Taking steps towards justice
by Dee McLachlan
Gumshoe News was started in 2013 as a counterweight to the mainstream media deception. And now, two years on, contributors and commenters are together analysing and collaborating how truth and the law is being, and has been, subverted. Many are providing solutions to some of these atrocities.
I had not much knowledge of the Port Arthur massacre as I was not living in Australia at the time (1996). It is only recently that I’ve come to see its importance as Australia’s 9/11 moment.
Mary Maxwell is always providing us with insights as to how those “in charge” of the law sometimes deviate from the law for a particular outcome. In fact she has suggested that if there is evidence in that regard, then they are being “directed” to subvert justice.
It thus occurred to me recently: there has been no criminal trial, why not start a civil suit for damages.
My knowledge of the law is limited. One hears that Perpetual Trustees have been Martin’s guardian since approximately 1994, and that the reason he got a guardian had mainly to do with money he inherited. Martin had worked for, and been good friends with, an older woman named Helen Harvey; she died in 1993. His allegedly low IQ must also have been a factor.
One would assume that his guardian (whoever that is) should have been looking after him after he was “taken in.” And, if they claim he is intellectually “handicapped”, surely his guardian should have been present when he was questioned by police after the massacre.
I do not know if Perpetual Trustees are still his sole guardian, or if Risdon prison or some government office also has guardianship over him.
Thus, why not make an application to be his guardian? (I assume Martin’s mother Carleen Bryant does not feel that she can do it.)
The ideal person is someone who would walk Martin through whatever steps remain for him to get a fair trial – and freedom. Note: Mary Maxwell has pointed out to me that a Pardon may be the quickest way to get him out of jail.
Now I quote what is found on the website of the Guardianship Board of Tasmania:
Anyone who has a genuine concern for the welfare of a person with a decision-making disability can make an application to the Board. It is strongly recommended that you contact the Board’s office on (03) 6165 7500.
When you contact the Board’s office, an officer of the Board will discuss the issues with you and advise on whether a formal application is the appropriate course or if other less restrictive alternatives should be pursued.
The Guardianship and Administration Act clearly sets out the principles that must be observed when orders or other decisions are made.
The Board must take into account these principles (set out in section 6 of the Act) when considering any matter that comes before it.
The three major principles are –
A function or power conferred, or duty imposed, by this Act is to be performed so that:
- the means which is the least restrictive of a person’s freedom of decision and action as is possible in the circumstances is adopted
- the best interests of a person with a disability or in respect of whom an application is made under this Act are promoted
- the wishes of a person with a disability or in respect of whom an application is made under this Act are, if possible, carried into effect
Board decisions remain in place for a maximum of three years and will then be reviewed. If major changes occur which may affect the decision made by the Board then an application for review may be made prior to the scheduled review date.
If you feel that the Board should conduct a review then you should contact the Board’s office.
Generally speaking, every citizen starts out with the right not to have a guardian at all. Even if he does have one, he can apply to stop having one. Of course I am not suggesting here that Marin Bryant do that. We have no idea what his mental state is like these days.
If a person applies today to become his guardian, the Tasmanian Guardianship Board must tell that to Martin and give him a chance to attend a hearing. I presume they will be obliged to inform him by law? And almost certainly such a hearing would be held onsite at Risdon.
The following is but a sketch of some of the legal things a guardian of Martin Bryant could do:
- sue the Murdoch Press for libeling him in 2015, and determine who snapped the unflattering photos of him in September
- find out why he is forbidden to have visitors
- ask the judiciary of Tasmania to revisit the ruling
- ascertain what has happened to his inheritance