Denial of justice in the Peat Moss Affair

The Tasmanian Government, through the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, has waged a costly harassment for the past 18 years to try to stop me and my fellow plaintiffs having our allegations of Government corruption heard in court.

Based on the DPP’s own costs claims, my support team and I estimate that Tasmanian taxpayers have unknowingly paid about $1.25 million so far to frustrate my attempts to get justice.

My complaints refer to the prosecution of the Tasmanian Government by myself and fellow plaintiffs George Peter Wright and two companies we manage (Supreme Court Registry No. 570 of 1990).

Our writ alleges fraud, conspiracy and interference with a $3 million contract in 1984 and 1985 when we were trying to develop a significant industry in Tasmania, employing perhaps 100 people, processing peat moss for the horticultural industry. Tasmania today still has no such industry. Through fiery debates in Parliament in 1986, the issue became known as the Peat Moss Affair.

The $1.25 million of outlaid public money is calculated from the total cost of a long list of court hearings, for Government lawyers and others, for resources and for travel.

There are many needy causes to which such money and effort could have been put.

I have suffered more than $1 million in expenses plus enormous personal stress, which at times has needed medical treatment.

Yet for all that, we still have not had one day in court to present our charges. Every hearing has been to defend legal manoeuvres by Government lawyers.

We plaintiffs simply want a trial at which we present our case, the defence defends and a judgment is made. But that clearly does not suit the Government.

The evident motive for those acting for the Government is to frustrate and delay our prosecution to the point where either we can no longer afford to proceed, we give up in despair or I die.

It is a disgraceful denial of natural justice. My fellow plaintiffs and I have been subjected to one legal manoeuvre after another concerning fine points of law.

Mr Justice Nettlefold in 1988 told lawyers their overall responsibility was to justice. But justice, in my case, has long been denied.

The Crown has exploited our lack of funds, an absence of legal aid, our difficulty over the years in getting counsel to act for us without regular fees, and also of the workload of the Supreme Court. The Crown defenders knew that every time they lodged an application to strike out this matter there was going to be a delay of a year or two and we plaintiffs would cop more legal costs.

We would not have been able to continue our prosecution years ago without the help of Melbourne-based lawyers Slater and Gordon, who incidentally have no role in my public complaint today.

I’m told the Peat Moss Affair is the longest-running matter before the courts in Tasmania, perhaps in Australia. It is a matter of considerable public importance, involving serious allegations against former senior Government officers, State resources, public money, and future public confidence in fair process for potential business venturers in Tasmania.

These delays are a disgrace to Australia’s system of justice and a frightening lesson for anyone, who is not a millionaire, who might dare prosecute the Government.

I believe the actions to prevent this prosecution being heard in court rival the serious matters about which we first complained and issued the writ.

The harassment began with a personal attack on me under the protection of Parliament by then-Premier Robin Gray in 1986 after a statutory declaration by me was presented by now-Attorney General Judy Jackson and former Attorney General Peter Patmore when in Opposition.

Then, just after I announced an intention of suing the Government and two days before Christmas Day that year, I was charged with dishonesty and perjury. The Crown dragged out the committal hearing for 16 months, presenting more than 30 crown witnesses from four States.

I did not even have to present a defence before Magistrate (now Federal Judge) Michael Hannon dismissed the charges. He found that in one matter there was insufficient, if any, evidence and on the other there was no evidence. Mr Hannon indicated that I should not have been charged, but the charges delayed my prosecution by two years. And new legislation prevented me being awarded costs.

In May 2000, the Crown applied to the court to have our case struck out, for want of prosecution. Not, by the way, on the merits of the case. That set us back more than two years before Chief Justice Mr Cox dismissed the DPP’s application.

Then the DPP appealed against the judgement to the Full Court. In June 2001 the three judges, too, dismissed the DPP’s application.

We thought we could proceed to, and were preparing for, the long-awaited trial. We asked for Judge Peter Underwood to manage the case, so it would progress to a schedule. But the Crown opposed that. No case management.

Then last year the DPP applied for a stay of the action! The application was heard in court last March 30, a day largely spent with lawyers arguing the interpretation under court rules of the terms “a step” and “a proceeding” and whether we plaintiffs had taken enough of them.

The court found against us this time. We have subsequently reapplied to the court to proceed with this prosecution. No doubt the Crown will oppose that application. If we fail, it seems our whole prosecution is doomed -- without a trial once hearing our complaint.

Meantime, costs of $10,000 were awarded against we plaintiffs this month to pay the Crown for the one-day March hearing to stay the action. The Director of Public Prosecutions claimed and was allowed $450 an hour for his time. (...)

I make this statement with a sense of despair and a conviction that the public should know about our denial of justice. I nervously hope the court does not penalise me calling for a fair go.

I emphasise that I am in no way critical of our court system and have not addressed any points that are sub judice.

On August 11, I wrote to Attorney General Judy Jackson, a lawyer for whose strong support when in Opposition I am grateful, seeking her discretionary intervention to get the matter to trial.

I have not yet had a response.

Letter to Judy Jackson

From Michael Tatlow
33/1 Battery Square
Battery Point, Tasmania 7004
Tel (03) 6224 0463 or 0410 480 228
Email: :mike@mywordproducts.com

*(....) refers to a sentence excised

Other stories of Tasmania:

The Secret State? (1)
... why should Tasmanians be prepared to accept such unquestioning support for secrecy? ... RICK SNELL

The Secret State? (2)
... What you got was one of the most inadequate justifications I've read ... An interview with RICK SNELL, by TAYLOR BILDSTEIN

The Secret State? (3)
Government, be they Governors, Premiers, Ministers, servants or agents from time to time mislead the governed. That is us. The unkind might say they lie ... JAMES CROTTY

Tasmanian justice - extinct or just threatened ...
Many of us were startled to hear Paul Lennon invoke the term "natural justice" in defending the ex-gratia 650 grand payout to Richard Butler. After all, this is the same state where natural justice principles are trampled ... JOHN HAYWARD

Thursday, September 16, 2004

RETURN TO CONTENTS