CCPR/C/120/D/2941/2017
The facts as submitted by the author
2.1
The author explains that on 14 June 1997, Victoria Police refused him equal
protection of law from domestic violence when he complained that R.M.H., his ex-wife,
had abused him and assaulted him.
2.2
The author submits that on 23 March 2000, he was contacted by M., who was selling
his “contract killing services”. According to the author, the police had conspired with an
informer named P. to constantly harass, intimidate and compel the author, with death
threats, duress and fraud, to hire M. to kill his ex-wife. The author also submits that P. and
the police had the same purpose of “political persecution” for inducing him into hiring M.
to kill his ex-wife. The author explains that the police distorted unsubstantiated,
inadmissible and fraudulent evidence to jail him.
2.3
The author advises that on 22 August 2000, the police arrested and charged him for
the alleged offence of incitement to murder. He claimed that his arrest violated articles 14
(3) (b) and 9 (1) of the Covenant. He also claims that the police concealed exculpatory
evidence by curtailing its inconclusive investigation to arbitrarily arrest him.
2.4
The author explains that during the trial proceedings in 2000 and 2001, where he
was accused of incitement to murder, various unlawful incidents occurred that violated his
rights. In that connection, he alleges that: (a) the printed legal documents he had submitted
to his lawyer were stolen twice; (b) all his legal documents in electronic format were also
stolen; (c) his telephone conversations with his lawyers were unlawfully and constantly
monitored and intercepted; (d) the police fabricated false statements; (e) Victorian Legal
Aid forced him to accept the assigned lawyers to represent him before the courts, and those
lawyers refused to take his legitimate instructions on the conduct of his court proceedings;
and (f) the trial judge denied him procedural rights to save the court time and to cover up
the police’s unlawful conduct of corruption within their investigation, and unnecessarily
discharged the whole first jury selection to create a gender-biased and unbalanced jury.
2.5
The author submits that the trial judge refused to give him the opportunity to contest
the police evidence and did not give him the reasons why he had refused to stay the
proceedings before the jury was selected and delivered its verdict. He adds that the trial
judge “fraudulently misdirected the jury on the application of the law to relieve the
prosecution of more than 80 per cent of the burden of proof for the prosecution”.
2.6
The author explains that from 1 November 2001 to 15 May 2003, the Court of
Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria unlawfully violated his rights under article 14 (5)
of the Covenant by endorsing the trial judge’s decision and denied his rights to access to
justice. He claims that the Court of Appeal pervasively applied dual standards to protect the
reputation of the trial judge rather than to protect the fundamental principles of the rule of
law and the presumption of innocence. He also claims that Victoria Legal Aid deprived him
of a chance to represent himself in court and to dismiss the inappropriate lawyers he was
assigned in the appeal proceedings.
2.7
The author submits that on 11 February 2005, the High Court of Australia reiterated
similar violations of the same articles of the Covenant denying his right to access to justice.
He claims that the hearing for his application for special leave to appeal was unfair and
arbitrary. In this connection, the author indicates that: (a) the High Court did not comply
with the constitutional right regarding the quorum, which stipulates that there must be no
less than three High Court judges at the hearing; (b) one of the two judges at the hearing
was Justice H., who had previously precluded the author in his bail application and should
have disqualified himself by reason of issues concerning the impartiality of the High Court;
and (c) the High Court cut five minutes of the author’s debating time to prevent him from
presenting all his arguments. The author therefore claims that the negative decision of the
High Court in his case was flawed, defective and unlawful, and that the High Court
discriminated against him and denied him natural justice in violation of article 14 (1) of the
Covenant.
2.8
The author explains that after the Government of Victoria had withheld his
application for more than two years, on 29 May 2012 the Governor of Victoria advised him
that his petition for mercy to appeal his conviction was refused, without any reason.
2