Pine Gap Trial DPP Appeal – Sat August 4th 2007
GOVT. CONTINUES HEAVY-HANDED APPROACH
Despite the embarrassment of the Haneef debacle the Howard government continues its "vindictive and bloody-minded" approach to national security, lodging an appeal to increase the sentences of four Christian pacifists convicted of entering Pine Gap in December 2005.
The Pine Gap Four - Bryan Law of Cairns, Jim Dowling of Dayboro, Adele Goldie of Brisbane and Donna Mulhearn of Sydney - were found guilty of breaching the virginal Defence (Special Undertakings) Act 1952, and were handed minor fines (ranging from $450 to $1250) by Justice Sally Thomas on June 15th after an intense three-week trial in the Northern Territory Supreme Court. Justice Thomas noted the defendants’ good behaviour and co-operation in her sentencing decision.
The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) says that a fine of any kind is manifestly inadequate in this case, and has launched an appeal seeking custodial sentences for the non-violent activists.
On December 9th 2005 under the banner "Christians Against ALL Terrorism", the four broke into Pine Gap to conduct a Citizen's Inspection, with the intention of highlighting the base's - and Australia's - role in the Iraq war.
Previous incursions into the base have resulted in charges of trespass, but Attorney-General Philip Ruddock created legal history by directing the DPP to charge the group under the Defence (Special Undertakings) Act, carrying a sentence of up to seven years gaol.
"This spotlights the political climate of fear and paranoia we are living with today," said Donna Mulhearn.
In sentencing, Justice Thomas found the activists had behaved non-violently at all times, were genuine in their beliefs, had organised in advance to reassure authorities of their non-violent intentions, were co-operative, and that the actions taken had not resulted in any person suffering loss, injury or trauma.
Justice Thomas noted that Pine Gap has a significant history of protest and trespass, with past trespassers being fined. "It's a big step up to talk about a jail sentence," she said during the trial. "A prison sentence is one of last resort." She also noted that use of the Defence (Special Undertakings) Act was a serious escalation in proposed punishment.
When lodging their appeal, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) claimed that Justice Thomas had failed to give proper weight to both general and individual deterrence, and had given the activists too much credit for co-operation. Crown Prosecutor Mr Hilton Dembo said during the trial the Citizen’s Inspection had "struck at the heart of national security". Nine barristers and lawyers representing the DPP, ASIO and the Federal Police appeared for the prosecution case, while the Pine Gap Four represented themselves.
"If Christians Against ALL Terrorism (CAAT) was handing out awards for fear-mongering hyperbole," said Bryan Law, "then Crown Prosecutor Hilton Dembo would be a leading contender for 2007.
"Non-violent action doesn’t ‘strike at the heart of national security’ – waging an unjust war and inciting fear, paranoia and hatred is what has struck at the heart of Australia’s security over the past five years.
"The Commonwealth government are being vindictive and bloody-minded in pursuing this further," he said.
The matter will now go to the Northern Territory Court of Criminal Appeal.
For more information contact:
Bryan Law 0403 049 566
Jessica Morrison 0431 519 577
Katie McRobert 0408 468 992
Donna Mulhearn 0422 749 319
Monday, August 6, 2007
Thursday, June 14, 2007
No Jail - only fines
Quick update. We have just come out of court and are VERY excited. What can only be described as a small slap on the wrists, the 4 have emerged from court with only small fines, ranging from $1,250-$450 each.
The public gallery erupted into song, applause, cheers and hugs and the feeling of victory and vindication was in the air.
Justice Sally Thomas noted their good behaviour and co-operation in the sentencing decision.
"All four were very genuine in the cause they sought to espouse," said Justice Thomas, "however their actions - no matter for what cause - cannot justify the breaking of the law."
We are all about to celebrate - YAY!
Day 11 - Waiting for the Verdict....Guilty
We resumed at 9am today, which made our procession much colder than usual! But we sang with great gusto as we took our last procession down the Todd Mall.
Judge’s final comments.
Reminded her of their obligation to the matter between ‘Our Sovereign the Queen’ and the accused. She told her that they can’t be mindful of the effect of their verdict (ie possible jail time!), and to remind them that the can get access to further information from the case if they need to be reminded of. She further reminded them that there is a burden of proof on the Crown to prove their case. She discharged the two reserve jurors, which were both women.
After less than five minutes the jury were then asked to retire to consider their verdict.
We were asked to ‘all stand’ and were about to leave when the Judge reminded us that that we needed to deal with bail. “the defendants bail is continued but they stay within the precincts of the court.
So at 9.20 am the jury retired, and we waited.
At 11.05 the four defendants were called into court as “Her Honor wants to see you”.
“I have had no contact with the jury. However I have had another matter that needed to be raised. I have been told by the Sherriff’s officer that you are distributing DVD’s within the court. Can I tell you that this is not appropriate.” She gave reasons that the defendants have to be available on short notice, and can’t be seen to be pushing something on staff.
Verdict
At 2pm we were informed that the jury had reached a verdict. At 2.10pm we all returned into court and rose for perhaps the last time for the entering of the judge.
The jury returned with faces not giving away anything.
The gallery was full, of locals, media, supporters, prosecution members, and the level of anxiety was palpable.
For each of the fourteen charges for the four defendants the question was asked: Do you find the accused guilty or not guilty? Guilty. Guilty. Guilty. Guilty. Guilty. Guilty. Guilty. Guilty. Guilty. Guilty. Guilty. Guilty. Guilty. Guilty.
We took a short break for sentencing, with lots of emotion, including from those on the so called ‘other side’. It reminds me that we have a system where we believe we have no enemies.
Sentencing
Mr Dembo’s sentencing submission, which took over an hour, could be summarised by “throw the book at them”.
He outlined that the maximum penalties of ten years is possible for these offences. He asked the Judge to consider the seriousness of the offences. He noted that there are limited other crimes that require the consent of the Attorney General, which includes other Intelligence and Security mattes, those under Acts relating to the ‘Crimes on the High Seas’ and the ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’. Hardly offences that seem comparable to this matter.
He then went through to address each point of law individually.
The Law says that the Court must relate to “of a severity that is appropriate to the seriousness of the offences”, the nature and circumstances of the offence.
He submitted that “all of the offenders cooperated to a limited extent by making written admission…however those written submissions were received the afternoon before the trial proper started.”. In regard to specific deterrent effect of any penalty, “this is a matter that does cause the crown some concern…who have, for reasons of their own, expressed no remorse…and in fact talked about doing it again…Your Honor must take that into account…”
He noted that Bryan, Jim and Adele have prior convictions, relating to challenging war and injustice (with traffic violations also noted!!).
He once again stated that “no one is above the law and can take the law into their hands, and there must be deterrence for like-minded people”.
When Mr Dembo got to the rehabilitation clause, he stated “the crown sees there is no prospect for rehabilitation” to laughter to the courtroom.
In relation to comparing with other sentences, the Crown stated that in relation to the Defence (Special Undertakings) Act that “there are no previous authorities or sentencing under the provisions of this Act”.
It gives us no joy to state that our submission is “to make a sentence of imprisonment with actual time to be served is the only appropriate sentence in this case”. “Home detention is not appropriate as none of the offenders are resident of the Northern Territory.” “Their submissions to the jury is that they don’t recognise this law, wont recognise this law, and won’t commit to abiding by it”…”The crown is not asking for the whole term to be served”
Judge Thomas noted that people who have previously trespassed on Pine Gap, with a long history of this, have been given a fine. She noted that it is a “big step up” to talk about a jail sentence. “Here they are facing extremely serious offences that carry serious jail sentences”. “A prison statement is one of last resort, including if they are suspended”.
Mr Dembo responded by talking about the general deterrence required for drug importation, again a foolhardy comparison.
We then went to the matter of the cost of repairs to the fence. Mr Dembo submitted a final statement by the Raytheon employee, which was disputed by Jim. He was called in as a witness. He gave evidence that the final bill was $10,785.10, paid by Mr Burgess. Jim asked the witness whether he was aware of the fraud charges and missile making of Raytheon, and he replied he did not. Judge Thomas then asked about the change of cost to the bill. He stated that the fence was thicker than the usual gauge, and had to be transported from Melbourne.
Speaking for themselves the defendants had the following to say:
Bryan:
“If I can start in the traditional way in your Honour by putting forward facts in mitigation of the action I took. I would like to point out, in agreement with Mr Dembo that our damage of property is at the lower end, and I have no idea in relation to the trespass charge. I would suggest that our advance notice and our liaison and our discussion with authorities should be taken into account, as it allayed fears of what we may do…..No one had caused to be fearful…or that anyone suffered any lasting trauma…our crime is not like one in the traditional sense in that it did not seek personal advantage…our actions are conscientious actions…We were non violent and non-malevolent…there was no resistance to any arrest, we never offered violence or disrespect or resistance of any kind. It’s my belief my Honour, that we were, as Ghandi suggested “be the change you want to see in the world”. He presented a number of reference, including a letter from his State member, and one from Des Ball.
He asked for mitigation based on the intentions and behaviour in the carrying out of the actions.
He said that all his words are his own and not the others. His words about future actions related only to himself.
He also said that it was his intent to shut down Pine Gap. To do general protest is accepted by the
the State. “while this state remains at war I intend to continue to make efforts to shut the war fighting elements of the Base down.”
There is no chance of rehabilitation he stated. “I took advantage of the circumstances. We planned for this event. And it is no wonder that there was this effect as the result of that planning.
I would submit that really Your Honour has to give me a custodial behaviour.
You should consider an appropriate custodial sentence and lay it on me Your Honour and I will just serve it out.”
Jim
Jim stated that the bill to fix the fence was farcical because Raytheon itself was responsible for billions of dollars worth of damage in the first days of the war through the use of its missiles.
Jim asked not to be sent to jail as they were trying to stop war. “I Invite you to join resistance in war and not give us any penalty”
Adele
“I’m thankful of the opportunity to speak the truth about what Pine Gap actually does, which is part of the war machine. Which is part of treal time etc…
I’m not willing to pay the Raytheon bill based on these submissions. I don’t particularly want to go to jail. But I stand by my principles”.
Donna
“Ask that no conviction be recorded and that I receive no penalty. As you notice I’ve never been convicted of a crime ever…I’m generally regarded as a good citizen and a previously been a representative of the elected body….I would accept whatever your decision would make… I live in a monastery, missionary of the sacred heart, brothers and priests…I consider their authority as higher than this authority and I accept their support of me is more important than whatever decision of a court of law. I believe my behaviour was excellent, and if I am given a good behaviour bond, I’ll continue my behaviour as the last year and a half…and I’ll continue to resist war. I’ll do whatever I need to do according to my conscience, and I’ll continue to act according to my conscience.
She indicated that she will return to deliver her sentence at 11.30am tomorrow.
Special Sitting of Court - Richard Tanter
“Pine Gap is primarily a US base, it would be foolish to assert otherwise” Professor Tanter
Our anxiety about the activities of the court was tonight soothed by some good humour of a court of our own making, a special session of the (almost) Supreme Court of the Northern Territory, where we all played roles of the court, and we accepted Professor Richard Tanter as an expert witness about Pine Gap.
Prof Tanter presented a mind boggling amount of technical information about what is happens in the US intelligence collection. I wont even attempt to explain the details, but check out his Institute’s website in the next week or so: “Australian Forces Abroad Project” http://gc.nautilus.org/nautilus/australia/afghanistan
Some of the key aspects of Professor Tanter’s address for me are:
• That there are three interrelated space based intelligence facilities Pine Gap in Australia, Buckley, Colarado in the USA and Menwith Hill in the UK.
• He noted that the Australian section of Pine Gap is quite separate from the US. “Pine Gap is primarily a US base, it would be foolish to assert otherwise”.
• There are currently many US staff at Pine Gap from all the major security agencies, as well as all elements of the US Defence forces.
• Pine Gap has always collected significant satellite information. However Pine Gap now also analyses much more of this information on-site.
• There are 40-50 air strikes a week on both Iraq and Afghanistan.
• He recommended looking at Human Rights Watch website about the investigations of the “decapitation strikes” on leadership of the Iraq leadership in early 2003.
• Prof Tanter suggested that we need to move beyond concepts of the National Interest, and talk about human interest.
• He also directed us to the 1999 Joint Parliamentary Treaty on Committees report #26.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Court Day 11 - short(er!) version - ie. press release
Pine Gap Trial – COURT UPDATE June 13th 2007
Blood of Iraqis brought into court
Hiking boots stained with the blood of an Iraqi person were put before the jury in the final moments of the Pine Gap Four’s NT Supreme Court trial today.
In her closing address, defendant Donna Mulhearn asked the jury to consider the stained hiking boots she was wearing in court. She had worn them in an Iraqi marketplace, in the aftermath of a US missile.
"Now, in this court room, there is blood on my boots. Blood of a human being, that is there because of the targeting decisions made in Pine Gap," she told the jury. "I'm asking you to honour the memory of this person's blood.. for the sake of the truth, for the sake of your humanity, I'm asking that you find me not guilty."
Defendant Jim Dowling stated that at every stage the prosecution had attempted to cover up the truth. "The Commonwealth's hands are dripping with blood of the Iraqi people", he said.
The fate of the Pine Gap Four rests with a jury of their peers tonight following the conclusion of the Crown's case against them. Legal history will be created whatever their decision.
Attorney-General Philip Ruddock has charged the group under the virginal Defence (Special Undertakings) Act of 1952, with a sentence of up to seven years imprisonment. No legal precedent exists for this case.
On December 9th 2005 Bryan Law of Cairns, Jim Dowling and Adele Goldie of Brisbane and Donna Mulhearn of Sydney conducted a Citizen's Inspection at Pine Gap to spotlight the base's role in the Iraq war.
The defendants had planned to use sections 10.3, 10.4 and 10.5 of the Criminal Code (necessity, defence of others etc.) to legally justify their actions, but these were ruled inadmissable by Justice Sally Thomas yesterday.
Proceedings will resume at 9am for brief comments by the Judge, and then the jury will be sent out to deliberate on the verdicts on all 14 charges.
Nine barristers and lawyers have been present for the prosecution case, while the Pine Gap Four have been unrepresented.
In her closing statement today, Ms Mulhearn stated "when peaceful protest doesn't work, further action is required. History shows this, my faith demands this, and my humanity requires it…Everything that I did that was lawful, didn't work. And then I went to Pine Gap. For a few hours the coordinates didn't get relayed, and the missiles didn't drop."
Justice Sally Thomas summed up: "This is a case that has evoked quite a great deal of emotion. Some of you may feel quite strongly that Australia should have no part in the war in Iraq… you may feel that as members of the Australian public we should know more about what is happening in Pine Gap - having feelings of sympathy or empathy or perhaps prejudice is a normal human reaction. However when it comes to deliberations in this matter I have to ask you to put aside your prejudices, sympathy or empathy and use your intellect to examine the facts of the case."
Tonight the group and supporters will hold a mock trial, where expert witness Professor Richard Tanter will discuss the evidence he was not able to presen during court proceedings.
EVENTS & INTERVIEWS:
Tonight: 13 June Mock Trial: with PROF. RICHARD TANTER
Professor Tanter was due as an expert witness on the nature of Pine Gap but was not granted leave to appear. He will present his evidence tonight in a public meeting.
Professor Tanter is a professorial fellow at the Nautilus Institute at RMIT University. He has widely published on intelligence and military issues in Australia, Japan and Indonesia.
Meeting Details
Wednesday 13 June, 7pm. Flynn Memorial Church Hall, Todd Mall, Alice Springs
Professor Tanter is also available for media comment.
INTERVIEWS with defendants can be arranged with sufficient notice. Photographs of defendants also available, including portraits (individual & group) & action pics of pre-inspection demonstrations.
For more information contact Jessica Morrison 0431 519 577
13 June, 8.30am
"Celebration and Solidarity" parade by supporters from Todd St Mall to Courthouse
13 June, 8.50am
– courthouse steps, Hartley St Alice Springs, Photo op with defendants
(photos available of all events on request)
Blood of Iraqis brought into court
Hiking boots stained with the blood of an Iraqi person were put before the jury in the final moments of the Pine Gap Four’s NT Supreme Court trial today.
In her closing address, defendant Donna Mulhearn asked the jury to consider the stained hiking boots she was wearing in court. She had worn them in an Iraqi marketplace, in the aftermath of a US missile.
"Now, in this court room, there is blood on my boots. Blood of a human being, that is there because of the targeting decisions made in Pine Gap," she told the jury. "I'm asking you to honour the memory of this person's blood.. for the sake of the truth, for the sake of your humanity, I'm asking that you find me not guilty."
Defendant Jim Dowling stated that at every stage the prosecution had attempted to cover up the truth. "The Commonwealth's hands are dripping with blood of the Iraqi people", he said.
The fate of the Pine Gap Four rests with a jury of their peers tonight following the conclusion of the Crown's case against them. Legal history will be created whatever their decision.
Attorney-General Philip Ruddock has charged the group under the virginal Defence (Special Undertakings) Act of 1952, with a sentence of up to seven years imprisonment. No legal precedent exists for this case.
On December 9th 2005 Bryan Law of Cairns, Jim Dowling and Adele Goldie of Brisbane and Donna Mulhearn of Sydney conducted a Citizen's Inspection at Pine Gap to spotlight the base's role in the Iraq war.
The defendants had planned to use sections 10.3, 10.4 and 10.5 of the Criminal Code (necessity, defence of others etc.) to legally justify their actions, but these were ruled inadmissable by Justice Sally Thomas yesterday.
Proceedings will resume at 9am for brief comments by the Judge, and then the jury will be sent out to deliberate on the verdicts on all 14 charges.
Nine barristers and lawyers have been present for the prosecution case, while the Pine Gap Four have been unrepresented.
In her closing statement today, Ms Mulhearn stated "when peaceful protest doesn't work, further action is required. History shows this, my faith demands this, and my humanity requires it…Everything that I did that was lawful, didn't work. And then I went to Pine Gap. For a few hours the coordinates didn't get relayed, and the missiles didn't drop."
Justice Sally Thomas summed up: "This is a case that has evoked quite a great deal of emotion. Some of you may feel quite strongly that Australia should have no part in the war in Iraq… you may feel that as members of the Australian public we should know more about what is happening in Pine Gap - having feelings of sympathy or empathy or perhaps prejudice is a normal human reaction. However when it comes to deliberations in this matter I have to ask you to put aside your prejudices, sympathy or empathy and use your intellect to examine the facts of the case."
Tonight the group and supporters will hold a mock trial, where expert witness Professor Richard Tanter will discuss the evidence he was not able to presen during court proceedings.
EVENTS & INTERVIEWS:
Tonight: 13 June Mock Trial: with PROF. RICHARD TANTER
Professor Tanter was due as an expert witness on the nature of Pine Gap but was not granted leave to appear. He will present his evidence tonight in a public meeting.
Professor Tanter is a professorial fellow at the Nautilus Institute at RMIT University. He has widely published on intelligence and military issues in Australia, Japan and Indonesia.
Meeting Details
Wednesday 13 June, 7pm. Flynn Memorial Church Hall, Todd Mall, Alice Springs
Professor Tanter is also available for media comment.
INTERVIEWS with defendants can be arranged with sufficient notice. Photographs of defendants also available, including portraits (individual & group) & action pics of pre-inspection demonstrations.
For more information contact Jessica Morrison 0431 519 577
13 June, 8.30am
"Celebration and Solidarity" parade by supporters from Todd St Mall to Courthouse
13 June, 8.50am
– courthouse steps, Hartley St Alice Springs, Photo op with defendants
(photos available of all events on request)
Court Day 11 - long version
Long blog today, afraid I’m too tired to edit it or even check my poor spelling! Thought it would be good to get it out there. I’ll also post our media release for a shorter version!
The summary is that the jury will go out just after 9am tomorrow to consider their verdict – so we may enjoy the freedom of the night!
Before proceedings began today, Mr Dembo, for the prosecution noted a banner hung over chairs in the court, that he thought would prove a distraction to the jury. The Judge stated that she could only see a strip of yellow, which seemed a non issue. While Mr Dembo stated he could also see a peace sign, the Judge didn’t think it was necessary to remove it. So today we were able to proudly sit around a traditional rainbow colored flag with the words PEACE and the peace sign displayed.
Then Donna made an application to the court -
“After legal advice we’ve all come to an agreement, that we’d like to make a formal application for a permanent stay of the trial…We believe that an objective observer of the trial would not see that Justice would be se to be done, for a number of factors including: the application of the Defence (Special Undertakings) Act; the public interest immunity ruling restricting critical evidence being presented; that the ruling on Parliamentary Privilege also restricting evidence; the restriction of expert witnesses that would have strengthened the case; and the lack of defences that are able to be presented to the jury.”
In reply Judge Sally Thomas stated “I note the application and the reasons for it…however the application is refused”.
The jury was then brought in, and the crown began its closing statement.
The crown detailed their argument, representing the defendants as flagrant law breakers - “It’s not for any of us to place ourselves above the law” he argued. “There are ways and means, sometimes they take a long time...for the due process to work”.
He stated “I’ll be asking you to take into account the relevant facts…this is not a parliament, it is not a bible school, and it is not a church, it is a court of law”. It was an insulting comment, it’s clear we all know that we are in the domain of the law, a fact that has been painfully obvious as the many rulings have gone against us, restricting severely the evidence that could be presented.
He implored the jury “You can’t go in there are say we’ll forget about what the Judge has said to you about the law”. Perhaps he would fears that anything other than the law may be significant to the jury. Later he implored them not to consider the result of the charges. He insulted Jim, by suggesting that by wearing a t-shirt with an Iraqi mother and her child, and then weeping as he holds up the photo – that he was being inconsistent.
“You’re not dealing with violent offenders here…but you cannot take into account any sympathies you may have…neither can you take prejudices into account…you can only take into account is the evidence, not emotion…I will suggest that all they have put to you is emotional information”.
“Please remember that these accused persons knew in advance…they thumbed their noses at the law…”
As I was sitting hearing Mr Dembo go on, I was struck by what might a different case look like. If it was Mr Bush’s decision to go to war in Iraq that was on trial – and the court of law being presented evidence about whether he was guilty or not guilty of war crimes, much more severe crimes in the scheme of things.
Bryan’s concluding
Bryan in his closing stated “I am not going to be part of an adversarial system. I have no enemies in this court. He quoted from Dr King “the choice is no longer between violence and non-violence. The choice is between non-violence and non-resistance.” He cited the experience of his father in fighting in the Second World War, who was so depressed who attempted suicide. He also quoted Jefferson, that citizens must engage in their democracies or that parliamentarian will rule the day.
“I’m proud of what I did. I proud that I took whatever action I took to address the situation.”
“Our act was a simple act. Of four ordinary people. And we can see around us how seriously this action is being taken. Mr Dembo rightly pointed out the futility of writing letters to politicians who will not hear…We have seen a procession of lawyers who are here to protect the interests of the Commonwealth…one of the key interests of the Commonwealth in this instance, is that we should not disclose what happens at Pine Gap. Because I think Australians are thinking people, and if they know what happens at Pine Gap they will also be……(?)
I think the person with the hardest job in this court, is Mr Dembo. I’d like to thank Mr Dembo for all the efforts he has made to put his case.
I just want to say that I’d really like to be acquitted. I don’t look forward to the penalty I might face, I don’t look forward to time in prison.” He recalled that he spent a month in prison for speaking in public during the Beilkie Peterson(sp???)years, and that he was since found justified. “I have a life worth living because I stick to the principles that I hold…if that requires me to serve a prison sentence, then that’s O.K… what’s important to me is that you uphold your conscience.
Jim stated:
“We have tried to tell the truth at all times, the truth as we see it, as we believe it” “While we tried to tell the truth, it’s probably obvious to everyone that the prosecution…have tried to cover up an enormous amount of the truth…”. He recounted how it was Bryan’s question to Mr Burgess about whether Pine Gap was involved in the war fighting in Iraq that caused an objection and almost two days of legal argument. He said “the Commonwealth’s hands are dripping with blood of the Iraqi people”.
He also talked about Raytheon and the unclear evidence about the timing of the alarms and the costs to the damage of the fence. “he whole alarm system is a farce, as is the Raytheon corporation who have been convicted of defrauding the government in the US…the evidence is that not only that we disclosed that Pine Gap is involved in providing intelligence that has….killed thousands of people in Iraq.”
“The Pine gap facility has caused millions of dollars of damage in Iraq…we cut through fences not to damage property but to save property….if I cut through a fuse of a bomb left over from the second world war, I wouldn’t be charged with damage to property.”
“I’d like to invite you to join us non supporting mass murder…and finding us not guilty.”
Adele:
“I agree with Mr Dembo that I’m not above the law. Mr Dembo seems to think that international law is not relevant and should be ignored…without these laws, citizens have no protection against government. Where, like in this case, the Government ……The Nuremberg principles are not to be ignored, civil disobedience have given us many of the freedoms that we enjoy today.” She was interrupted in her statement by the Judge indicating she has already ruled that that defence should not be withheld.
Donna:
“Despite having no legal training like you, I know what’s right or wrong.” She opened.
She said that her position is “that when peaceful protest doesn’t work, further action is required. History shows this, my faith demands this, and my humanity requires it…Everything that I did that was lawful, didn’t work. And then I went to Pine Gap. For a few hours the coordinates didn’t get relayed, and the missiles didn’t drop.”
“I’m asking you to decide using your conscience.
Donna indicated that she was wearing the boots she was wearing in the market place, the day that a bomb had dropped. She said “now in this court room, there is blood on my boots. Blood of a human being, that is there because of the targeting decision made in Pine Gap. I’m asking you to honour the memory of the person’s blood that is on my boots…for the sake of the truth, for the sake of your humanity. I’m asking you to exercises your right as a human being, to make the decision that you believe is right. I’m asking that you find me not guilty.”
Judge Sally Thomas’s concluding comments:
At 11.55 the case finished at the Judge began her directions. She indicated to the jury that their job is to make decisions regarding fact, based on the evidence they have before them. She indicated that her role is to preside over the trial, and make rulings in regard to points of law. She indicated that quite a period of time has been spent during this trial on legal argument, particularly in regard to which evidence was admissible.
She indicated however that law is non-negotiable. “You might feel you do not agree with the law, I may feel that I don’t agree with the law, but the fact is that this is what is binding on all of us.”
“This is a case that has evoked quite a great deal of emotion…some of you may feel quite strongly that Australia should have no part in the war in Iraq…you may feel that as members of the Australian public we should know more about what is happening in Pine Gap…having feelings of sympathy or empathy or perhaps prejudice is a normal human reaction. However when it comes to deliberations in this matter I have to ask you to put aside your prejudices, sympathy or empathy and use your intellect to examine the facts of the case.”
She mentioned that she has been called upon to make some rulings about what is admissible.
…It is not appropriate to speculate about what you could not hear…the reality of the court process and this trial, there are some matters that I have made rulings that some evidence is not appropriate for this trial”
“You heard a lot of information from the defendants about the defences that they were relying on, and then I ruled that these defences were not open to them.” These included the necessity in ceasing an emergency, self defence/defence of law, and the Nuremberg principles. “they have been ruled out as defences … do not justify breaking the law
“it an unusual case you have been hearing because of the extensive admissions that each of defendants have made in relation to the charges…however the defendants have entered a plea of not guilty to each of the charges…
Then we for the first time got to hear the voice of Mr Dembo’s junior counsel, Ms Cooper. There were then significant submissions made by the prosecution in regard to the Judges’ written statement to the jury (ie. Asking for wording changes, which she won!).
After lunch, Judge Thomas began her legal direction to the jury. She noted “the elements that the crown needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt before you return a guilty verdict” for each of the four for each of the charges (14 in total) and “if you are not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the crown has not proved all these elements of the offence then you should return a verdict of not-guilty”.
I’m now going to take you to some of the evidence that you’ve heard in these proceedings, and a summary of the elements of the case as presented at the conclusion:
• Exhibit P1: admissions of defendants, which the crown does not have to prove. The exception here is that Dowling, Goldie & Mulhearn stated that they don’t believe that the Commonwealth owns the land. She noted the evidence that the crown presented towards the assertion that the Commonwealth owns the land. She also indicated law that says the fence belongs to the owner of the property
• Exhibit P2: series of correspondence between Mr Law and Minister.
• Mr Burgess: Deputy Chief of Facility, and Officer in charge of the facility. He began work after the date of the offence,
• Oops tuned out for a while….
• Ruling regarding account for fence repairs: “you do not have to find any findings about what the cost of the damage might have been. You just need to indicate whether there is any damage to the fences at all”.
• Lots of restating of facts re-stated, very hard to stay tuned in…..
“You’ll be aware from the evidence that it was Mr Law and Mr Dowling have used the bolt cutters. The reason Ms Goldie and Ms Mulhearn are charged with this offence also is with the legal principle of “conspiracy for a current purpose”.
She stated that in view of her ruling that the defences that they referred to are not admissible, it is probably not appropriate for the jury to consult these exhibits.
The summary is that the jury will go out just after 9am tomorrow to consider their verdict – so we may enjoy the freedom of the night!
Before proceedings began today, Mr Dembo, for the prosecution noted a banner hung over chairs in the court, that he thought would prove a distraction to the jury. The Judge stated that she could only see a strip of yellow, which seemed a non issue. While Mr Dembo stated he could also see a peace sign, the Judge didn’t think it was necessary to remove it. So today we were able to proudly sit around a traditional rainbow colored flag with the words PEACE and the peace sign displayed.
Then Donna made an application to the court -
“After legal advice we’ve all come to an agreement, that we’d like to make a formal application for a permanent stay of the trial…We believe that an objective observer of the trial would not see that Justice would be se to be done, for a number of factors including: the application of the Defence (Special Undertakings) Act; the public interest immunity ruling restricting critical evidence being presented; that the ruling on Parliamentary Privilege also restricting evidence; the restriction of expert witnesses that would have strengthened the case; and the lack of defences that are able to be presented to the jury.”
In reply Judge Sally Thomas stated “I note the application and the reasons for it…however the application is refused”.
The jury was then brought in, and the crown began its closing statement.
The crown detailed their argument, representing the defendants as flagrant law breakers - “It’s not for any of us to place ourselves above the law” he argued. “There are ways and means, sometimes they take a long time...for the due process to work”.
He stated “I’ll be asking you to take into account the relevant facts…this is not a parliament, it is not a bible school, and it is not a church, it is a court of law”. It was an insulting comment, it’s clear we all know that we are in the domain of the law, a fact that has been painfully obvious as the many rulings have gone against us, restricting severely the evidence that could be presented.
He implored the jury “You can’t go in there are say we’ll forget about what the Judge has said to you about the law”. Perhaps he would fears that anything other than the law may be significant to the jury. Later he implored them not to consider the result of the charges. He insulted Jim, by suggesting that by wearing a t-shirt with an Iraqi mother and her child, and then weeping as he holds up the photo – that he was being inconsistent.
“You’re not dealing with violent offenders here…but you cannot take into account any sympathies you may have…neither can you take prejudices into account…you can only take into account is the evidence, not emotion…I will suggest that all they have put to you is emotional information”.
“Please remember that these accused persons knew in advance…they thumbed their noses at the law…”
As I was sitting hearing Mr Dembo go on, I was struck by what might a different case look like. If it was Mr Bush’s decision to go to war in Iraq that was on trial – and the court of law being presented evidence about whether he was guilty or not guilty of war crimes, much more severe crimes in the scheme of things.
Bryan’s concluding
Bryan in his closing stated “I am not going to be part of an adversarial system. I have no enemies in this court. He quoted from Dr King “the choice is no longer between violence and non-violence. The choice is between non-violence and non-resistance.” He cited the experience of his father in fighting in the Second World War, who was so depressed who attempted suicide. He also quoted Jefferson, that citizens must engage in their democracies or that parliamentarian will rule the day.
“I’m proud of what I did. I proud that I took whatever action I took to address the situation.”
“Our act was a simple act. Of four ordinary people. And we can see around us how seriously this action is being taken. Mr Dembo rightly pointed out the futility of writing letters to politicians who will not hear…We have seen a procession of lawyers who are here to protect the interests of the Commonwealth…one of the key interests of the Commonwealth in this instance, is that we should not disclose what happens at Pine Gap. Because I think Australians are thinking people, and if they know what happens at Pine Gap they will also be……(?)
I think the person with the hardest job in this court, is Mr Dembo. I’d like to thank Mr Dembo for all the efforts he has made to put his case.
I just want to say that I’d really like to be acquitted. I don’t look forward to the penalty I might face, I don’t look forward to time in prison.” He recalled that he spent a month in prison for speaking in public during the Beilkie Peterson(sp???)years, and that he was since found justified. “I have a life worth living because I stick to the principles that I hold…if that requires me to serve a prison sentence, then that’s O.K… what’s important to me is that you uphold your conscience.
Jim stated:
“We have tried to tell the truth at all times, the truth as we see it, as we believe it” “While we tried to tell the truth, it’s probably obvious to everyone that the prosecution…have tried to cover up an enormous amount of the truth…”. He recounted how it was Bryan’s question to Mr Burgess about whether Pine Gap was involved in the war fighting in Iraq that caused an objection and almost two days of legal argument. He said “the Commonwealth’s hands are dripping with blood of the Iraqi people”.
He also talked about Raytheon and the unclear evidence about the timing of the alarms and the costs to the damage of the fence. “he whole alarm system is a farce, as is the Raytheon corporation who have been convicted of defrauding the government in the US…the evidence is that not only that we disclosed that Pine Gap is involved in providing intelligence that has….killed thousands of people in Iraq.”
“The Pine gap facility has caused millions of dollars of damage in Iraq…we cut through fences not to damage property but to save property….if I cut through a fuse of a bomb left over from the second world war, I wouldn’t be charged with damage to property.”
“I’d like to invite you to join us non supporting mass murder…and finding us not guilty.”
Adele:
“I agree with Mr Dembo that I’m not above the law. Mr Dembo seems to think that international law is not relevant and should be ignored…without these laws, citizens have no protection against government. Where, like in this case, the Government ……The Nuremberg principles are not to be ignored, civil disobedience have given us many of the freedoms that we enjoy today.” She was interrupted in her statement by the Judge indicating she has already ruled that that defence should not be withheld.
Donna:
“Despite having no legal training like you, I know what’s right or wrong.” She opened.
She said that her position is “that when peaceful protest doesn’t work, further action is required. History shows this, my faith demands this, and my humanity requires it…Everything that I did that was lawful, didn’t work. And then I went to Pine Gap. For a few hours the coordinates didn’t get relayed, and the missiles didn’t drop.”
“I’m asking you to decide using your conscience.
Donna indicated that she was wearing the boots she was wearing in the market place, the day that a bomb had dropped. She said “now in this court room, there is blood on my boots. Blood of a human being, that is there because of the targeting decision made in Pine Gap. I’m asking you to honour the memory of the person’s blood that is on my boots…for the sake of the truth, for the sake of your humanity. I’m asking you to exercises your right as a human being, to make the decision that you believe is right. I’m asking that you find me not guilty.”
Judge Sally Thomas’s concluding comments:
At 11.55 the case finished at the Judge began her directions. She indicated to the jury that their job is to make decisions regarding fact, based on the evidence they have before them. She indicated that her role is to preside over the trial, and make rulings in regard to points of law. She indicated that quite a period of time has been spent during this trial on legal argument, particularly in regard to which evidence was admissible.
She indicated however that law is non-negotiable. “You might feel you do not agree with the law, I may feel that I don’t agree with the law, but the fact is that this is what is binding on all of us.”
“This is a case that has evoked quite a great deal of emotion…some of you may feel quite strongly that Australia should have no part in the war in Iraq…you may feel that as members of the Australian public we should know more about what is happening in Pine Gap…having feelings of sympathy or empathy or perhaps prejudice is a normal human reaction. However when it comes to deliberations in this matter I have to ask you to put aside your prejudices, sympathy or empathy and use your intellect to examine the facts of the case.”
She mentioned that she has been called upon to make some rulings about what is admissible.
…It is not appropriate to speculate about what you could not hear…the reality of the court process and this trial, there are some matters that I have made rulings that some evidence is not appropriate for this trial”
“You heard a lot of information from the defendants about the defences that they were relying on, and then I ruled that these defences were not open to them.” These included the necessity in ceasing an emergency, self defence/defence of law, and the Nuremberg principles. “they have been ruled out as defences … do not justify breaking the law
“it an unusual case you have been hearing because of the extensive admissions that each of defendants have made in relation to the charges…however the defendants have entered a plea of not guilty to each of the charges…
Then we for the first time got to hear the voice of Mr Dembo’s junior counsel, Ms Cooper. There were then significant submissions made by the prosecution in regard to the Judges’ written statement to the jury (ie. Asking for wording changes, which she won!).
After lunch, Judge Thomas began her legal direction to the jury. She noted “the elements that the crown needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt before you return a guilty verdict” for each of the four for each of the charges (14 in total) and “if you are not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the crown has not proved all these elements of the offence then you should return a verdict of not-guilty”.
I’m now going to take you to some of the evidence that you’ve heard in these proceedings, and a summary of the elements of the case as presented at the conclusion:
• Exhibit P1: admissions of defendants, which the crown does not have to prove. The exception here is that Dowling, Goldie & Mulhearn stated that they don’t believe that the Commonwealth owns the land. She noted the evidence that the crown presented towards the assertion that the Commonwealth owns the land. She also indicated law that says the fence belongs to the owner of the property
• Exhibit P2: series of correspondence between Mr Law and Minister.
• Mr Burgess: Deputy Chief of Facility, and Officer in charge of the facility. He began work after the date of the offence,
• Oops tuned out for a while….
• Ruling regarding account for fence repairs: “you do not have to find any findings about what the cost of the damage might have been. You just need to indicate whether there is any damage to the fences at all”.
• Lots of restating of facts re-stated, very hard to stay tuned in…..
“You’ll be aware from the evidence that it was Mr Law and Mr Dowling have used the bolt cutters. The reason Ms Goldie and Ms Mulhearn are charged with this offence also is with the legal principle of “conspiracy for a current purpose”.
She stated that in view of her ruling that the defences that they referred to are not admissible, it is probably not appropriate for the jury to consult these exhibits.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
