Ground 15. Letter from Robert Jamison, INL News Group www.inlnews.com http://inlnews.com/ orrupt!olice "ueensland.html #mail: admin$inlnews.info.

#ase %%1 &&& '(% ))%1 *el:+,, -%.'5%% /&, ('( 1%th Jul0, (%%& : 1r2ent 3ttenton: !enelope ross Geoffre0 Robertson 2.robertson$dou2ht4street.co.u5 and to Geoffre0 Robertson6s !3, *abitfaa 35ers78ou2las: t.a5ers7dou2las$dou2ht4street.co.u5 8ou2ht0 9treet hambers !ostal address: 8ou2ht0 9treet hambers 5/7 5, 8ou2ht0 9treet London : l6N (L9 tel: %(% ',%, 1/1/ fa;: %(% ',%, ((&//, 8<: ((/ hancer0 Lane out7of7hours contacts criminal cler5: %'),, 5%& ')% ci4il cler5: %'),, 5%) 5%, 1r2ent 3ttention: Re: *he 8irector of the :estern 3ustralian !rosecutions, Robert and 8a4id 8empster78!! !rosecutor for and on behalf of *he 9tate of :estern 3ustralia v 3li Rachid 3mmoun In the 9upreme ourt of :estern 3ustralia riminal ase Number: >' of(%%' 8ue to be heard on the (5th Jul0, (%%' for sentencin2 *he ?on. hief Justice :a0ne 9tewart @artin #;ecuti4e 3ssistant, hief JusticeAs hambers 7 tel B%&. ),(1 5,(/ 3ssociate 7 tel B%&. ),(1 5/)5

oc5s =

#7mail 7 3ssociate. hief.Justice$iustice.wa.2o4.au ollin Le4itt = , created a complete miscarria2e and tra4est0 of Custice b0 indicatin2 to the Cur0 that the accused was 2uilt0 of most of the char2es and that he was onl0 2oin2 to 4i2orousl0 defend the accused on the attempted murder of *an0a Jo0 3mmoun char2e, after his client the accused had Cust pleaded not 2uilt0 to all charges and because the accused did not ha4e the use of a translator he would not of understood that this is what his 8efence counsel ollin Lo4itt = had done.
'. *he 8efence counsel &. *he 8efence counsel ollin Lo4itt = , created a complete miscarria2e and tra4est0 of Custice b0 not challen2in2 the prosecution on each and e4er0 char2e to the fullest e;tent and actuall0 showed in @s beha4iour that he has done some sort of secret deal with the prosecutor 8a4id 8empster and the 8irector of !ublic !rosecutions Robert o; = b0 i2norin2 his clients instructions, Bthe accused, 3li Rac@d 3mmoun. and b0 not to 4i2orousl0 fi2ht all char2es to support the not 2uilt0 pleas of the accused on all char2es b0: Ba. Includin2 in his openin2 speech to the Cur0 that his client was 2uilt0 of most of the char2es, e;cept the attempted murder of *an0a Jo0 3mmoun Bb. Not cross e;aminin2 the prosecution witnesses to full e;tend on ob4ious falsities, misleadin2 statements, unreliable statements, conflictin2 statements, non sententious statements Bfor e;ample see the INL Report on the ob4ious falsities on the e4idence of !amela June Depic attached to these 2rounds of appeal.. Bc. Not demandin2 that all witness statements made b0 all prosecution witnesses are to be pat of the !rosecution6s Erief of e4idence. Bd. E0 statements made to Julie hambers as endurin2 power of attorne0 to @r 3li Rachid 3mmoun b0 the accused le2al team that the0 were onl0 2oin2 to ma5e the trail appear to 3? that he had a fair trial, with indications in these words that he was not 2oin2 to ha4e a fair trial, and that the 4erdict was all set up between the !rosecution, the 8efence Le2al *eam, the Jud2e and the Jur0. *hese comments made b0 the accused6s le2al team to Julie hamber6s did not sin5 in until the end of the trial where she and the accused B 3? Rachid 3moun. realised that the0 had paid around F15%,%%% in le2al fees to their le2al team since bein2 arrested of these char2es, and their own le2al team had done pri4ate and secret deals with 8a4id 8empster and the prosecutor the 8irector of !ublic !rosecutions Robert oc5s = , to ma5e sure 4ital and material e4idence that would pro4e the accused6s innocence of all char2es, was withheld from the trial and that the cross e;amination of prosecution witnesses was restricted to Guestions that made 4er0 little difference to pro4in2 the accused6s innocence of these char2es, and not cross e;aminin2 the prosecutions witnesses on ob4ious and 4ital points about the man0 differin2 statements and e4idence, and conflictin2 e4idence, e4idence that does not ma5e an0 lo2ical sense B for e;ample see the INL Report on the ob4ious falsities on the e4idence of !amela June Depic attached to these 2rounds of appeal.. Be. E0 2i4in2 absolutel0 wron2ful le2al ad4ice to the accused and to Julie hambers as endurin2 power of attorne0 to @r 3li Rachid 3mmoun, that the accused should not 2i4e sworn e4idence and/or an unsworn statement to the Cur0 at the trial, and then 2oin2 on to sa0 that as the defence team were not 2oin2 to let the accused 2i4e sworn e4idence and/or an unsworn statement to the Cur0 at the trial, the defence team were accordin2 to law not allowed to call an0 other witnesses and/or e4idence for the accused, and thus the accused

3o

will ha4e to rel0 his whole defence, on Cust con4incin2 the Cur0 that the prosecution witnesses and the prosecution had presorted false and misleadin2 e4idence. ?owe4er at the same time ha4in2 done a secret deal with the :estern 3ustralian !olice 9er4ice, 8a4id 8empster the prosecutor and the 8irector of !ublic !rosecutions Robert oc5 = , as a2ents for the 9tate of :eston 3ustralia, to not cross e;amine the prosecution witnesses to the full e;tent, and not to cross e;amine the prosecution witnesses on ob4ious and 4ital points about the man0 differin2 statements and e4idence, and conflictin2 e4idence, e4idence that does not ma5e an0 lo2ical sense B for e;ample see the INL Report on the ob4ious falsities on the e4idence of !amela June Depic attached to these 2rounds of appeal., which if had been done effecti4el0, would ha4e meant that the Cur0 would realise the prosecution witnesses had pro4ided fabricated and misleadin2 e4idence with the help, support and encoura2ement of the :estern 3ustralian !olice 9er4ice, 8a4id 8empster the prosecutor and the 8irector of !ublic !rosecutions Robert ode = , as a2ents for the 9tate of :estern 3ustralia. *he0 would more than li5el0 be arrested after the trial, for perCur0 and alon2 with the prosecutor 8a4id 8empster and police officer Licsa Re0nolds. !olice officer Liesa Re0nolds as of her successful con4ictum of the accused73ll Rachid 3rnmoun7, has now been promoted to the position as a senior detecti4e of the "r2anised rime 9Guad which is a 4er0 senior and sort after position with the :estern 3ustralia !olice 9er4ice, when before the con4iction of the accused73li Rachid 3rnmoun, Liesa Re0nolds was Cust wor5in2 as a detecti4e for the oc5bum !olice 9tation7 it stron2l0 appears that the help of Liesa Re0nolds in the successful con4iction of the accused73li Rachid 3rnmoun7 was rewarded b0 a much sort after position with the "r2anised rime 9Guad. In an0 appeal hearin2 the appeals court should order the e;amination of prosecutor 8a4id 8empster, Liesa Re0nolds, Robert oc5 = , Laurie Le40 and ollin Lo4itt = , *an0a Jo0 3rnmoun, !amela June Depic, @ichelle Harmer and others to be named in the @l appeal when it is lod2ed. ) . *here was a complete miscarria2e and tra4est0 of Custice a2ainst the accused B 3li Rachid 3rnmoun. b0 the court allowin2 the prosecution to ran the char2es that related to *an0a Jo0 3rnmoun and !amela June Depic all in the same trial. *his has created a miscarria2e and tra4est0 of Custice a2ainst the accused that could not be cured b0 an0 direction the Cud2e could ma5e to the Cur0 and in fact the Cud2e erred in law b0 not at least tr0in2 to ma5e an effort to instruct the Cur0 that the e4idence a2ainst the accused in relation to the *an0a Jo0 3rnmoun char2es and the !amela June Depic char2es should be considered completel0 separate.
1%. Eecause of the complete miscarria2e and tra4est0 of Custice a2ainst the accused

B 3li Rachid 3rnmoun. b0 the court allowin2 the prosecution to run the char2es that related to *an0a Jo0 3rnmoun and !amela June Depic all in the same trial, the ob4ious false e4idence, man0 differin2 statements and e4idence, and conflictin2 e4idence, e4idence that does not ma5e an0 lo2ical sense B for e;ample see the INL Report on the ob4ious falsities on the e4idence of !amela June Depic attached to these 2rounds of appeal. of !amela June Depic and *an0a Jo0 3rnmoun. It created a contaminated Cur0 tr0in2 to loo5 at each set of char2es indecentl0 of the other set of char2es.

3 Hor e;ample, the ob4ious false e4idence of !amela June Depic in relation to her char2es, contaminated the Cur0 in an incurable wa0 in considerin2 the char2es dial related to *an0a Jo0 3mmoun7 *he onl0 wa0 the accused B 3li Rachid 3mmoun. could ha4e a fair trial, is for the char2es that relate to *an0a Jo0 3mmoun Bthe I*J3 set of char2esI. and !amela June Depic Bthe I!JD char2esI. be tried in two separate trials, so that the prosecution and the defence e4idence that relates to each set separate set of char2es can be presented to the Cur0 separatel0, that there is no chance that the two sets of e4idence does not influence the Cur0 in an0 wron2ful and unCust wa0 and wron2full0 preCudice a fair trial of the other set of char2es.
11. *here was a miscarria2e and tra4est0 of Custice b0 the prosecution pro4idin2 some of the forensic e4idence onl0 a da0 or two before the trial was due to stmt. *hat the Cud2e erred in law not 2rantin2 at least a two month adCournment to the trail, for the defence team to fell0 consider ibis new and comple; e4idence and 2i4in2 time for the defence to ha4e other independent forensic e;perts to e;amine such e4idence and produce an opposin2 4iew to such e4idence. In this re2ard the Cud2e erred in law in 2rantin2 the accused ssnd his defence team onl0 a one da0 adCournment to consider such compie; and detailed e;pert forensic e4idence, rather than at least two months to consider such comple; e4idence. 1(. *he Cud2e erred in law in allowin2 the prosecutor 8a4id 8empster to 2et wa0 with

committin2 a clear criminal contempt of court b0 teachin2 his duties he has made to the Hull ourt when bein2 admitted as a barrister in the 9upreme ourt of :estern 3ustralia, b0 presentin2 false and misleadin2 statements about the e4idence that was 2oin2 to be produced b0 the prosecution, when no such e4idence e;isted. In fact what the prosecutor was able to 2et awa0 with at the trial was, to present a deliberate false and misleadin2 stor0 of what the prosecution e4idence was 2oin2 to be. :hen he 5new fell well such e4idence was not 2oin2 to be presented b0 the prosecution in an deliberate attempt to brain wash and confuse the Cur0 into thin5in2 feat this e4idence actuall0 e;isted. *his is similar to someone tr0in2 to present a summar0 of a film or pla0 at fee be2innin2, when the audience attention is fresh and 4er0 attenti4e, when durin2 the pla0 or film, which is as comple; as fee trial of the accused, with all the comple; e4idence, and so man0 different char2es a2ainst the accused relatin2 to two different accused o4er fee proposed time for the trial bein2 about se4en to ten da0s, the attention of the audience B Jur0. is less attenti4e wife members of the audience BCur0 e4en capable of fallin2 asleep and then ha4in2 to rel0 on the summar0 2i4en b0 fee prosecutor at the be2innin2 and/or the end of the trial..
1/. *here has been a complete miscarria2e and tra4est0 of Custice because fee trial

Cud2e the ?onourable Justice ELa;ell showed a clear bias throu2hout the trail for the prosecution a2ainst the fair ri2hts of fee accused B 3li Rachid 3mmoun., in the fairness in summin27up to the confused and contaminated Cm0 and has further shown such bias durin2 the proposed sentencin2 hearin2 on the (,th 3pril (%%& and the status conference on the ((nd @a0 (%%&, b0: 1/.1. Not insistin2 that the accused had an interpreter for these hearin2s sworn in and

a4ailable for the accused B3li Rachid 3mmoun.J

1/ 7(7 Not tellin2 the truth about submissions that were filed b0 the accused B3li Rachid 3mmoun. that was his sa0 in relation to his proposed sentencin2 hearin2 on die (,th 3prift(%%&, b0 ma5in2 die false statement at the hearin2 on the (,th 3pril, (%%& that Julie hambers as endurin2 power of attorne0 to @r 3li Rachid 3mmoun, wanted to withdraw these submissions from the court file. :hen in fact the truth was that Julie hambers as enduring power of attorne0 to @r 3li Rachid 3mmoun, on behalf of the accused B3li Raehid 3mmoun. tried to file these submissions with the associate of ?ie ?onourable Justice !eter Ela;ell, 8a4id :atson, earl0 in the mornin2 before the hearin2, and it was 8a4id :atson that told her that, the he was not 2oin2 to allow the Cud2e to see these submissions and was not 2oin2 to allow her to file them on the court file. Lea4in2 the accused in a position that he had no submissions filed in defence of @s proposed sentencin2 hearin2 due to be heard on the (,th 3pril, (%%&. :hat happened ne;t was that 8a4id stated to Julie hambers that he was 2oin2 to be puttin2 the submissions in an en4elope mar5ed the personal attention Laurie Le40 who was the e; solicitor and barrister for the accused who 8a4id :atson was well aware had been sac5ed b0 the accused on the (/rd 3pril, (%%&. *hao, Julie hambers stated that if 8a4id :atson and the trial and sentencin2 Cud2e *he ?onourable Justice !eter Ela;ell where not 2oin2 to allow the submissions to be filed on the >' of (%%' file, then these submissions should be handed bac5 to Julie hambers and/or the accused and not Laurie Le40, who was no lon2er representin2 the accused. In the end became Julie hambers made such an issue of frits point, she forced 8a4id :atson to sa0 he would then lea4e it up to the Cud2e to decide at the sentencin2 hearin2 as to who should ha4e these submissions bac5, after refusin2 to allow the accused and/or Julie hambers to file them on the court file for the Cud2e to use them in consideration in an0 sentencin2 of the accused. 1/./. Not ma5in2 orders at the status conference on the ((nd @a0, (%%& that forced the court staff, the prosecution, the transcript cler5, the re2istrar, the police, the pre4ious defence team and others to suppl0 copies oft all the full prosecution brief and all attachments, material e4idence includin2 all material e4idence and prosecution statements that were deliberatel0 not included in the prosecution brief, necessar0 transcripts, correspondence, reports Bincludin2 the an0 ph0colo2ist, ps0chiatrist and presentence report concernin2 and/or compiled on the accused. to the accused and Julie hambers as endurin2 power of attorne0 to @r 3li Rachid 3mmoun, so the0 could prepare submissions in a proper and fair basis and pro4ide a cop0 of such information and documents to the INL News Group6s In4esti2ati4e and Le2al *eam so that the0 could prepare formal and professional submissions in support of a non custodial sentence bein2 2ranted to the accused at @s final sentencin2 date and so that this information could be used to 2ain appro4al from the mana2ement of the INL News Group, to ma5e the final decision to pro4ide the fundin2 to pa0 for a professional, e;perience and e;pert Le2al and In4esti2ati4e *eam to come to :estern 3ustralia from the #astern 9tates of 3ustralia and from o4erseas to defend the accused at his final sentencin2 hearin2 and to help finalise the lod2in2 and hearin2 of an e;tension of time to lod2e an appeal and an appeal a2ainst the con 4iction of these si; char2es the accused has been found 2uilt0 of on the 1/th Hebruar0, (%%&.

1,. *he 8 N 3 and @edical Reports on !J Depic do not support !JD6s claims that she

repeatedl0 had the front of her face and head repeatedl0 bashed hard on the tiled laundr0 floor, o4er and o4er as she states on pa2e (1, of the trial. In !JD6s first statement made ((717%' in para2raph 1% she sa0s a person smashed her face on the floor o4er 1% times. *he court has to loo5 closel0 at the forensic matri;, for e;ample these pointsJ 3. #;hibits of four ropes. E. 3nal0ses 8 N 3 of the so called weapons. . No photo2raphic e4idence of Ditchen and Loun2e room as 3ll sa0s that he, *an0a Jo0 3mmoun and !amela June Depic all sat in loun2e room discussin2 the children for Guite sometime. 8. Elood on hallwa0 toilet floor where *an0a 3mmoun was meant to be loc5ed in actuall0 belon2s to !JD. #. 9wipe mar5s on in master bedroom under li2ht switch belon2s to *J3 not !JD B where *an0a 2a4e sworn e4idence that she ne4er went an0where near her mother who was in her bedroom most of the ni2ht bein2 nursed b0 3ll 3mmoun.. H. No blood on phone, or an0 other 8N3 e4idence produced b0 the prosecution. G. No blood on the bro5en 2lass on laundr0 floor which should ha4e been there if there was meant to he so much dama2e done to !J Depic b0 smashin2 her face time after time o4er 1% time on the floor. ?. Green plastic 2arden chair which was in the bac5 0ard had *an0a Jo0 3mmoun6s blood on it. :h0 was this blood on this chair and what was she doin2 sittin2 in that chair in the bac5 0ard, was this when the 3li Rachid 3mmoun was unconscious and !JD and *J3 were plannin2 their falsified stor0 and tied each other up with the rope before the0 both went out onto the street to different locations and at different times a minute or so apart, to ma5e it all lode more realistic. L !JD blood swap not reported pendin2 report held b0 Ren0olds, which she has not produced still J. *here was o4er &%% photo2raphs ta5en b0 the police and the forensic people but onl0 1%% produced in court, all the photo2raphs ha4e to now be produced for e;amination alon2 with all forensic e4idence that was collected. *he forensic people will ha4e to be brou2ht into the 9upreme ourt to be e;amined under oath and made to ma5e a complete list of all 5now photo2raphs and forensic e4idence in e;istence and brin2 it all to the court and an0 e4idence the0 do not ha4e, the0 ha4e to tell the court under oath where the0 belie4e such e4idence is and who ma0 ha4e it. D. *here appears to be material forensic e4idence that Lisa Re0nolds has in her possession that has not been produced to the court, Liesa Re0nolds will ha4e to be brou2ht into court and e;amined under oath to tell the court what e4idence she has in her possession and be made to brin2 all such e4idence into the 9upreme ourt L. Loo5in2 at the inde;es and the wa0 the forensic matri; and headin2 and lists ha4e been done, the0 are 4er0 confusin2 and dearl0 pro4ide false impressions as to what item are considered to be !amela June DepicAs 8 N 3 , *an0a Jo0 3mmoun and/or 3li Rachid 3mmoun. 3LI R3 ?I8 3@@"1N