Magistrate Anderson did try to explain this to me as Her Honour withdrew from hearing the trial (1010hrs, Day Two, Thursday 3rd November 2016), but as I said at one point the day before, 'ya' Honour, I ain't no lawyer, and you can teach Shakespeare to a monkey (me) but it's still just a monkey'...(what about agreeing with and/or complementing the Court/process/whatevs?-Ed)...errr, dunno' mate, sorry...(so what can you say with any confidence?-Ed)...as per HHs' direction, I can report factually what has happened in the Court, because it's 'open Court' with the media present, etc...(is The Border Watch 'in contempt of Court' for 'reporting' their own carefully Editorialised version of events, rather than the actual facts?-Ed)...interesting point Ed, because what TBW has done, yet again, is try to present a version that makes me the problem and only strays near the facts if it suits their 'Denigrate Nick Fletcher Agenda'...(well now there's a surprise!-Ed)...
This is the problem, yeah, that TBW's version of events is (to my limited understanding) technically 'contempt' because it's their 'opinion' about the proceedings, not a strictly factual recount...(I'm very confused-Ed)...and so am I, and so to that end, I'm going to try to avoid even vague 'commentary' re the trial, and stick to addressing the facts...so no "debasco", etc, and to that 'factual' end, please find attached the 2 TBW articles from Thursday 3rd November 2016 and Friday 4th November 2016, and as I say, these articles generally only bother the facts long enough to try and be critical of me...(please do explain-Ed)...and it pleases me to do so, so here we go...
Where Do I Start?:...(how's about with the most controversial and convoluted trial process to hit Mt Gambier?-Ed)...probably can't say "convoluted" either...(not even if we're only talking about the extraordinary saga of hearings that has proceeded the actual trial proper?-Ed)...orrr look, I dunno', so, again, I'm just going to err on the side of caution and just address the facts, and how they relate to the reportage in TBW, etc...and, in the interests of balance, I can not criticise TBW for failing to report accurately, without also acknowledging that this entire process has been and continues to be incredibly complicated and involved, so some errors/mistakes/confusion/whatevs from a part-time participant like a journo are inevitable...(but then there's TBW?-Ed)...but then there's TBW...
Article 1:...opens with the vaguely accurate statement about the history of my case, but even then, it's only partially right, because this Court process started in February 2015, with a hearing that I wasn't even told about...(yeah, that's right, you weren't even Summonsed to your own hearing-Ed)...indeed, a fact that SAPol have conceded, verbally and in writing, without actually providing any sort of explanation...(except for that phone discussion back on March 4th 2016 when SAPol Prosecutions head honcho Andrew Paech stated that he had asked "someone" to Summons you, but that that un-named person had been 'unable to find you'-Ed)...yes, indeed, and I'm still waiting for an explanation as to how this came to be in Court without me being charged either...(so, you've not actually been 'charged', and yet somehow it's gone into Court, and then you're not even Summonsed, and that's just 'Hearing One'?-Ed)...and 18 'hearings' later I'm still waiting for some sort of explanation for both the 'non-charging' issue and the failure to Summons...(***...orrr hey! wtf? why can't I say '***'?...stop that-Ed)...sorry, mate, to make you the butt of the joke, but I am just trying to bring some humour to pointing-out again that the usual sarcasm-heavy patter between myself and Ed is possibly 'Contempt of Court' so's I'm heavily self-censoring instead...but I digress...
I remind availees that TBW repeatedly reported throughout 2015 that I had 'failed to attend' that first hearing on February 3rd 2015, despite the fact that the failure to Summons me was apparently addressed by Magistrate Foley during said first hearing and a 'new Summons' was issued for March 2015, etc...(and despite you writing to TBW, who then started reporting that you 'claimed' to have not been Summonsed, even though they knew it was true-Ed)...indeed...culminating in the oft repeated paragraph of the purest nonsense, eg, from TBW April 1st 2015;
"The defendant previously failed to turn up for a court appearance on February 2.
At the time his defense counsel said Mr Fletcher did not receive a summons for his
appearance and was unaware he had to be in court."
and July 2nd 2015;
"Fletcher was in the news on February 2 this year when he failed to turn up for a
court appearance.
At the time his defense counsel said the defendant did not receive a summons and was
thus unaware of his court listing."
...(but how can you have a lawyer there if you don't know it's happening?-Ed)...ahhh, the real genius is I don't know how I did that, but apparently I did...(genius-Ed)...
Anyhoos, it's actually 22 months now...(well that's "more than a year", come on-Ed)...and the vast majority of that down to SAPol Prosecutions conduct...the "transfers" refers to my case being moved to Adelaide (with the obvious approval of both the Court and SAPol) because of the Constitutional issues involved, and again, I'm still waiting for Mr Paech to fulfill his undertaking of that phone call March 4th 2016 to explain how and why it was then moved back to Mt Gambier...(I'm so confused...are there Constitutional issues or not?-Ed)...well yes, apparently, but gourd knows what's happening there so let's not get bogged-down in that one right now, moving on...there have been many "adjournments" and "legal in-fighting" because I and/or my Legal Eagle has had to pursue SAPol for even basic documents, eg, it was Hearing 4 in May 2015 when SAPol finally handed across a pile of Affidavits, documents, etc, only minutes before the hearing started and I was 'directed' by the Court to enter a plea...(***...damn you-Ed)...sorry...and then it was moved to Adelaide, and then back again, and then we started effectively from scratch on February 2nd 2016...
I am Nicholas Francis Fletcher, guilty as charged, and I'm still just 49...(just-Ed)...and I have been forced to self-represent all year, for 8 hearings and almost nearly sort-of 2 days of actual trial...and we'll just pause there to note that I've been self-representing all year, with only some very limited and unofficial procedural advice/support, and sometimes some advice/direction from Her Honour, yet somehow I've managed to move this case to a point where I'm officially going SAPol et al for 'Malicious Prosecution', re Her Honour's specific direction to me on October 11th 2016...it is reported/quoted below as "abuse of process by prosecution"...
I don't know who has been 'long awaiting',but they'll be waiting a good while longer along with the rest of us for later this month, and then, possibly, for March 2017, when I'll face gourd knows how many actual 'counts' because all of that's up in the air as well...(***-Ed)...sorry...I know, but I'm still just addressing the facts, and this is where TBW's article starts to stray from factual account to opinionated agenda and therefore, to my mind, into the legal minefield of 'Contempt of Court'...
I did plead 'Not Guilty', but only in a context established at the hearing February 2nd 2016, where-in I refused to plead and/or tried to withdraw my original plea of May 2015, until the Constitutional issues were resolved, and Magistrate Anderson stated that if a defendant refuses to plead, then the Court enters a 'Not Guilty' plea on the defendant's behalf, etc...the latest TBW journo wasn't there on February 2nd 2016 and therefore couldn't possibly know that...I'm not sure though what the stuff about "questioning why he alone had been charged" is about...(I think it might be misquoting you about your repeated references to the many issues on this 'ere blog that SAPol et al have gone past to come get you instead, eg, they're ignoring the rank and rancid corruption of the St Martins Lutheran School Child Abuse Cover-up-Ed)...well that would make sense, I have certainly made such statements repeatedly in numerous Pre-Trial Conference 'hearings'...well spotted...
Much of this first article appears to be gleaned from file material, material that is grossly inaccurate, eg, this journo stating stuff about what my Legal Eagles have and/or haven't done, is purely conjecture on this particular journo's part...I've not actually had official representation since the case was moved to Adelaide in June/July 2015, and I was concurrently denied Legal Aid funding...and I note at this point that not once have either the TBW reporter or the ABC reporter who occasionally rocks-up, neither have ever approached me to ask me my opinion or how I'm goin', or pose me a probing question or three...not nuthin', not once...(it's really quite bizarre-Ed)...seriously, what journo witnesses the effective collapse of this massive trial process, ie, 18+ 'hearings' across 22 months with dozens of people involved, at huge cost, re this "controversial blogger", etc, etc, what journo sees that happen right in front of them and then doesn't ask the focus of all the fuss what he thinks...(it's almost like they don't want to know-Ed)...isn't it though...
The article then leaps from a statement of fact, where-in Her Honour quite rightly explained...(or at least attempted to-Ed)...explained the trial process to me, because as HH explained with TBW present, it is HH''s responsibility to ensure that both Defendant and Prosecutions get a fair go and a fair hearing...not my opinion, this is exactly what HH said, albeit paraphrased a bit...but from there, TBW then culls a massive slab of critical information about the lengthy negotiations between SAPol Prosecutions and HH as SAPol attempted to 'Amend' several of the 'counts'...this lengthy discussion involved at least 4 'counts', and led to HH directing SAPol to go sort it out during a 30 minute break at 1140hrs...SAPol came back a full hour later at 1240hrs with a new, freshly printed 'charge sheet' covered in hand-written notes with various bits highlighted with flouro pens...
Bottomline:...after 22 months of 'hearings' and after 34 months of SAPol 'Operation Baritone'...(strewth, 34 months, daaamn-Ed)...damn straight daaamn, SAPol 'Operation Baritone', my very own SAPol 'Operation' all about me, and the massive expenditure of person hours, etc, etc, etc, apparently started in February 2014...anyhoos, after 34 months of 'Operation Baritone' SAPol Prosecutions come to Court without having organised their 'charge sheet' correctly...as I understand it (via HH), SAPol should only have one 'alleged breach of the legislation' per 'count', not several 'counts' per 'count' as they currently have it, if you see what I mean...SAPol clearly stated that there should have been 60-70 'counts', but that they were aware that Courts didn't appreciate it when SAPol came to Court with long 'count' lists, and have therefore tried to reduce it to the 19 (paraphrase)...this discussion led to SAPol taking an hour to produce a new document, and then start talking about changing different 'counts' to the ones they were discussing before the break...(sorry what?-Ed)...well this is what I was saying about the very distorted way that TBW has reported this stuff, and is that 'Contempt'?...
Fact:...before the break, SAPol and HH were discussing problems with 'counts' 10, 17, and 18, and I think also 11, and after the break HH was actually asking SAPol about 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, and 9, and was clearly stating that there'd be no changing 10, and basically, if SAPol didn't pull 10 then HH was going to disallow it...HH said that the issue was that you "can't judge 2 offenses in the same complaint" and that specific to 10, SAPol were asking to change the actual charge, not just modify/rectify, and HH stated that "a new complaint cannot be laid"...these are scribbled quotes from my notes...
This all took us along to a 1 hour lunch break at 1310hrs...so thus far, on Day One of this critical trial, from a 1010hrs kick-off, HH 'attempted to assist' me for approx 30 minutes, spent several minutes noting the likelihood of further hearing dates, then I spent 10+ minutes pleading 'Not Guilty', but then it took from approx 1100hrs for the entire rest of the day to be taken-up with SAPol trying to sort out there 'charge sheet'...when we returned at 1410hrs, HH and SAPol continued to discuss the multiple 'counts' issues, and HH asked me if I was prepared/happy to continue with the 'Amended Counts', and I absolutely wasn't...as I stated to HH, 'I'm watching SAPol try to change half the charges and you're talking about chucking-out one already, and I don't know what's happening now, but I ain't happy about being required to plead to charges that SAPol then try to change', etc...and because I was effectively calling for it but not accurately identifying it, HH advised me that I could ask for an adjournment, and asked me if I wanted that opportunity to consider the changes, and I said 'yes', and then HH duly did adjourn for the day, at 1445hrs...
No "deletion of an allegation in one of the charges" occurred, not even close...SAPol was trying to completely change 'count' 10 and HH stated 'no', but even that issue had not actually been resolved, and SAPol were trying to alter multiple other 'counts' totalling 10 of the stated 19 'counts'...because of this litany of problems with SAPol's 'charge sheet' the Court was forced to provide me my legal right for an adjournment...that adjournment was entirely the result of SAPol's actions re their own 'charge sheet', SAPol's actions left the Court/HH no choice...TBW have very carefully left out a huge chunk of critical info, drastically minimised what they have reported, and then tried to present it all as the Court doing me a favour...and I mean 'critical' in many of it's definitions, namely 1) very important to the issue/debate/whatevs, 2) the reality is self-evidently a criticism of the conduct of SAPol, and 3) it is potentially 'critically' damaging to SAPol's alleged case...
At this time HH asked SAPol Prosecutions if it was alright for Her Honour to read the 100 documents that I had provided SAPol and the Court re my 'Malicious Prosecution' argument...HH reasoned that the adjournment gave her several 'free' hours to start with it all, and that would help advance the review process re those documents...SAPol Prosecutions stated that they were contesting the relevance of the documents, but gave their okey-dokes, as did I, though I'm not sure I had a choice really given that I'd already provided those documents...whatevs, HH assured me that I'd still get a go the next day (Thursday) re explaining the relevance of the documents...TBW haven't reported this very important exchange at all...
And from there, yes, at the adjournment 1445hrs on Wednesday 2nd November 2016, the trial was expected to continue for at least Thursday and Friday, and multiple witnesses had been flown down from Adelaide specifically, etc, and as per HH's earlier explanations, there was potentially going to be further hearing days and almost certainly a further adjournment at the conclusion of evidence, etc, for HH to consider the many very complicated issues/aspects of this case...but then something happened between 1445hrs on Day One and 1010hrs on Day Two that brought the trial to a grinding halt as Magistrate Anderson 'disqualified herself'...
Tomorrow: Article 2
I apologise for the further protracted hiatus re 'posting' regularly on this 'ere blog, but I have spent weeks wholly consumed with preparing for the trial, particularly re the 'Malicious Prosecution' documents, and to my mind that prep was well worth it because of what happened first thing Day Two, Thursday 3rd November 2016, as partially and vaguely reported by TBW in Article 2 below...
I am Nick Fletcher...and it's good to be back here on this 'ere my blog...cheers and laters...
No comments:
Post a Comment