Supreme Court of Tasmania
by Mary W Maxwell, PhD, LLB
Keith Noble has been featured at Gumshoe in his capacity as complainer about the way NewsCorp slandered the middle-age prisoner Martin Bryant in 2015. Noble is an Aussie who has lived in Germany and Austria for many years. He is the most keyed-up person among us all, in regard to the injustice that is still being done regarding the 1996 Port Arthur massacre.
In fact Keith Noble writes to me frequently to tell me to get on the ball. So, in this article, I present for your inspection, Keith’s “Barristerial Initiative” as he calls it. He obviously got nowhere with NewsCorp, or even with the Australian Press Council, in regard to the aforementioned slander. So now he asks himself: Who else is in a position of responsibility for the legal system of Tassie? HOW ABOUT THE BARRISTERS?
He chose (not exactly at random, as will be explained below) one of the 43 members of the Tasmanian Bar, several of who are silken. Keith’s choice, Cameron Scott, does not yet sport the letters QC or SC, but if only he would jump on the case he may yet get that glory. In a letter from Keith Noble, which was CC’d to all the barristers, we read:
Dear Cameron SCOTT,
You are the only one whose listing on the Tasmanian Bar website is accompanied by a formal image – that is, an image of the listee wearing formal court dress of gown, jabot, and wig. This is the professional image you and your fellow barristers like to promote. Barristers — Officers of the Court — professional-looking, there in the courts ethically defending your clients. But really, Cameron, can you tell me which barrister in Tasmania fought for Martin Bryant?
Aaaaah, you might say. He pleaded guilty so there was NO TRIAL. But your colleague John Avery rammed his guilty plea down poor Martin’s throat — after Martin had been kept in isolation for over six months during which he was tormented until he was broken. Martin always said he was NOT GUILTY, until they broke him.
Now Cameron, do you really think a mentally incompetent boy-man with an IQ of 66 knew what was really going on, and what all the legal implications were for him? Do you believe that the criminal of a lawyer John Avery did the right thing for his client?
Is what Avery did to Martin Bryant what you would have done? Avery said he had nothing to work with — he had no exculpatory evidence he said. This is pure bullshit. Have you ever studied all the witness statements? Exculpatory evidence screams out.
So back in 1996, the legal system had Martin Bryant strapped down painfully on his 3rd-degree burns (Ray Groom was pleased with this appalling cruelty; see MASS MURDER: p. 8), and the total sham of a legal process (it sure was NOT justice) was beginning to unfold.
But, Cameron, no barrister ever fought for Martin Bryant. NOT ONE. He was abandoned: first to Debra Rigby; then to David Gunson; then to John Avery. All the barristers in Tasmania let the buggerizing go on. Then they let the judge, William Cox (another barrister), sentence innocent Martin to a protracted death by torture.
Again, Cameron, not one barrister spoke up for the truth, for a trial, for a mentally-handicapped person. NOT ONE. In her excellent paper Defending the Unpopular Down-Under (30 Melb. U.L. Rev. 495-553; 2006), Abbe Smith, who studied criminal defence lawyers in Australia, quotes these words from a NSW barrister (Phillip Boulten) on p. 503:
“There is a growing recognition that judges and lawyers are the last bastion…against those who would take away peoples’ rights and liberties.”
Not one of your mates spoke up, Cameron. They let a boy-man down in 1996, and to this day all of you are letting him down and letting his family SUFFER IN HELL. And added to this of course, none of the families, relatives, and friends of all the Port Arthur victims have ever been told the whole truth and served justice. No barrister in Tasmania has ever spoken up for them either.
Well, Barristers of Australia, you can see that it doesn’t pay to have your photo published, wearing a wig. At least not while Keith Noble is on the loose!
The M Word
As I did not grow up in Australia, I had not heard the epithet ‘mongrel.’ To me it means only a mixed breed, especially of dog. Were I to call you a mongrel, I would mean something like “You are not pedigree material.” Or “You were found on the streets.”
I still can’t quite pick up on what Keith means when he uses the word mongrel. (Cherri Boney uses it, too and she is genteel.) But I told Keith if I am to republish his stuff in Gumshoe. I’ll have to reduce it to “M.” Call this censorship if you like, but we do have our standards of decorum here.
So I now proceed with a further excerpt from Keith’s barristerial initiative:
Even though you and all your barristerial colleagues are Officers of the Court, not one of you has said a censuring word about News Corp Australia publicly inciting hatred and the killing — “burn him alive,” “injection soon,” “kill him” — of Martin Bryant. You are all “M’s”, just like Avery, Bugg, and Cox. Your callous and criminal silence supports News Corp Australia — it aids and abets HATRED and KILLING.
On the Tasmanian Bar website, Cameron, your primary area of professional interest/practice is listed as Criminal Law. So do you not see a crime right there in front of you? Right in front of your own eyes? Of course you do. Why have you not spoken out about it?
Since my email of 21 DEC 2015, many people have contacted me. Will leave you with some of their comments to reflect on over the New Year weekend:
“I spent considerable time with some big players in jail and what they told me made me cringe. From top to bottom – coppers, judges, lawyers, bankers – all in it together.”
“Our whole Australian legal and political system is a corrupt monster that has sold its soul to the New World Order. Lawyers, judges and magistrates wonder why the people have lost all respect and trust in them.”
“Well Keith, that’s calling them out! I wonder what they are saying when they discuss your message and the information. I’m sure there will be a few that would be on side, but they are probably ‘gutless’ as you say and simply choose to ignore the reality. Pathetic, just pathetic.” (That was from a barrister)
“…there are lots out there who know that the official spin isn’t the correct one…there are a lot of big heads that would roll if the truth were to be proclaimed from the hill tops or if an enquiry could be held which revealed all the nasty secrets that have been hidden for near on 20 years…. Oz is fast becoming a totalitarian state.”
“To add a little, JOHN WINSTON HOWARD, RAY GROOM and TONY RUNDLE all know who did it, and how the massacre at Port Arthur was perpetrated, and they should stand trial along with all the others who were involved, including the shooters they hired…justice denied anywhere is justice denied everywhere. The truth will always out.”
[original capitals; original italics]
The Blame Game
We ought to let Keith have his day in court. I mean we ought to pause to ponder his proclamation that all members of the Tasmanian Bar are responsible for the carrying out of justice in their territory.
I must say, it had never occurred to me, not one little bit. I did take the Ethics course in law school (University of Adelaide) but the problems we worked on had to do with such things as conflict of interest between the solicitor and her client. I do recall being told that each solicitor or barrister is an Officer of the Court, but no one drummed into me that I should look further than my own cases.
So, should we now run to a textbook to find is the real, true, precedent-based jurisprudence on the role of the lawyer? I don’t recommend it. Keith Noble, son of Oz, is coming from the citizenry. He is an owner of the courts. Society in general, not legal textbook writers, owns the courts and the whole law enforcement system. If Keith has something new to contribute, we should listen.
This sort of thing reminds me of the hypothesis by neuroscientist Antonio Damasio that human culture is a contributor to homeostasis. Damasio notes that some animals have a way to do “quorum sensing.” That is, individuals, even in invertebrate species – can perceive how many of their number are ready to make a move, and so they move. I see Keith’s anger as a cultural indicator that people are ready to make a move on the Martin Bryant case.
Wishful Thinking and How To Engender Its Realization
Granted, my ‘belief’ that it’s go-go-go regarding Port Arthur is to some extent wishful thinking on my part. Gumshoe has celebrated the achievement by which Ms Bonney’s Petition to the Premier won 1,000 signatures (and it has since climbed to over 1,225).
And often at Gumshoe, Commenters say their piece about Bryant (sometimes in articles that are not even related to the Bryant case). But to get a groundswell we need more effort.
In the video below I tried to psychologize. I claimed that what we need is the picture of a victory ahead – expressed as a victory behind. Think of the phrase “Nothing succeeds like success.”
Well, frankly it isn’t just wishful thinking. I think the evidence is in. Don’t forget, Keith Noble, of M-word fame, is the editor of a huge tome of material to undo the case against Bryant. It is a free download entitled “Mass Murder.”
And I say, moreover, we ought to stop talking about the person who was convicted of those 35 killings and start asking Whodunnit?
— Mary W Maxwell has authored a series on Port Arthur at GumshoeNews.com. Her most recent article “A Boxing Day Pressie for Carleen Bryant” was published at Rumor Mill News. It can also be found at the Change.org website which houses the big petition.