20190304-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Royal Commissioner Margaret McMurdo, AC Re SUBMISSION-Supplement 4

Page 1
1
2 WITHOUT PREJUDICE
3 Margaret McMurdo, AC Royal Commissioner 4-3-2019
4 Victorian Royal Commission into Management of Police Informants
5 PO Box 18028, Melbourne VIC 3001.
6 https://www.rcmpi.vic.gov.au
7 Ref: 20190304-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Royal Commissioner Margaret McMurdo, AC
8 Re –SUBMISSION-Supplement 4
9
10 THIS SUBMISSION IS PROVIDED FOR PUBLICATION AS IDENTITIES RELATING
11 TO CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS HAVE NOT BEEN REVEALED.
12
13 Commissioner,
14 further to my 18-2-2019 submission and 26-2-2019 and 28-2-2019, 1-3-2019
15 supplements I desire to state the following:
16
17 While I migrated to Australia from The Netherlands in 1971 I refused to naturalize until 1994.
18 This as my peaceful demonstration against the misuse and abuse of how the courts such as the
19 Family Court of Australia was making decisions in clear violation to the rule of law. I will not
20 bother you with the details save to say to me many of the judges in my view were
21 wankers/tossers who I view were an utter disgrace to be in a position to adjudicate.
22 This commissioner may desire to join the ranks of wankers/tossers or decide that she will under
23 no circumstances deny the People what they are entitled upon.
24 https://insidestory.org.au/pells-freeze-is-over/
25 QUOTE
26 This led me to re-read one of his most celebrated judgements from two decades ago. In a
27 literary classic of the courtroom that it is very much worth reading, Cummins narrates how
28 a solicitor engaged a bulldozer to destroy the boundary line between his property and
29 another that was auctioned that day. When the vendors and police arrived at the solicitor’s
30 home with an injunction from Supreme Court Justice Barry Beach, the solicitor declared,
31 “Justice Beach has got his hand on his dick.” Informed by the vendor’s solicitor, the
32 Supreme Court’s chief clerk initiated a hearing on contempt of court.
33 Fatefully, the judge who was assigned to hear the charge was Phil Cummins. While
34 Cummins made his contempt of the solicitor very clear, his judgement in the case was a
35 model of wisdom. He observed that the solicitor “interrupted but did not prevent oral
36 service upon him of the Court process. He then complied with it.” Cummins famously
37 opined, “It may be offensive, but it is not contempt of court, for a person to describe a
38 judge as a wanker.”
39 Cummins is right. Everyone has to obey the law but absolutely no one has to like it. And
40 no one should ever be punished for saying exactly that, using whatever words he or she
41 considers best. •
42 END QUOTE
43
44 It is amazing that despite that I had no formal education in the English language (That is
45 underlined by my self-professed Crummy English) that nevertheless I pursue the true meaning
4-3-2019 Page 1 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
admin@inspector-rikati.com See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
Page 2
1 and application of our federal constitution in which in Section 106 the States were created
2 SUBJECT TO THIS CONSTITUTION as such including all legal principles embedded in this
3 constitution.
4 .
5 As the Framers of the Constitution made clear that our liberties enshrined in the constitution was
6 no less than that of the USA constitution with its 14 amendments.
7 One then have to ask where is the FREEDOM OF SPEECH when we consider the following
8 also:
9
10 http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/spy-force-exposed/story-e6frf7kx-
11 1225928598852?referrer=email&source=HS_email_nl&emcmp=HS&emchn=Newsletter&emlist=Member
12 QUOTE
13 Simon Overland defends police checks of Herald Sun phone records
14  John Ferguson, Matthew Schulz
15  From: Herald Sun
16  September 24, 2010 12:00AM
17
18 UPDATE 4.50pm: POLICE Chief Commissioner Simon Overland is avoiding scrutiny
19 into a covert investigation of Herald Sun phone records, its editor says after the top cop
20 admitted "a handful" of journalists have been targeted in similar probes.
21 The Herald Sun revealed this morning that police diverted resources to covertly investigate a
22 journalist's phone records to save face over an embarrassing whistleblower leak.
23 Mr Overland today confirmed the investigation began immediately after last year's report by
24 senior writer Geoff Wilkinson that revealed interstate bikie gangs were heading to Victoria.
25 And Mr Overland conceded MP phone records could also be subject to scrutiny as he
26 defended the decision to examine Herald Sun phone records.
27 END QUOTE
28
29 This is the same Simon Overlander who I understand was conspiring with lawyer like Nicola
30 Gobbo (and others like her) to violate her position as an OFFICER OF THE COURT and so by
31 this undermining the credibility of the administration of justice. What kind of criminal culture is
32 this to undermine the separation of powers between the executives and the administration of
33 justice? Any judge who became aware of this and failed to ensure those involved were held
34 legally accountable must be taken to have joined the ranks of those undermining the
35 administration of justice.
36 .
37 To me any person who defies the rule of law to ensure a personal advantage, against his/her
38 client and collaborate with others to conspire to pervert the course of justice and place by
39 this the administration of justice in disrepute is unfit to be an Officer of the Court.
40
41 As a Professional Advocate I had the same protection as a solicitor acting before the Supreme
42 Court of Victoria, albeit I was not an Officer of the Court, nevertheless I held that my conduct
43 representing any party (including a member of the legal profession) had to be beyond reproach.
44 While I would seek to place a party’s interest before the court I did so honourably without
45 defying rules of the court and/or the rule of law.
46 I have always been proud upon having maintained this position despite of the incidents when a
47 party sought me to conceal relevant details to advance their cases.
Page 3
1
2 The irony is that so to say despite the Letters patent Gazetted on 2-1-1901 referring to the
3 Governor of Victoria to have an IMPARTIAL administration of justice, there often is the view
4 being held that the Government of the Day and or the Parliament can interfere with the
5 administration of justice.
6 .
7 Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
8 Australasian Convention),
9 QUOTE Mr. OCONNER (New South Wales).-
10 Because, as has been said before, it is [start page 357] necessary not only that the administration of
11 justice should be pure and above suspicion, but that it should be beyond the possibility of suspicion;
12 END QUOTE
13
14 What we now have is that we have persons convicted who were denied access to an
15 IMPARTIAL administration of justice.
16 .
17 As I indicated previously in my submissions I lodged a formal complaint with the DDP about
18 those involved in the Red Shir debacle failing to disclose in their financial statements the monies
19 they had misappropriated from the taxpayers, as concluded by the Ombudsman of Victoria.
20 None of them would cooperate with the Victorian Police to be interviewed and yet the same
21 members of parliament are legislating to force citizens to be what I consider subjected to a
22 STAR CHAMBER COURT system as I alluded to regarding Geroge Williams.
23 Now the Premier of Victoria, who I consider stole the 2014 State election is making known to
24 pursue ways to legislate against any of those convicted due to those officers of the Courts who
25 violated their oath n to seek to prevent them to benefit of their rights. What kind of
26 wankers/tossers are we dealing with when the rule of law is no more but what some I view
27 criminals may elect to do and the wankers/tossers of judges who participated in this misuse and
28 abuse of the administration of justice will further cooperate in this manner?
29 .
30 HANSARD 31-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
31 QUOTE
32 Mr. WISE (New South Wales).-The only class of cases contemplated by this section are offences
33 committed against the criminal law of the Federal Parliament, [start page 354] and the only cases to
34 which Mr. Higgins' amendment would apply are those in which the criminal law of the state was in
35 conflict with the criminal law of the Commonwealth; in any other cases there would be no necessity to
36 change the venue, and select a jury of citizens of another state. Now, I do not know any power, whether in
37 modern or in ancient times, which has given more just offence to the community than the power possessed by
38 an Executive, always under Act of Parliament, to change the venue for the trial of criminal offences, and I do
39 not at all view with the same apprehension that possesses the mind of the honorable member a state of affairs
40 in which a jury of one state would refuse to convict a person indicted at the instance-of the Federal Executive.
41 It might be that a law passed by the Federal Parliament was so counter to the popular feeling of a particular
42 state, and so calculated to injure the interests of that state, that it would become the duty of every citizen to
43 exercise his practical power of nullification of that law by refusing to convict persons of offences
44 against it. That is a means by which the public obtains a very striking opportunity of manifesting its
45 condemnation of a law, and a method which has never been known to fail, if the law itself was
46 originally unjust. I think it is a measure of protection to the states and to the citizens of the states which
47 should be preserved, and that the Federal Government should not have the power to interfere and prevent the
48 citizens of a state adjudicating on the guilt or innocence of one of their fellow citizens conferred upon it by
49 this Constitution.
50 END QUOTE
51
52 Well, if the accused was deceived then I view the convictions should be set aside without
53 question. It in my view is not an issue for judicial review at all that somehow the accused now
54 convicted person has to prove any misuse abuse but to me the onus is upon the prosecutor to
55 either pursue a retrial or abandon any charges.
Page 4
1 Only if an accused is before a jury where the truth is made known can a jury determine if the
2 accused should or shouldn’t be held guilty as charged.
3 .
4 Fancy a person convicted having to appear before a judge who is part of the very court system
5 (administration of justice) to which the very lawyers were also part off when undermined the
6 rights of the accused as to seek a judicial review. There is an implied denial of NATURAL
7 JUSTICE.
8
9 When I lodged my complaint against His Honour Carmody of the County court of Victoria for
10 failing to invoke jurisdiction, failing to deal with the numerous violations, including breaches of
11 court orders, it was totally ignored. Despite my request I was denied the transcript as His Honour
12 Carmody made also clear as I recall his wording at the end of the hearing: You are not going to
13 suck me in.
14
15 I understood from media articles published on Sunday 3-3-2019 that Premier Daniel Andrews
16 will seek to legislate.I can only assume that this is like the unconstitutional legislation generally
17 referring to as the Roberta Act, where a person convicted of a certain crime cannot pursue
18 compensation.
19 .
20 Now let it be clear that any victim has a right. Our federal constitution is very clear that
21 appropriate compensation must be provided regarding acquisition. Hence, to deny a person the
22 ordinary right to sue for the harm inflicted by the State means that the state trespassed upon that
23 persons rights. After all it takes away the ordinary right of a citizen. Worse it is where the State
24 itself is a party to the injustice.
25 .
26 In my view NSW v Ibbett 2006 HCA 57 should be a warning that where the Victorian Policed
27 colluded with Officers of the Court to deny an accused their rights to a FAIR and
28 PROPER hearing, etc, then both the State as the master-servant of the Victorian Police
29 and the Courts as the master servant of the Officer of the Court positions should and can
30 be held liable. As such any legislation should be nullified that denies this rights to whose
31 against whom was wronged. (I below quote part of the Kuru v NSW [2008] HCA 26 (12 June
32 2008) judgment.)
33 .
34 Yet, with any review, etc, this nullification unlikely is going to eventuate as the judges
35 involved might be wankers/tossers who might already have been involved in convicting
36 certain people in previous litigation involving those despicable traitors to their oath of
37 office.
38
39 To me being it Tony Mokbel or others who were convicted by the conspiracy of the Victorian
40 Police and Officers of the Court it offend not only their rights but so the rights of all citizens to
41 ensure that justice is done and justice prevail.
42 .
43 Where we now apply some STAR CHAMBER COURT system then anarchy can only result,
44 this because those in power will manipulate the system not against those who might have
45 offended but against anyone who might be for whatever reason in their way.
46 .
47 As the article of Sunday 3-30-3019 indicated Nicola Gobbo was telling one person to remain
48 silent while making a deal with the police with another person who was also arrested. She as I
49 understood it violated in numerous ways her duties and obligations as an Officer of the Court
50 and yet so far I gain the impression that the Victorian Police and others are claiming no laws
51 were broken and they committed no crimes.
Page 5
1 To me the sanctity of the constitutional rights to have an impartial administration of justice, also
2 enshrined in our Letters Patent cannot but deemed to be violated if any Government official
3 and/or Officer of the Court violates this.
4
5 Any decision that was the product of denial of an impartial administration of justice litigation
6 must be deemed without legal force. While the Court at the time may have been perceived as a
7 competent court of justice by hindsight it was as I view it no more but a STAR CHAMBER
8 COURT and hence the convictions cannot stand for this.
9 .
10 A judicial officer may have believed to preside over an impartial administration of justice (court)
11 hearing but well where the Officer of the Court undermined this then this only underlines the
12 weakness of the court/judiciary system to fail to avoid this.
13
14 I as a citizen had a right that Tony Mokbel and others were provided a FAIR and PROPER
15 hearing and this clearly appears not to have eventuated. How can I trust anyone associated with
16 the judiciary to do better when they are not willing to accept that those wrongful obtained
17 convictions should be held a nullity?
18 .
19 How on earth could the prosecutor in each case have been allowed to conceal from the court this
20 treasonous conduct is beyond me. Those Prosecutors as Officers of the Court should be
21 prosecuted for violating their duties and obligations as Officers of the Court.
22 .
23 There has been considerable criticism upon litigants in persons by the judiciary and to my
24 understanding often misplaced.
25 As I exposed there are barristers who are making false and misleading statements to the court
26 and the presiding judge allows them to get away with any nonsense they state and yet are so to
27 say jumping upon litigants in person who regardless telling the truth are so to say wasting the
28 courts time. Reality is the lairs of lawyers are wasting the courts time because aggrieved parties
29 then pursue appeals, etc.
30 .
31 As I experienced when I listed the numerous violations by opponent lawyers the presiding judge
32 simply made clear not to deal with that. So, violations of court orders are a non-issue when it
33 comes to an Officer of the Court. And this is why judges themselves are placing the
34 administration of justice in disrepute. If they were to clamp down on those Officers of the Court
35 who are perverting the course of justice then the system might be improved, but I will not hold
36 my breath
37
38
39 HANSARD 9-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
40 QUOTE
41 Mr. HIGGINS.-No, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament.
42 END QUOTE
43
44 Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
45 QUOTE
46 Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Now it is coming out. The Constitution is made for the people and the states on
47 terms that are just to both.
48 END QUOTE
49
50 It is therefore clear that the State cannot violate the constitutional embedded legal
51 principles and must honour them. In my view this Royal Commission to have any
52 credibility has to pursue the issue that those who were robbed of a FAIR AND PROPER
Page 6
1 trial cannot be deemed to have been convicted according to law and hence their convictions
2 must be set aside without any kind of judicial review. It must be then for the prosecutor to
3 perhaps charge any person again and proved to the court none of the evidence is tainted.
4
5 In my view there should be a proper review what is actually lawful, because far too much is
6 unlawful and the police and other authorities are criminals in the process of claiming to enforce
7 the rule of law. To give an example
8
9 Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
10 QUOTE
11 Mr. BARTON.-I was going to explain when I was interrupted that the moment the Commonwealth
12 legislates on this subject the power will become exclusive.
13 END QUOTE
14
15 Hence, all speed detection cameras unless they are approved by the Commonwealth of Australia
16 within its legislative powers of weight and measures are unconstitutional.
17 So is the purported Infringement Court.
18 .
19 You see there is a mountain of unlawful conduct by the so called law enforcement agencies and
20 judicial officers rather than to understand what is constitutionally applicable are rubber stamping
21 the sheer and utter treasonous conduct against citizens’ rights.
22
23 In my view Nicola Gobbo is no more but a product of the treasonous conduct so much
24 perpetrated by authorities and those in the Parliament/government.
25 Let say for argument sake that Nicola Gobbo is imprisoned it will not in my view resolve
26 anything because the culprits like the Premier, the parliamentarians are making sure that while
27 they wield powers they are not held legally accountable and the police will ensure they are not as
28 we saw with the Red Shirt saga.
29
30 I speak out because I have, and mind you without any financial support from government or
31 businesses, since 1982 conducted a special lifeline service under the motto MAY JUSTICE
32 ALWAYS PREVAIL® with people contemplating not just suicide but murder and mass
33 murder.
34
35 The only way to minimize this risk in the long term is so to say to call a spade a spade and not
36 hoodwink citizens that they are provided with an IMPARTIAL administration of justice when in
37 reality it is so to say a STAR CHAMBER COURT litigation.
38
39 It is beyond me that so called highly educated judges often cannot even understand what is
40 required when a person objects to the jurisdiction of the court. What kind of education in law did
41 they get I wonder?
42
43 Way back in 1985 a trial judge asked me how come I knew so much about the law and my
44 response was: Your Honour when I was a child my mother told me put the book under your
45 pillow and the next morning you know it all. The trail judge laughed upon this and commented
46 that he deserved that answer as obviously I must have studied it all.
47 As I often told opposing lawyers it is not how much you know but that you know what you need
48 to know for the case that is before the court.
49
50 When however you hav e a barrister presenting GPS chart as to counter act my claim (prior to
51 the hearing) that council workers were trespassing, and filed photos they claimed weremade as
52 shown on the GPS chart, I merely challenged on photo and it was admitted under cross-
Page 7
1 examination that the witness had no clue where the photo was taken or where the building was
2 situated to expose the GPS to be a fraud. Yet, Carmody did absolutely nothing to check this
3 Officer of the Court for deceiving the court in the first place. Little wonder lawyers when acting
4 as Officers of the Court are misusing and abusing their position to deceive the courts without
5 being held legally accountable and as such what Nicola Gobbo did while I hold this as
6 treasonous is simply ongoing with numerous other Officers of the Court and will likely continue
7 unabated unless and until if ever at all the courts are clamping down on this.
8
9 While all parties are to be equal before the courts as I referred to above when a litigant in person
10 is telling the truth the court rather relies upon the lies of the officer of the Court as after all he is
11 one of them.
12
13 Who do you complain to but a person like myself who without charging for assistance pursue
14 justice. After all most avenues are too corrupt to get anywhere at all.
15
16 I do not condone anyone to harm another person let alone to kill but I can UNDERSTAND
17 that people at times are driven to this in sheer desperation that they cannot obtain justice
18 and so decide that taking the law into their own hands is ultimately the only option left to
19 them.
20
21 Why is the Chief Commissioner of Police Graham Ashton not already arrested for his
22 involvement to undermine the administration of justice, and so former Chief Commissioner of
23 Policed Simon Overlander?
24 .
25 I have no doubt that my work in assisting people who were desperate due to the injustice they
26 suffered has avoided likely thousands upon thousands being killed but as a senior citizen I am
27 aware that the time may come that there is no one to continue my (unpaid) work and then so to
28 say all hell may brake lose. That is why I speak out so that perhaps we may have a royal
29 commissioner who is not some wanker/tosser but will ensure that so to say no stone is left
30 unturned to expose the real issues that may have led to the disastrous conduct of those involved
31 to not only undermine the IMPARTIAL administration of justice but also betray the rights of
32 citizens to have any accused dealt with according to law and not by some STAR CHAMBER
33 COURT system that may just serve the egos and future promotions, etc, of those who lack any
34 respect for the constitutional rights of all.
35
36 Trespass is not just upon a property being land holding but relates also to trespass upon a
37 person’s legal rights such as to have a FAIR and PROPER trial.
38
39 QUOTE part of the Kuru v NSW [2008] HCA 26 (12 June 2008) 57 judgment
40 Kuru v NSW [2008] HCA 26 (12 June 2008) - Tort-Trespass
41 QUOTE
42 KURU v STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES [2008] HCA26 (12 June 2008)
43 Justices Gleeson, Gummow, Kirby and Hayne brought forward to 2008 what was said in 1991
44 in Plenty v Dillon by saying at [43]" As was pointed out in this Court's decision in Plenty v
45 Dillon, it is necessary to approach questions of the kind now under consideration by
46 recognising the importance of two related propositions.
47 First, a person who enters the land of another must justify that entry by showing either that the
48 entry was with the consent of the occupier or that the entrant had lawful authority to enter.

Page 8
1 Secondly, except in cases provided for by the common law and by statute, police officers have
2 no special rights to enter land. "and Justices Gleeson, Gummow, Kirby and Hayne brought
3 forward to 2008 what was said in 1984 in Halliday v Nevill by saying at [45]" In Halliday v
4 Nevill, this Court held that if the path or drive way leading to the entrance of a suburban
5 dwelling-house is left unobstructed, with any entrance gate unlocked, and without indication by
6 notice or otherwise that entry by visitors or some class of visitors is forbidden, the law will
7 imply a licence in favour of any member of the public to go on that path or driveway for any
8 legitimate purpose that in itself involves no interference with the occupier's possession or
9 injury to the person or property of the occupier, or the occupier's guests.
10 But as Brennan J pointed out in his dissenting opinion in Halliday, there are cases in which it is
11 necessary to recognise that when it is police officers who seek to enter the land of another
12 here is 'a contest between public authority and the security of private dwellings'. "In the High
13 Court of Australia HALLIDAY v NEVILL [1984] HCA80; (1984) 155CLR1 (6 December 1984)
14 Justice Brennan said at [18] ".....A police officer, in common with any other person on
15 legitimate business, has an implied licence from the occupier of a dwelling-house 'to come
16 through the gate, up the steps, and knock on the door of the house' (per Lord Parker C.J. in
17 Robson v. Hallett, at p 951). That, as Lord Widgery C.J. explained in Brunner v. Williams
18 (1975) 73 LGR 266, at p 272, 'means that anyone who has any genuine reason for wishing to
19 enter the house or the garden has implied licence from the occupier to approach the front or
20 nearest door and ask whether he may be given permission for what he wishes to do'. Now a
21 licence in the terms thus discussed is fairly to be implied in the generality of cases as an
22 incident of living in society. Unless a notice says "Keep Out" it is, generally speaking,
23 reasonable to imply a licence to come up and ask 'May I come in?' "
24 In the High Court of AustraliaPLENTY v DILLON [1991] 171 CLR 635 F.C. 91/004 Judge 1
25 (Justices Mason, Brennan and Toohey) at [4] and [5] said" 4. The starting point is the
26 judgment of Lord Camden L.C.J. in Entick v. Carrington (1765) 19 St Tr 1029, at p 1066: 'By
27 the laws of England, every invasion of private property, be it ever so minute, is a trespass. No
28 man can set his foot upon my ground without my licence, but he is liable to an action, though
29 the damage be nothing ... If he admits the fact, he is bound to shew by way of justification, that
30 some positive law has empowered or excused him.' And see Great Central Railway Co. v.
31 Bates (1921) 3 KB 578, at p 582; Morris v. Beardmore (1981) AC 446, at p 464. The principle
32 applies to entry by persons purporting to act with the authority of the Crown as well as to entry
33 by other persons. As Lord Denning M.R. said in Southam v. Smout (1964) 1 QB 308, at p 320,
34 adopting a quotation from the Earl of Chatham:' "The poorest man may in his cottage bid
35 defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail – its roof may shake – the wind may
36 blow through it – the storm may enter – the rain may enter – but the King of England cannot
37 enter – all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement. "So be it - unless he
38 has justification by law. 'And in Halliday v. Nevill (1984) 155 CLR 1, Brennan J. said (at p 10):
39 'The principle applies alike to officers of government and to private persons. A police officer
40 who enters or remains on private property without the leave and licence of the person in
41 possession or entitled to possession commits a trespass and acts outside the course of his
42 duty unless his entering or remaining on the premises is authorized or excused by law.' "" 5.
43 The proposition that any person who 'set(s) his foot upon my ground without my licence ... is
44 liable to an action' in trespass is qualified by exceptions both at common law and by
45 statute.........."
46 Judge 2 (Justices Gaudron and McHugh) at [1] and [4] said" 1. The question in this appeal is
47 whether a police officer has the right under the law of South Australia to enter private property
Page 9
1 for the purpose of serving a summons after the occupier of the property has notified the officer
2 that he or she has no permission to enter the land."" 4. .....Consent to an entry is implied if the
3 person enters for a lawful purpose. In Robson v. Hallett (1967) 2 QB 939, Lord Parker C.J.
4 said (at p 951): 'the occupier of any dwelling-house gives implied licence to any member of the
5 public coming on his lawful business to come through the gate, up the steps, and knock on the
6 door of the house. 'This implied licence extends to the driveway of a dwelling-house: Halliday.
7 However, the licence may be withdrawn by giving notice of its withdrawal. A person who
8 enters or remains on property after the withdrawal of the licence is a trespasser.........."
9 New South Wales v Ibbett [2006] HCA 57 (12 December 2006)HIGH COURT OF
10 AUSTRALIA, GLEESON CJ, GUMMOW, KIRBY, HEYDON AND CRENNAN JJ STATE OF
11 NEW SOUTH WALES APPELLANT AND DOROTHY ISABEL IBBETT RESPONDENT New
12 South Wales v Ibbett [2006] HCA 57 10 12 December 2006S227/2006 ORDER Appeal
13 dismissed with costs. On appeal from the Supreme Court of New South Wales [Extracts]
14 Exemplary damages 20 38.
15 The common law fixes by various means a line between the interests of the individual in
16 personal freedom of action and the interests of the State in the maintenance of a legally
17 ordered society. An action for trespass to land and an award of exemplary damages has long
18 been a method by which, at the instance of the citizen, the State is called to account by the
19 common law for the misconduct of those acting under or with the authority of the Executive
20 Government [19]. Indeed, the first reported use of the expression "exemplary damages" may
21 have been by Pratt LCJ [20] in Huckle v Money[21]. Huckle was one of several tort actions in
22 the Court of Common Pleas [22] arising from the use by the administration of George Grenville
23 [23] of general warrants in its campaign in the 1760s against the 30 activities of John Wilkes
24 and the publication styled the North Briton. The jury in Huckle awarded no less than £300
25 damages, an enormous sum for the times, and the Lord Chief Justice said they were not
26 excessive. 39. Windeyer J later doubted whether the origin of the idea conveyed by the term
27 "exemplary damages" was as recent as Huckle [24]. However that may be, what is well
28 established is that an award of exemplary damages may serve "a valuable purpose in
29 restraining the arbitrary and outrageous use of executive power" and "oppressive, arbitrary or
30 unconstitutional action by the servants of the government". The words are those of Lord
31 Devlin, no supporter of the general use 40 of this remedy [25]. His Lordship added that [26]:
32 "the servants of the government are also the servants of the people and the use of their power
33 must always be subordinate to their duty of service".
34 ___________________________________________________________________________
35 ________________________1 (Extracts: Exemplary damages—At 38, 39, 40 Vicarious
36 liability—At 41 The case law—At 48) New South Wales v Ibbett [2006] HCA 57A Court Case
37 dealing with Trespass upon land by those from the Executive Government.
38 40. In Kuddus v Chief Constable of Leicestershire Constabulary [27], Lord Hutton considered
39 these remarks of Lord Devlin with the added authority of his own judicial experience in
40 Northern Ireland, including his award of exemplary damages in Pettigrew v Northern Ireland
41 Office [28]. Lord Hutton concluded in Kuddus [29]: "I think that a number of cases decided by
42 the courts in Northern Ireland during the past 30 years of terrorist violence give support to the
43 opinion of Lord Devlin in Rookes v Barnard [30] that in certain cases the awarding of
44 exemplary damages serves a valuable purpose in restraining the arbitrary and 10 outrageous
45 use of executive power and in vindicating the strength of the law. Members of the security
46 forces seeking to combat terrorism face constant danger and have to carry out their duties in
Page 10
1 very stressful conditions. In such circumstances an individual soldier or police officer or prison
2 officer may, on occasion, act in gross breach of discipline and commit an unlawful act which is
3 oppressive or arbitrary and in such cases exemplary damages have been awarded. "His
4 Lordship added [31]: "In my opinion the power to award exemplary damages in such cases 20
5 serves to uphold and vindicate the rule of law because it makes clear that the courts will not
6 tolerate such conduct. It serves to deter such actions in future as such awards will bring home
7 to officers in command of individual units that discipline must be maintained at all times.
8 "Vicarious liability 41.
9 In previous times, the situation respecting vicarious liability in tort was complicated by the rules
10 respecting Crown immunity in England. On that subject, and with reference to the reasons of
11 Cockburn LCJ in Feather v The Queen [32], Gummow and Kirby JJ remarked in The
12 Commonwealth v Mewett[33]:30 "[A] servant of the Crown was responsible at common law for
13 a tortious act done to a fellow subject, although done by the authority of the Crown, and to that
14 tortfeasor the immunity of the Crown would afford no defence. Moreover, in most instances,
15 the action against the officer or servant of the Crown would have the same effect as a petition
16 of right would have, 'since, in a proper case, the Crown [would] defend its officer and become
17 responsible for any damages awarded' [34]. "The first sentence of that passage explains the
18 constitution of the actions against the under-secretary of State, King's messenger and other
19 officials sued in the saga 40 of John Wilkes during the reign of King George III. The second
20 sentence explains why the personal means of comparatively lowly officials, sued at a time
21 when Crown immunity still barred a direct action, would not constrain awards of exemplary
22 damages.
23 ___________________________________________________________________________
25 liability—At 41 The case law—At 48) New South Wales v Ibbett [2006] HCA 57A Court Case
26 dealing with Trespass upon land by those from the Executive Government
27 The case law 48.
28 In the United States,the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendmentand the prohibition
29 by the Eighth Amendment upon excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishments have
30 been used to place constitutional restraints upon the levels of exemplary damages awards by
31 State court juries [48].There is also a long line of authority in the United States which denies
32 awards of exemplary damages against State municipal corporations which violate the
33 constitutional rights of plaintiffs; such awards have been said by the United States Supreme
34 Court to be "contrary to sound public policy" for the reason that they "would burden the very
35 taxpayers and citizens for whose benefit the wrongdoer was being chastised" [49].To that, the
36 answer of those today of like mind with Pratt LCJ in 1763, and Lord Devlin in 1964, would be
37 that in these cases the proceeds of taxation represent the price paid for maintaining respect by
38 public officials for the observance of the rule of law, to the benefit of taxpayers and society as
39 a whole.
40 ___________________________________________________________________________
42 liability—At 41 The case law—At 48)New South Wales v Ibbett [2006] HCA 57A Court Case
43 dealing with Trespass upon land by those from the Executive Government
44 Extracts re Trespass] Plenty v Dillon [1991] HCA 5 (7 March 1991)(1991) 171 CLR 635HIGH
45 COURT OF AUSTRALIA Mason C.J.Brennan, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh JJ.JUSTICES

Page 11
1 MASON, BRENNAN AND TOOHEY at [4] and [5] said:- “4. The starting point is the judgment
2 of Lord Camden L.C.J.in Entick v. Carrington [1765] EWHC J98; (1765) 19 St Tr 1029, at p
3 1066: "By the laws of England, every invasion of private property, be it ever so minute, is a
4 trespass. No man can set his foot upon my ground without my licence, but he is liable to an
5 action, though the damage be nothing ...If he admits the fact, he is bound to shew by way of
6 justification, that some positive law has empowered or excused him. "And see Great Central
7 Railway Co. v. Bates (1921) 3 KB 578, at p 582; Morris v. Beardmore (1981) AC 446, at p
8 464.The principle applies to entry by persons purporting to act with the authority of the Crown
9 as well as to entry by other persons. As Lord Denning M.R. said in Southam v. Smout (1964) 1
10 QB 308, at p 320, adopting a quotation from the Earl of Chatham:"'The poorest man may in his
11 cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail - its roof may shake - the
12 wind may blow through it - the storm may enter - the rain may enter - but the King of England
13 cannot enter - all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement. 'So be it -
14 unless he has justification by law. "And in Halliday v. Nevill [1984] HCA 80; (1984) 155 CLR 1,
15 Brennan J. said (at p 10): "The principle applies alike to officers of government and to private
16 persons. A police officer who enters or remains on private property without the leave and
17 licence of the person in possession or entitled to possession commits a trespass and acts
18 outside the course of his duty unless his entering or remaining on the premises is authorized
19 or excused by law." ”“5. The proposition that any person who "set(s) his foot upon my ground
20 without my licence ... is liable to an action" in trespass is qualified by exceptions both at
21 common law and by statute.
22 ”__________________________________________________________________________
23 ____________ Extracts re Trespass Plenty v Dillon [1991] HCA 5 Page 1 of 2
24
25 JUSTICES GAUDRON AND McHUGH at [1] and [4] said:-“1. The question in this appeal is
26 whether a police officer has the right under the law of South Australia to enter private property
27 for the purpose of serving a summons after the occupier of the property has notified the officer
28 that he or she has no permission to enter the land.”“4. The common law right of entry The
29 policy of the law is to protect the possession of property and the privacy and security of its
30 occupier: Semayne's Case [1572] Eng R 333;(1604) 5 Co Rep 91a, at p 91b [1572] Eng R
31 333; (77 ER 194, at p 195); Entick v. Carrington (1765) 2 Wils KB 275, at p 291 [1765] EWHC
32 J98; (95 ER 807, at p 817); Southam v. Smout (1964) 1 QB 308, at p 320; Eccles v. Bourque
33 (1975) 2 SCR. 739, at pp 742-743;(1974) 50 DLR (3d) 753, at p 755; Morris v. Beardmore
34 (1981) AC 446, at p 464.
35 A person who enters the property of another must justify that entry by showing that he or she
36 either entered with the consent of the occupier or otherwise had lawful authority to enter the
37 premises: Entick, at p 291 (p 817 of ER);Morris v. Beardmore, at p 464;Southam v. Smout, at
38 p 320;Halliday v. Nevill [1984] HCA 80; (1984) 155 CLR 1, at p 10. Except in the cases
39 provided for by the common law and by statute, constables of police and those acting under
40 the Crown have no special rights to enter land: Halliday, at p 10. Consent to an entry is implied
41 if the person enters for a lawful purpose. In Robson v. Hallett (1967) 2 QB 939, Lord Parker
42 C.J. said (at p 951): "the occupier of any dwelling-house gives implied licence to any member
43 of the public coming on his lawful business to come through the gate, up the steps, and knock
44 on the door of the house." This implied licence extends to the driveway of a dwelling-house:
45 Halliday. However, the licence may be withdrawn by giving notice of its with drawal. A person
46 who enters or remains on property after the withdrawal of the licence is a trespasser. In Davis
47 v. Lisle (1936) 2 KB 434, police officers who had lawfully entered a garage for the purpose of
Page 12
1 making enquiries were held to have become trespassers by remaining in the garage after they
2 were told by the proprietor to "get outside".
3 END QUOTE
4 END QUOTE part of the Kuru v NSW [2008] HCA 26 (12 June 2008) judgment
5
6 QUOTE part of the Kuru v NSW [2008] HCA 26 (12 June 2008) judgment
7 Exemplary damages 20 38.
8 The common law fixes by various means a line between the interests of the individual in
9 personal freedom of action and the interests of the State in the maintenance of a legally
10 ordered society. An action for trespass to land and an award of exemplary damages has long
11 been a method by which, at the instance of the citizen, the State is called to account by the
12 common law for the misconduct of those acting under or with the authority of the Executive
13 Government
15
16 QUOTE part of the Kuru v NSW [2008] HCA 26 (12 June 2008) judgment
17 However that may be, what is well established is that an award of exemplary damages may
18 serve "a valuable purpose in restraining the arbitrary and outrageous use of executive power"
19 and "oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional action by the servants of the government". The
20 words are those of Lord Devlin, no supporter of the general use 40 of this remedy [25]. His
21 Lordship added that [26]: "the servants of the government are also the servants of the people
22 and the use of their power must always be subordinate to their duty of service".
24
25 The fact that the State now seeks to use the parliament to deny this right of compensation, etc,
26 surely may underlined the blatant disregard by the politicians that it should not interfere with the
27 courts entitlement to provide appropriate compensation. Regretfully as we saw with Roberta
28 Williams this was approved by the courts nevertheless. As such we fasil to have an
29 IMPARTIAL administration of justice but seems to have a court system that oblige to whatever
30 tune the politicians are playing.
31
32
Page 13
2
3
4
Page 14
1
2
3 Above shows the rebuild retaining wall and part of the rebuild slat fence that was destroyed.
4
5 And as I have experienced where this former police officer admitted liability to the damages that
6 eventuated by trespassing the Chief Commissioner of Police Graham Ashton has nevertheless
7 not yet delegated the investigation to a divisional commander to ensure an investigation by a
8 police officer without bias. And this underlines why people at times resort to take the laws into
9 their own hands because the police, and others like an Officer of the Court cannot be trusted.
10
11 I do not know if Mr Adrian Hillman, the former police officer, was on 5 December 2018
12 causing the destruction estimated to be a repair bill between $8,000 and $10,000 to cost as result
13 of my exposure writings of police misuse and abuse and as I suspect involvement in setting up
14 the vicious murder of Carl Williams but he made clear that the Chief Commissioner of Police
15 would shred my (28-12-2019) complaint and well so far it proved that the Chief Commissioner
16 of Police ignored this trespass and malicious damage It seems to me that Chief Commissioner
17 of police Graham Ashton is more concerned about future promotions and career opportunities
18 then to bother about dealing with real criminals. Hence the unlawful conduct with using Officers
19 of the Court to undermine the administration of justice.
20
21 I would not be surprised if many may not wish to reveal their identity and so not file a
22 submission to the Royal Commission in fear that the Victorian Police and/or former members of
23 the police may seek to harm them.

Page 15
1 My 86 year old wife is terrified because of what eventuated and for some 2 months refused to
2 leave the house until I had rebuild the destroyed retaining wall and slat fence. She still fears that
3 someone may again seek to harm us and I am in the process to setup various detectors and lights
4 as to seek to minimize the trauma upon her.
5
6
7
8 Nicola Gobbo was for some time the lawyer for Carl Williams (I in fact have copies of some of
9 her billing to Carl Williams) and since 2017 was exposing matters. One may have to ask was she
10 the informer to the media that published hours before Carl Williams was viciously murdered
11 details of his dealing with the Victorian Police? After all Carl Williams suspected her to be a
12 police informer and this I view might be why he was needed to be killed. So much about the
13 concern for Nicola Gobbo safety when she so to say at least in my view couldn’t give a hood
14 about those she harmed. Was Mr Adrian Hillman, the former police officer, trying to give me a
15 warning to lay off to expose it all? He certainly scared the living daylights out of my advance
16 age wife and surely despite this the refusal by Chief Commissioner of Police Graham Ashton to
17 delegate the investigation I reported to him in extensive writing to a divisional commander may
18 indicate that perhaps there is more to it all!
19 Is the police above the rule of law and they can blatantly undermine the administration of justice
20 with coordination of certain politicians, etc, relying also upon various Officers of the Court
21 (including prosecutors) to ensure they can get away with it without facing any legal
22 accountability? After all my complaint against those involved in concealing in their 2014
23 financial declarations the monies they had inappropriately benefitted from Consolidated Revenue
24 funds somehow was now ignored by the DPP and the Police claims they were exonerated, this
25 even so I understand they were not but deemed insufficient evidence was there. This even so my
26 complaint has not been dealt with!
27
28 When we have as I view it the Victorian Police and politicians and Officers of the Court
29 operating like a mob of gangsters ignoring the rule of law then we have anarchy!
30
31 I have absolutely no doubt that unless appropriate action is recommended and acted upon we
32 may see one day buildings collapsing and thousands of people ending up being harmed
33 (including killed) because there are to my understanding forces who simply are fed up with how
34 this elaborate perversion of justice is so far allowed to go on and on without anyone really being
35 held legally accountable.
36
37 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to address all issues.
38 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)
39 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL ®
40 (Our name is our motto!)


20190304-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Royal Commissioner Margaret McMurdo, AC Re SUBMISSION-Supplement 4

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

20190304-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Royal Commissioner Margaret McMurdo, AC Re SUBMISSION-Supplement 4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Page 1

4-3-2019 Page 1 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

4-3-2019 Page 7 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

14 Exemplary damages 20 38.

8 "Vicarious liability 41.

27 The case law 48.

4-3-2019 Page 10 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

4-3-2019 Page 14 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

39 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL ®

40 (Our name is our motto!)

You might also like