court was in violation of its implied promise to hear this matter fairly when it dismissed the Notice of Motion but commenced the continuation of the hearing on 20 June 2017 in a way saw myself abandon those proceedings and which resulted in the defence being denied the chance to formally tender written defence statements into evidence, nor sum up my defence case.
I will not attempt to point any more breaches of Law and Legislation from my uneducated perspective, however those will be apparent to the Supreme Court Judges as they read through the transcripts for the hearings being appealed.
Please also notice the Magistrate claiming that the issues surrounding the legality of the recording of the conversation had with the arresting officer and his claim that it was an interview conducted in full accordance with the law, are an argument I must have with him, before that can be acknowledged by the court.
Yet the legislation surrounding that section of the ACT was created by people more learned about the laws and ways of police than myself, and it would appear himself, and were put into place decades ago. Those law were created specifically to prevent police from being able to frame people for a crime they did not commit, or to make their job easier by way of gaining convictions without conducting a proper investigation first.
I believe it is the Magistrate who needs more instruction of that section of that Act, what it means and that he was required to deal with the transcript in accordance with those laws, declared it to be inadmissible and dismissed the charge at the commencement of the hearing on 20 June 2017.
Too many people are using these orders for vexatious purposes, and that needs to be stopped. Especially in light of the fact that the AVO legislation in each state has now been made enforceable nationwide.
I believe the process might need to be re-examined to make it more fool proof, or a new level of order created which involves harassment but not threats of violence, and which carries lesser penalties for charges of contravene and more scope for counselling or other remedies.
I believe the role of mediators need to be examined, and their integrity more closely monitored and transgressions acted upon immediately and properly, due to the CJC failure to act against their employee, and who was perverting the course of justice and refuses to let that be overturned, to save herself from investigation for criminal offences.
Additional Questions of Law
How did the Magistrate on 5 February 2016 not see a crime in the paperwork before him when the Magistrate on 29 February 2016 claims that he did and that police supported his assessment when they had not seen nor investigated the content or allegations contained in the AVO applications?
Why did the Magistrate who saw no crime the first time he considered all of the submissions relating to the civil AVO process rule that when you fail to consider those submissions, the act of writing to BDS Huon it is a crime under AVO legislation and conditions?
Would mediation have provided a better result? The costs of the hearings generated by the miscarriage of justice arranged by the CJC mediator and the resulting false police charges bought against the accused to harass and intimidate her have cost this state a small fortune, and the defence to try to defend.
Mediation legislation was bought created to alleviate the workload on courts that hearings relating to AVO matters were creating. The CJC mediator has acted in direct defiance of that legislation.
Mediation is also known as dispute resolution or settlement by an impartial person. The mediator was in violation of any aspects of impartiality, and has fuelled a family fight into destroying that family unit completely, instead of bringing about any satisfactory end or cessation of hostilities.
Who is ultimately responsible for an innocent person have been convicted of false AVO applications by way of a false police charge? Who was responsible to investigate that?
Any complaints to other agencies which were forwarded to NSW Justice, ended the moment NSW Justice took control of same. The complains and their allegations were all ignored and the illegal conduct stemming from this one CJC mediator allowed to continue until she had not only enlisted local police to act corruptly to assist her personal friends, but she went on to corrupt two Magistrates and two Registrars for that same purpose.
The mediator and the complainants are the real guilty people in these matters, and the arresting officer for this charge just a pawn in their game of conspiracy to bring false charges and which led to false convictions. The mediator has now forced a serving NSW police officer to commit perjury to cover up for her own actions. I believe it is time I was exonerated of her crimes against justice.
Summary of Appeal
I believe the Crown has done nothing to prove its case of harassment of the protected person during the hearings of 20 June and 14 September 2017, and instead than BDS Huon received a letter from the accused advising of misconduct by one of their employees and assisted her to have the author of that letter arrested and charged to protect both the employee and their business reputation.
I still believe BDS Huon had no right to have assisted their employee to have me arrested for that advice, and certainly no legal right to assist the complainant to gain that order after the company had been advised of the breaches of client confidentiality and their employee’s questionable court actions designed to conceal them.
Cross examination of the arresting officer by the accused clearly demonstrates that the accused continues to assert the officer created the recording of a conversation with the accused illegally, has edited that recording extensively in the time since and has misrepresented the content of that conversation in his statement of facts made to the court.
I do not believe I must prove the transcript of that conversation was inadmissible in court when the laws of section 281 of the Crimes Act and Police Code of Conduct are already quite clear, and the court is fully aware that the document and statement of facts is in violation of both when the lack of signature, and the date that it was prepared and served on the accused, clearly demonstrates that it is not and never will be.
I believe the Crown’s witnesses also failed to provide any evidence that the letter was an act of harassment towards the complainant, and that motivation which the Crown’s case relies upon, was not addressed at all at hearing.
The act of writing to BDS Huon was not a criminal offence unless the standard conditions of a proven AVO order are attached to it. The AVO applications were not proven when I was charged, nor were they when I was convicted of this charge, and therefore the charge remains invalid and illegal.
Police bringing a charge for a document the court was already in possession of, along with admissions from the accused regarding its delivery, did not prove either AVO application.
I believe all the Crown has really proven is that there was an attempt to pervert the course of justice by way of this charge and the false allegation of an incidence of violence, and the people responsible for that attempt were successful while this conviction stands.
Please also notice that police refused to investigate my allegations of historic sexual assault by one of the complainant’s children, and that the Local Court failed to refer those matters to police when they saw them mentioned in the submissions presented as part of the civil AVO applications and their defence cases.
I do not believe that any court in NSW or Australia should have a legal right to hear a criminal charge of contravene AVO or ADVO until that order has not been properly proven in a court of law, and is backed up by legal evidence or admissions of guilt from the accused.
I appeal to the Supreme Court to overturn the conviction and remove the inappropriate financial penalty imposed, and which include the court costs for this illegal hearing, and witness costs for a complainant who was protected from answering any questions.
I humbly ask that the court awards me some costs to cover the expenses of having to defend these matters over the past two years. This appeal has already cost me $50 in printer ink and paper, and photocopy and posting the documents to the court will cost around that same amount.
The court has shown no compassion for my permanent health issues and new ones being created by the stress and activity in having to defend these illegal proceedings and instead has deliberately tried to make these proceedings as long and drawn out as they can, in a deliberately attempt to wear me out.
The assault on my person by NSW police resulted in throwing the whole of my spine out of place, and almost broke my neck. I suffered continuous and deliberating migraines for the following three months afterwards and many days unable to walk due to the damage inflicted on my lower back.
I have been defamed and slandered by the false allegations and convictions for same. A home business I was trying to start early last year was ruined by these court matters and the time they take away from me. Two years of my life has been spent defending and trying to have the decisions made on 29 February 2016 overturned when that hearing was clearly in violation of all of the Attributes of a fair hearing, and in violation of section 281 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986.
I humbly ask the court to show mercy, grant my appeal, and acquit me of these corrupt dealings which are not only abuses of process and abuses of power, but they are continued abuse of myself by a family of abusers.
I don’t believe that the same complainants would apply again, if they had to restart their applications in an impartial venue.
Criminal Appeal Act 1912
NAME OF APPELLANT: TRACEY GWENDOLINE BURT
The appellant makes the following submissions to the Court:
- Firstly I ask that the Court bears with my limited knowledge of the law and being unrepresented while barely versed in the manner in which this application should be presented. However, I ask that you not reject this Appeal based on what it lacks and instead considers the conviction and inappropriate financial penalty I am appealing.
- I believe main principles of justice and procedure were deliberately flaunted in a deliberate effort to pervert the course of justice against me, and by way of this police charge in particular.
- I maintain the Court’s CJC mediator used her position to assist her personal friends’ to have civil AVO applications granted after they had been disproven by defence statements and evidence, which were lodged with the court on 12 January 2016.
- I believe that is why the Local Court chose to hear a charge that could not legally be heard in any court, due to its police evidence being clearly inadmissible under section 281 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 and obtained in violation of the Code of Practice for Crime.
- The mediator’s collusion with the complainants becomes proven by the evidence shown in the Notice of Motion mentioned during the hearings of 20 June 2017. Transcript 20.6.17 p 1.30-45. Annexures A 1.
- I am appealing the conviction and penalty of this charge of contravene AVO (Domestic) prohibition/restriction, handed down on 22 November 2017 at a sentencing hearing I refused to attend, after the charge was heard over two sessions on 20 June and 14 September 2017.
- I abandoned the hearing of 14 September 2017 when the Court was showing provable bias by protecting the complainant from having to answer questions. Transcript 14.9.17 p 9.5 – p 11.15.
- I expected no fair dealings on that day and advised the Magistrate of same after he had behaved suspiciously when calling his list, but refusing to acknowledge charges or applications he was aware I wanted to lodge new Notices of Motion against. Transcript 14.9.17 p 8.25-35.
- The Annexures attached to this Appeal are divided into three sections.
- Part A relate to the hearing of 20 June 2017 (Annexures A 1 – 17)
- Part B relate to the hearing of 14 September 2017 (Annexures B 1 – 10)
- Part C relate to the hearings in 2016 and Submissions Document (Annexures C 1 – 7)
- I am also appealing the original hearing and conviction for this criminal charge, which stems from an unproven civil application, handed down on 29 February 2016. Defence brief p 36-38.
- I also ask this Court to consider the hearing of 15 February 2016, which was the first mention of this charge. I walked out because I thought I had been summoned to mediation. Defence brief p 28-30.
- The certificate for this Appeal requested those transcripts, and one for the hearing of 5 February 2016 which shows the first listing of this charge. It was not called that day, and was then automatically stayed by the order for mediation made at that hearing. Defence brief 25-26.
- If those were not provided to this appeal, please refer to the defence brief where they are shown, if the Court wishes to explore those earlier hearings. The Crown states it has no objection to them having been tendered into evidence on 20 June 2017. Transcript 20.6.17 p 7.30-35.
- During the two year course of these events at the Albury Local Court I have never been directed to Legal Aid, nor able to engage legal counsel. I believe the Court has taken advantage of that, and it is another indication of the procedural trial I have experienced. Transcript 18.1.16 p 3.25)
- I was summoned to Court on 15 February 2016 due to a false allegation made to the Magistrate outside of the court room that an incidence of violence had occurred, and for which there is no evidence, no victim, police charge or a record. Transcript 15.2.16 p 2.30 & Transcript 29.2.16 p 1.15 Ward. Annexure C 1.
- Which is why I want those hearings examined, so this Court can formally rule that the civil AVO applications granted on 29 February 2016 were not proven in court during that hearing, and the Local Court should have recognised that, and particularly once the conviction for this criminal charge was set aside in the District Court marked as having not been heard at all in the Local Court.
- The summons kept on the court records suggest the civil orders had already been granted, however the copy I received listed the AVO applications as well, but then they were not listed outside the court room when I arrived, just the criminal charge. Transcript 15.02.16 p 5.0-5 & Transcript 18.04.16 p 2.30 – p 3.35. Annexure C 1.
- I am seeking that ruling because other vexatious charges were bought against me, or for collateral purposes, and those cannot continue if the AVO order is ruled to be invalid. The orders were also extended on 14 September 2017 against my objections to that venue hearing those, and without any hearing or myself given a chance to defend them.
- On 18 January 2017 an order for a hearing of the applications was made and listed for 5 February 2016. That hearing did not occur when that Magistrate made an order for mediation. Mediation did not occur when matters were revoked and the Orders granted without any examination of the civil submissions for and against those, and without any examination of the evidence for this charge.
- Until either of those things happen, the Court cannot pretend that those orders are proven and enforceable by law, and which creates criminal charges against the accused.
- I believe I followed procedure correctly in the Local Court and proved my innocence by way of lodging written defence statements and evidence prior to hearing, and which I am prepared to read out under oathbox, and be cross examined over.
- My defence evidence is continually dismissed or ignored and appears to have no relevance in the eyes of the Local Court. I remain convicted of a charge which was not legally able to be heard in any court, due to the Crown’s evidence not being admissible under section 281 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), and which I have not been allowed to fairly defend.
- I had no legal representation to point out to the Court the police evidence was inadmissible, although I did continue to question that, nor that the Crown’s refusal to let me see the evidence in its case before hearings could begin, and then before the appeal, also illegal. Transcript 20.6.17 p 28.50. Annexure A 16 (a).
- I believe the Court must have been aware when it listed this charge for hearing on 15 February 2016, and without the accused being properly advised or given time to prepare or seek legal advice, it was in violation of the accepted Attributes of a Fair Trial.
- However I had lodged defence statements against that charge, prior to its first listing of
5 February 2016, and those should have also been before the Magistrate on 15 February 2016. Defence brief p. 4-7. Transcript 20.6.17 p 23.30. Annexure A 13.
- I was never advised mediation had been cancelled or why, nor what had led to my conviction on 29 February 2016 which I was unable to attend due to ill health, and what triggered the granting of the civil applications until I received the transcripts in June 2016.
- I did not recognise the reference number the court was assigning to the charge of contravene, and was aware I had attended court for the first listing of this criminal charge on 5 February 2016. I had no way of knowing if it was a new charge, or the one I had lodged defence statements against and a complaint to the Tax Practitioners’ Board about on 19 January 2016.
- I sent an email to the State Revenue Office trying to find out when the court would not provide any real answers to my emails, and I tender that to this appeal to show the date on which I was convicted for having committed an offence and what that offence was – Knowingly contravene AVO (restriction) on 13 January 2016. Annexure A 3.
- The Albury Registry continues to claim after the hearing on 14 September 2017 that all appeals must occur in Albury.
- I believe that court house has lost the right to hear any more matters involving myself and have advised them of that, and the procedural and trial unfairness I have experienced there part of my grounds for appealing this conviction and penalty to the Supreme Court instead of their District Court. Annexure C 6.
- I am agreeable to this Court treating this as a request for motion and directing a District Court appeal occur, but only if that is in Sydney and not in the Albury or Wagga Wagga District Court, and the Judge has the power to overturn the decisions of 29 February 2016 and back to when the order for mediation was made on 5 February 2016.
- All hearings arising from the false allegation of the incidence of violence should be marked a mistrial, and which I was not required to attend.
- The contested AVO applications were also deflected from the natural course of justice and procedure by this criminal charge of contravene. However, the claims made by, and actions of the arresting officer, strongly suggest it was a deliberate set up bought for collateral purposes.
- The date of the arrest is also worth noting, a day after the contested applications were listed for their allegations and evidence to be tested or proven at hearing, and a week after the complainant had made her statement to the arresting officer.
- The Crown’s case was never to prove the accused wrote a letter to the complainant’s employer, BDS Huon, and delivered it in person to a house owned by one of the company’s partners. The letter was prepared for if he wasn’t home, and was signed with the accused’s name and gave a phone number with an invitation to call for more information.
- The Crown’s case that the arresting officer gained a confession from the accused during an interview recorded on his personal mobile phone, that I wrote and delivered the letter to BDS Huon simply to get the complainant fired from her job, and no other reason.
- The Crown claims the decision to write to BDS Huon and to have done so is classed as harassment of a protected person under the standard conditions of an AVO order.
- But is this a standard order when the applicant was not seeking protection from threats of violence, and only from the accused contacting her employer about her own misconduct towards them? Also allegations of slander and libel.
- Is it ‘harassment’ to blow the whistle on a person breaking a legally binding agreement with their employers and to have done so out of a need for self-protection? The defence evidence presented in the civil applications showed that the complainant had been threatening the accused with physical violence while the accused merely retaliated with words.
- The Crown only considers those standard AVO restrictions, but other regulations come into play in this case, for example the Tax Services Act and Federal Regulations outlined in the Tax Practitioners Code of Conduct, in particular Item 6 which concern matters of client confidentiality. Defence Brief p 16. Annexure A 7.
- There was no approach towards, or attempt to contact the protected person. The owners of BDS Huon were not protected people, only their office space prohibited as part of any standard Order not to approach the protected person at their place of employment.
- The Crown continues to assert the accused wrote to BDS Huon out of a desire to cause trouble for the complainant yet the inadmissible transcript of the conversation between the accused and the arresting officer show the accused also made other statements which are in direct contrast to that claim.
- The transcript also shows that he put the words of the confession into the mouth of the accused who only then realized she had been tricked and framed.
- The admissions made to the deciding Magistrate by way of my defence statements lodged on 12 January 2016, and which the arresting officer quotes in his statement of facts, also say the letter was an act of retaliation and simply the accused’s turn to respond in a game of tit for tat.
- The letter to BDS Huon was an attempt to render the AVO application no longer warranted, as the question as to whether or not contact from the accused would result in the termination of the complainant’s employment would have been decided by her employers under Federal Regulations, not way of a court order which is quite clearly an abuse of process.
- The Crown alleges it has a legal copy of that confession to harassment in a legally gained recording of the accused and its transcript, and that the officer conducted a formal interview with the accused in full accordance with the law.
- The Crown tendered that unsigned transcript into evidence as part of its brief to the Court, but also formally tendered it into evidence at hearing on 20 June 2017. Transcript 20.6.17, p 21.40-45. (The arresting officer is referred to as Wheatley in the transcript instead of Weekley)
- The arresting officer swore under oath that all of the claims in his statement of fact are true, and the transcript a complete and true copy of the whole of the conversation with the accused on 19 January 2016.
- Then why isn’t it signed by myself and a supervising officer, especially when one was present?
- In her witness of 25 October 2016 Snr Con Richardson does not confirm that any interview occurred, only that the arresting officer and I spoke briefly while she waited outside the flat. Transcript 20.6.17 p 24.35 – p 25.35. Annexure A 15.
- Why did Albury police hang up the phone when the accused rang to complain about the contents of the officer’s statement of facts, and why did they refuse access to the evidence, and even before the appeal of the conviction on 11 and 18 April 2016? Annexures A 19
- What might be the date the transcript of the recorded conversation was created has been redacted on every page of the copy supplied to the accused, and I assume to the Court.
- The Magistrate confirms at hearing on 20 June 2017, that he has the document in front of him and is looking at it. Transcript 20.6.17 p 28.0-5
- The Magistrate claims the accused must argue with himself about whether the transcript is legally admissible, and implies that the arresting officer would have no knowledge of the subject of admissible evidence. Transcript 20.6.17 p 28.10.
- The Court must have been aware that the lack of signature on the interview transcript and lack of any accompanying document verifying its authenticity meant he must formally dismiss the charge.
- The arresting officer claims to have checked AVO records on the police computer before going to the accused’s home and again from the police car before issuing the Field CAN. He states he confirmed an Interim Order against the accused yet appears to have failed to notice both times the accused also had one in place against the complainant. Annexure A 14.
- The transcript of the interview shows he turned the surreptitious recording off when the accused begins to talk about the complainant’s attempted assault on her on 6 November 2015, as witnessed by the accused’s landlady.
- He was aware that landlady was home on 19 January 2016, as his statement of facts shows, but he did not ask to question her about those events.
- Would that not constitute a flawed investigation? The officer did not want to discuss events surrounding either AVO application, or the letter itself, and only appears to have wanted to collect two specific answers from the accused to use as ‘evidence’ to bring the charge; did the accused write the letter, and did the accused write the admission in the defence statements lodged with the Registry on 12 January 2016.
- Or does it demonstrate collateral purpose and an attempt to affect the outcome of the hearing of the civil applications, and why he listed the charge on the same date?
- The defence case initially and still that the evidence must be illegal in that it was obtained by deception, the officer kept turning the recording device on and on leaving room for deliberate editing, and the accused didn’t believe that she had confessed at all, nor to harassment.
- The accused believed the recording only captured herself stating her full name and date of birth, and the word yes a few times, which were all to be used as investigation notes.
- I lodged a letter of complaint about the arrest with the court house Registry on 21 January 2016, because the complaints appeared in court in the company of the CJC mediator the day before it, the manner in which it was enacted and the false claims made in the statement of fact. I haven’t attached that, but it does prove the Registrar was aware the charge could not be heard in court from the outset, as the evidence would be inadmissible.
- I lodged defence statements against the statement of facts on that same date, being 21 January 2016, so they would be available for the Magistrate before the hearing on 5 February 2015. Defence brief p 4-7. Annexure A 13.
- Magistrate Cromptom stated at hearing on 5 February 2016 he had read all of the material before he came into the court room and decided on an order for mediation. The statement of facts for this charge and the defence statements should have both been before the Magistrate on that date. (Transcript 05.02.16, p 1.40)
- When the Crown and the complainant submit the page from defence evidence which contains the admissions made by the accused in those documents, they only want the Magistrate to read one page of those, and in particular only the items highlighted by them.
- The Crown again asked the Court to ignore all defence evidence lodged against the AVO application, and convict the accused for a criminal charge of contravene stemming from that unproven and contested application, without considering anything else apart from the fact that I wrote to BDS Huon when an Interim Order was in place. Transcript 14.9.17 p 7.45.
- Which is what the Court did on 15 February 2016; formally discounted all defence evidence based on a police charge which contained no real evidence, no new evidence and was in no way a violation of the second AVO application made by the complainant’s mother. Transcript 15.2.16 p 3.45 – p 4.5 & Transcript 29.2.16 p 1.35-45 O’Bryan.
- The charge was a waste of time and resources and an abuse of that process when all it did was advise the Court that the accused had written to BDS Huon. The defence documents had already done that a week prior, and the complainant by way of documents lodged with the Registry on the same day, being 12 January 2016.
- The charge was a waste of time and resources when BDS Huon had already been advised of the complainant’s breaching of client confidentiality, and decided to take no action against her.
- The company joined the complainant in seeking that court Order, and tried to use it for damage control when I would not be silenced about the issue. Annexures A 9 & A 12.
- On 18 January 2016 the Magistrate judged that the applications must be proven at hearing. The police charge bought the following day should not change that ruling, especially when it contains the same information the Magistrate had before him when he made it. Transcript 18.01.16 p 3.30.
- The accused was provided with a copy of the typed transcript in a partial brief sent via email on 28 October 2016, and the recording on disc and the full brief via mail sometime after 11 November 2016 by the arresting officer, prior to the rehearing of the charge listed for 4 December 2016.
- That hearing was stayed after I was assaulted by police while being arrested for a charge of offence via telecommunications equipment bought against me by the CJC mediator, and then my applications for a change in venue, or Notice of Motion. Those were denied on 6 April 2017. Transcript 20.6.17 p 1.30-50. Annexure A 1.
- That was when I first realized that officer did record most of the conversation without my knowledge, and I believe that is the issue police were trying to conceal when they refused me access to that evidence prior to hearing and appeal. Defence brief p 55. Transcript 18.4.16 p 8.30 – p 9.0. Annexure A 16 (a)
- I could tell when reading the transcript that some aspects of my replies had been omitted, either on the day it was recorded or when the officer transferred the files from his phone and edited them into being a continuous recording.
- Opening the file using sound editing software confirmed that it is short segments of various recordings strung together. Not all appear to have been recorded in the same room, nor in the same order. Transcript 20.6.17 p 26.10. Annexure C 3.
- I included in the Annexures a Statutory Declaration created on 15 June 2016 for an Application to Revoke made in July 2016 to address false allegations made by Ward at hearing on 5 February, because the accused had no chance to address those and they remain unchallenged in the transcript records. Defence Brief p 63-63. Transcript 5.02.16 p 2.15-50. Annexure C 2.
- A witness statement by Ross Griffin dated 16 February 2016 is attached as the act of phoning BDS Huon about having been arrested and sending a follow up email is not only exaggerated by Ward at the hearing of 5 February 2016, but is mentioned by the Crown at hearing on 29 February 2016. Transcript 5.02.16 p 2.15 & Transcript 29.02.16 Ward p 1.35 & Transcript 20.6.17 p 16.10. Annexure A 9.
- The Crown does not tender this statement for this charge but bought a separate charge against it on 9 April 2016, two days before the accused’s Annulment/Appeal. Date of service of the Interim Order is quoted by the arresting officer, showing there was no record of service of a Final Order on the police computer.
- I was charged for the phone call but not the email which had been mentioned in court twice in February and it is not tendered into evidence by police. It will be by the defence when that charge of contravene unproven civil AVO (Domestic) is listed for hearing on 15 February 2018 in the Albury Local Court.
- I have included a copy of that email in this appeal to show the real purpose of that phone call mentioned in the transcripts. Defence brief p 91. Transcript 5.02.16 p 2.15 & Transcript 29.02.16 Ward p 1.35 & Transcript 20.6.17 p 17.10. Annexure A 11.
- An email to Mason Lloyd Accountants dated 5 February 2106 is contained in the Defence brief and mentioned during cross examination of Williams on 20 June 2017. Defence brief p 27. Transcript 20.6.17 p 19.25. Annexure A 12.
- I was charged for the contact with Mason Lloyd Accountants on 4 May 2016 by the same arresting officer for this charge, who once again made false claims in his statement of fact, this time that I instructed him to charge me without interview. He had not informed me what the allegation was, and I refused to go to the station for an interview with him. He did not quote a date of service at all, because I believe he noticed that rendered his charge invalid.
- The defence maintains the same motivations for writing the letter to BDS Huon given to the arresting officer on 19 January 2016, and in the admissions made to the Court in the defence statements; that I wrote and delivered the letter as an act of retaliation against the complainant’s continuing threats and slander towards myself, and which had intensified after her contacts on 6 November 2017, and to render the application itself unwarranted.
- Writing the letter was always an attempt to end matters. I assumed that BDS Huon would force their employee to abandon the application leaving only one to defend. It was obvious the complainants had made their applications in tandem so each one could lend some credibility to the other in lieu of any real evidence.
- The Local Court started applications for extensions of the orders on 20 June 2017 and refused to list them on separate dates for that reason, and despite my refusal to give the Court consent to hear any matters involving those complainants on 13 February 2016. Transcript 20.6.17, p 33.20-30. Annexure A 17.
- I checked the legislation surrounding taxation firms and client confidentiality before writing the letter to BDS Huon, and was aware they had an obligation to investigate any leaking of their client’s information and were bound by Federal Regulations to ensure it did not happen. Defence brief p 16. Annexure A 7
- I still believe I had the right to contact that company and about her behaviour, and that I avoided the Interim’s Orders restrictions and that the application would be defeated.
- If anything, the letter and act of delivering it was an unintentional breach, but the conviction states that I knowingly defied a proven AVO application and Final Order on 13 January 2016. Transcript 20.6.17 p 2.10 – p 3.50. Annexure A 2.
- It was not necessary for Jon Williams to give testimony. The Crown was not seeking to prove it was the accused who wrote the letter to his company, or even any of its contents. The hearing was the first time that Mr Williams and the accused had seen each other which is why he was not asked to identify the accused as the letter’s author by sight.
- This fact also makes the levy for having committed a violent crime also unwarranted. I delivered a letter to a garage of an empty house and did not encounter the letter’s intended recipient until 18 months later. How can that be classed as a violent crime and myself classed as an abuser because of it?
- The Defence insisted Williams appear in the hope that he might force his employee to drop the charge rather than appear in court in relation to this letter and its issues of breaches of client confidentiality.
- The company assisting its employee to continue to seek and then gain the order, once it was no longer needed, is questionable, but the complainant’s witness statement shows they were so worried by the letter initially, that they sought legal advice.
- I think Williams said enough at hearing on 20 June 2016 to demonstrate he is guilty of professional misconduct for failing to uphold client confidentiality Regulations by not reading the whole letter and giving his employee a warning.
- Williams assures the Magistrate that the protected person’s job is still safe, and implies she was never in danger of losing it over the letter I wrote to him two years earlier.
- The grounds of her AVO application were that she would lose her job and her income if the accused advised the company about her gossip sessions with her mother, and that has proven to have been unwarranted, and in particular by that very statement from Williams.
- Why is the Crown trying to convict the accused of writing that letter as a criminal offence when it caused the complainant no grief at all, and it did not harass her, nor her employers?
- Why I have been fined $4,000 for a victimless crime, apart from the consequences and expenses it has created for myself when it triggered the granting of the Orders?
100.The Crown and the Court were aware they had no illegal right to be hearing the charge, and accepting its false evidence as being valid nor proven? The Court had no right to hand down any conviction at all, and certainly not an inappropriate penalty that does not take my income as a pensioner into consideration.
101.Therefore I am forced to ask this higher court and its Judges to recognize that on my behalf, and overturn his judgement.
102.The paperwork posted to myself by Albury police on 19 May 2017 in the lead up to the commencement of the rehearing of this charge in June demonstrates Albury police were again relying on bullying and false paperwork to try to gain some advantage.
103.Those documents were handed up to Magistrate at the start of the hearing on 14 September 2017, and are attached to this Appeal as they were not formally tendered into evidence. Transcript 14.9.17 p 2.25 – p 5.0. Annexures B 2, 3, 4 & 6.
104.I believe the Magistrate should have dismissed the police case at this point, due to this fraudulent paperwork and continued police misconduct towards the accused.
105.The hearing transcripts I have been supplied with for some of these matters have been altered by staff at Albury Court House. It is quite obvious to myself each time I read one. However, that will not be apparent to yourselves, although it is detectable when one looks closely for inconsistencies.
106.An investigation into two instances of these changes, by the Office of the General Counsel in August 2017, found that my allegations were true and the transcripts and comments identified did not reflect what was really said in court, nor its real meaning. My reply to that investigation is attached to confirm my mention of same at hearing. Transcript 14.9.17 p 3.40 – p 4.5. Annexure B 7.
107.The instances quoted for that investigation both relate to this charge. One was the removal of my statement made at hearing on 5 February 2016 that I had lodged a complaint with the ICAC about the court mediator, and the other was that words had been put into my mouth pretending that I had admitted to the incidence of violence on 12 December 2016 at the hearing for my Notice of Motion, when in reality I had asked the Magistrate to provide some record of it.
108.The transcripts of these hearings have both also been affected by this doctoring of the typed transcripts, and which also makes any appeal to the District Court already biased against me, and another reason I wish to bypass the Albury District Court.
109.The transcript from 20 June 2017 shows the Crown objected my written defence statements, and claimed it can’t see them being allowed into evidence unless I give those statements verbally. Defence brief p 9-15. Transcript 20.6.17 p 7.30.
110.I was not given the chance to read my defence statements onto the record on 14 September, but agree it was my own decision to abandon the hearing. I tender them to this Appeal so they might be considered now. Defence brief p 9-15. Transcript 20.6.17 p 7.35-40. Annexure A 6.
111.The Crown claimed on 20 June 2017, in that same paragraph, that my Defence brief was a bunch of material emailed to the officer in charge, but who was not in court on that date. Transcript 20.6.17 pg 7.30.
112.The Crown later asks Constable Weekley to confirm under cross examination that he is the officer in charge. Transcript 20.6.17 p 21.5-10.
113.The ‘bunch of material’ was a pdf file containing a 91 page brief containing defence statements and its evidence. The two separate items attached to the email were documents his brief requested I sign and return as my own legal representative.
114.I have attached a copy of the email showing the defence brief being sent straight to Constable Weekley, as the officer in charge, and as a reply to the email he sent his partial brief to myself attached to, dated 28 October 2016. Annexure A 5.
115.I attach the first few pages of the Defence Brief this appeal to show it was well presented, and the contents page so this Court can request any additional pages from that Defence brief lodged with the Court and police on 19 June 2017 via email. Annexures A 5 (a,b,c).
116.Most of the documents in the Brief had been supplied to the Court previously, but some of it would have been new to the Crown. The Crown was free to ask for an adjournment to give it time to study the brief if it objected to that late service, rather than have it all dismissed.
117.Senior Constable Richardson was in court all day on 20 June 2016. Earlier she had been listed as a police witness and then removed. I assumed she would be called on that day, and then was not in court on 14 September 2017.
118.The Defence was denied the chance to cross examine Snr Con Richardson and I believe her absence at the continuation of the hearing was a deliberate attempt to keep that officer’s statements regarding the arrest and interview of 19 January 2016 out of the transcript. Transcript 20.6.17 p 24.35 – p 25.35. Annexure 15.
119.I believe the number of witnesses verbally stated by the Crown on 20 June 2017 and the number stated in the transcripts differ, and that is what created the issue above. Transcript 20.6.17 p 4.5-10.
120.I believe Magistrate Cromptom should not have been allowed to conduct the sentencing hearing when I had made two informal requests for his recusal prior to it, and he is the reason I failed to attend.
121.I also lodged the Genuine Steps form with the court’s Registry to show that I would take matters to the Federal Court if convicted by way of further denial of my rights to fair trials, and the right to cross examine the complainant, as violations of my Constitutional and Common Law Rights. Annexure C 6.
122.I was prevented from cross examining the complainant while she was being protected from answering questions by both the Crown and the Magistrate, chose to abandon proceedings at that point. Transcript 14.09.1 p 8.40 – p 10.45.
123.The complainant has never been forced to prove her AVO application in court, never been cross examined in relation to it, and I was being denied the chance to demonstrate that this criminal charge did not prove that application for her, nor her mother.
124.The Registrar claimed that my questions were irrelevant and I have no grounds for complaint, yet I can produce a copy of the questions I had prepared, and all of them address the statements the complainant made to police on 13 January 2016 and 25 October 2016, as per instructions from the Magistrate at the previous hearing.
125.I believe the hearing of this criminal charge is not complete and will not be until I have read out my defence statements onto the record and been allowed to finish presenting my defence, including the summation I had written for the hearing of 14 September 2017, and tendered my objections against the transcript of the illegal recording. Annexures C 4 & C 3.
126.I prepared new notices of motion before the hearing of 14 September 2017 after the discovery of more evidence of collusion between Ward and the AVO mediator, which was lodged with the Court and Crown on 20 June 2017 in a defence brief against the charge the mediator had police bring against me, and was not prepared to have any more matters heard in the Albury Local Court after the hearing of this charge involving those complainants. Transcript 20.6.17 p 4.20-35 & Transcript 14.9.17 p 1.50 – p 2.5. Annexure B 1.
127.The Court has refused requests for motion since then and listed the other four charges of contravene unproven civil AVO for hearing on 15 February 2018. That is also in defiance of an offer made by the Magistrate on 12 December 2016 not to list all those charges on the same date anymore, and I confirmed that I did not consent to them all being heard on one day.
128.I attach a copy of the two Subpoenas for Production and to Give Evidence the Local Court Magistrate formally dismissed at hearing on 20 June 2016, before they could be served.
129.The first Subpoena relates to service of the final order and is dated 2 June 2016. Transcript 20.6.17 p 4.10 – p 5.35. Annexure A 3.
130.The second Subpoena ask for a record of the incidence of violence which saw matters revoked from mediation after the hearing of 5 February 2016. The Magistrate claims that it was not issued in a proper form, yet the Registrar had issued it and addressed herself, as required. Transcript 20.6.17 p 5.35 – p 6.10. Annexure A 4.
131.I issued an Order for Production after the hearing of 14 September 2017 in relation to the documents the Crown questioned the complainant about. I was aware from her police witness statement that she claimed to have dropped something off to the court on 12 January 2016, I was not aware that she had been allowed to lodge anything, nor what those documents were. Transcript 14.9.17 p 6.40 – p 8.0. Annexure B 8.
132.I believe that no judgement should have been made until the defence had been granted an adjournment to inspect those documents and able to address them at hearing, if the Court wanted to hear the matter fairly. However, I still maintain the Court had no right to hear this charge at all, and has no right to pretend that the AVO application was proven to be able to hear a charge of contravene against it.
133.Attached to this Appeal are statements emailed to both the Wagga Wagga and Albury Court houses on the morning of 22 November 2017 for the sentencing hearing, advising of the discovery regarding the original conviction having been handed down against O’Bryan’s AVO and not Ward’s, and asking that the matter be restarted. Annexures C 5 & 5(a).
134.However, I don’t believe that it should be restarted, but dismissed, overturned and ended.
135.I was hoping to lodge a Notice of Motion with the Supreme Court prior to the hearing of 14 September 2017 in relation to the applications for extensions of the unproven Orders. I had prepared an affidavit for that, date 7 September 2017 and attach it as the supporting affidavit for this Appeal. Annexure C 7.
136.I believe that the complainant’s application was legally negated from the day she applied for it, by the issue of the signature on the back of the application form not matching the name on the front. Yet it was not only enforced, it was extended for another two years on 14 September 20017. Defence brief p 79-81. Annexure B 9 (a,b,c,d), Transcript 14.9.17 p 9.0 – p 10.15 & p 10.45.
137.I humbly and respectfully ask the Judges of the Supreme Court of NSW to overturn the conviction and penalty handed down on 22 November 2017, and ensure that no more miscarriages of justice occur by ruling the hearing of 29 February 2016 a mistrial, and all judgements made on that day invalid, and the Orders overturned and unable to be extended.
138.I ask the Supreme Court to end these matters in a way which is fair and compassionate towards myself, instead of seeking to protect people who are guilty of misconduct, and which I believe is the reason for the decision handed down by the Magistrate on 22 November 207.
Signed by myself, Tracey Gwendoline Burt
on 19 December 2017, at Albury
Transcripts mentioned above:
Defence H60077075 Weekley pdf
Part A – Hearing 20 June 2017, R v Tracey Burt, 2016/00020395, Magistrate Crompto
- Notice of Motion Against all Charges of Contravene ADVO held by Susan Ward 2016, 9 pgs. Transcript p 1.30-50
- Email from State Revenue Office, 15 July 2016 . Transcript p 2.10 – p 3.50
- Subpoena for Production and to Give Evidence to NSW Police, Record of Service, 2 June 2017. Transcript p 4.10 to p 5.35
- Subpoena for Production and to Give Evidence to Albury Court House, Record Relating to Incidence of Violence 15.2.16, 1 June 2017. Transcript p 5.35 – p 6.5
- Email serving brief on arresting officer, 19 June 2017. Transcript p 7.30 a. Brief Cover Page b. Witness and Exhibits Lists c. List of contents
- Defence Statements objected to by the Crown Lodged with court and police 19 June 2017, 7 pgs. Defence Brief p 9-15. Transcript p 7.35-45
- Tax Practitioners Code of Conduct, Item 6, Defence Brief p 16. Transcript p 12.20-40
- Screen shots of police contact 20 January 1026. Defence Brief p 8. Transcript p 16.5 & 27.25
- Police Witness Ross Griffin, 16 February 2017. Transcript p 16.10 & Transcript 5.02.16 p 2.15 & Transcript 29.02.16 1.35 Ward
- Tax Practitioners’ Board, 19 February 2016, Outcome of Complaint. Transcript p 16-15 a. Inspector General of Taxation’s Office, reopening TPB investigation, 3 August 2016.
- Email to Ross Griffin, BDS Huon, 21 January 2016. Defence Brief p 91. Transcript 5.02.16 p 2.15 & Transcript Ward 29.02.16 p 1.35 & Transcript 20.06.17 p 17.10
- Email to Mason Lloyd Accountants, 5 February, Defence Brief p 27. Transcript p 19.25
- Defence Statements Lodged 21 January 2016. Defence Brief p 4-7. Transcript p 23.20
- Field Court Attendance Notice, 19 January 2016, 1171699. Transcript p 23.35 – p 24.30, p 26.35 and Transcript 14.09.17 p 3.30 (& Annexure B 5)
- Police Witness Statement Snr Cn Richardson, 25 October 2016. Transcript p 24.35 – p 25.35
- Correspondences with Superintendent Quarmby a. 6 April 2016, Defence Brief p 55. Transcript p 28.50 b. 24 March 2016, Defence Brief p 44-49, 6 pgs. c. 29 February 2016, Defence Brief p 39.
- Do Not Consent Statement, 13 February 2017. Transcript p 30.35 p 33.45
Part B – Hearing 14 September 2017, R v Tracey Burt, 2016/00020395, Magistrate Crompto
- Notice of Motion, 14 September 2017, 10 pgs. Transcript p 1.50 – p 2.5
- Fraudulent Witness List and scan of envelop showing date of postage, 19.05.2016 Transcript p 2.25 – p 5.0
- Inspection of Sensitive Evidence, unsigned, undated, 2 pgs. Transcript p 3.10 – p 5.0
- Email to Law Enforcement Conduct Commission, 29.8.2016. Transcript p 3.15 – p 5.0
- Court House Email & Field CAN & SOF, 24 June 2016, 6 pgs. Transcript p 3.30 (& Annex A 14)
- List of Police Harassment after lodging valid complaints, 2 pgs. Transcript p 3.35 – p 5.0
- Reply to OGC Investigation, 25 August 2017, 5 pgs. Transcript p 3.40 – p 4.0
- Order For Production, 29 October 2017, 2 pgs. Transcript p 6.40 – p 8.0 a. Electronic Interview Transcript, p 2, mid page & Witness Statement 13.1.16
- Application for AVO (Domestic), 17 November 2015. Transcript p 9.0 – 10.45 a. As served on accused 27 November 2015, Defence Brief p 79 b. Application Form p 2, dated 17 November 2015, Defence Brief p 80 c. Application from police evidence showing 2 amendments, Defence Brief p 81
- Email to Albury Local Court, 25 August 2016, 2 pgs
- Statutory Declaration, 22 August 2016. Defence Brief p. 57. Transcript p 10.50
Additional Annexures Arising 2016 Hearings & Submissions Documen
Summons to Court, 15 February 2016, Contravene AVO Domestic. Submission p 2.15 & 17
- Statutory Declaration, 15 June 2016, 2 pgs. Submission p 8.78
- Key Points Regarding Police Conversation Transcript. Submission p 12.125
- Summation Speech, prepared for 14 September 2017, 4 pgs. Submission p 12.125
- Email to Wagga Wagga and Albury Local Courts, 22 November 2017. Submission p 13.133 a. Sentencing Remarks, lodged on 22 November 2017, 3 pgs
- Genuine Steps Statement, Emailed to ALC 19 September 2017, 2 pgs. Submission p 12.121
- Affidavit to Supreme Court of NSW, Ward, 7 September 2017, 4 pgs. Submission p 1.135