This grand is currently on E-bay in the US for only $1200
If you google for “The Queen v Bryant” you will get this:
IN THE CRIMINAL SITTINGS [I’ll say!] OF THE SUPREME COURT HELD AT NUMBER 7 COURT, SALAMANCA PLACE, HOBART, BEFORE HIS HONOUR THE CHIEF JUSTICE [William Cox, later Sir William], ON TUESDAY THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1996
THE QUEEN v. MARTIN BRYANT
Appearances: MR. D. BUGG Q.C. and MR. N. PERKS for the Crown MR. J. AVERY for [really, for??] the Accused.
BUGG Q.C. (Stating facts): Your Honour, Martin Bryant has pleaded guilty to all counts in the indictment which was filed in this Court on the 5th of July.
Mr Bugg says:
On the 28th of April of this year he travelled to Port Arthur. He drove there in his Volvo sedan which at the time had a surfboard placed on the roof racks on top of the car [which is indeed where roof racks tend to be. Are we padding here?].
The Crown’s case is that at the outset of that journey he intended at least some form of violent confrontation with Mr. and Mrs. Martin of the Seascape tourist accommodation facility at Port Arthur and in all probability [probability according to what measure of probability?] his intentions also extended to actions which had the devastating impact on the community and the people of Port Arthur on that day.
[Note: Agreed. Someone’s intentions extended to actions that had a devastating impact on the community].
I say this because on the Crown case he had made preparations which were inconsistent with his normal behaviour. He behaved deceptively to those close to him, as to his possession and use of firearms. They were concealed in his house in the body of two pianos and elsewhere within the house out of view of visitors to that property. [Emphasis added]
I have news for Mr Bugg: It does not pay to make up implausible things like that. As readers may recall from the late 2015 Gumshoe interview with Cherri Bonney, the interviewer asked her how she got into all this (and believe me she has got into all this).
Cherri replied that, as a musician, she tuned up when the radio newsman said Martin had hidden his guns in the piano. Actually the way she heard it was “21 guns in a white piano,” but as we see from the DPP’s more sober phrase it was just a matter of “firearms…concealed… in the body of two pianos.”
Continuing with Statement of Facts [sic] — and I am not usually one to write “sic” on anything — Mr Bugg says:
His acts of preparation included buying a sports bag to conceal one of his weapons, he took handcuffs with him, rope and a hunting knife and three semi-automatic weapons and a significant quantity of ammunition.
He told some people he met on the way that he was going surfing at Roaring Beach but on one occasion he let his guard slip and I will tell your Honour about that later. [Gimme a clue now! I can’t stand suspense.] [Emphasis added]
Note: in preparing for the Adelaide Fringe, when Bryant’s “new lawyer” Anna Blue learned that Bugg had mentioned handcuffs, she went to Stewart Beattie’s book and learned that Mr Bugg had never entered any handcuffs into evidence and thus he is not allowed to refer to them. (I make a guess here that Beattie learned that important legal point from Barrister Terry Shulze.)
[Bryant] followed through a series of actions which culminated in a hostage and siege situation which had an air of pre-planning [very likely for 9 years or more, and which had that special “Soros” touch]. He clearly intended to embark upon violence and murderous conduct of the type to which he has pleaded guilty.
Well, the whole point of the Moot Court trial was that Bryant did not plead guilty in any recognizable sense of that word. He was massively tricked out of getting a trial by the finagling of his defense lawyer, John Avery.
Maybe Martin was also given drugs or threats or whatever to make him say the word GUIL-TY but our Moot did not traffic in conspiracy stuff. It is enough that the law was not followed: An accused is entitled to adequate counsel. Period.
Bryant at the time, lived comfortably in the sense that he didn’t have any money worries but I will cover that in more detail later. His lifestyle was different and his behaviour, in the eyes of many, inappropriate [so is yours, Toots].
He owned and drove a motor vehicle but did not possess a driver’s licence. … A search of his house at Clare street after the shootings at Port Arthur revealed that he had hidden the firearms in the house and had other weapons and ammunition concealed there in such a way that his girlfriend and other visitors would not be able to locate them [meaning, no doubt that he kept a couple of shoulder-held surface-to-air missiles in a flute].
He was obviously stockpiling those weapons and ammunition which had a disturbing killing efficiency. That he was planning or considering a significant violent act or series of acts culminating in his conduct in late April 1996 is best illustrated by his conduct at gun shops in Hobart in the short period of time leading up to this incident.
At this point, in our show, Anna Blue read out the threatening letter sent to gun dealer Terry Hill. Of course she deemed this to be the crime of witness tampering. Also as it was signed by a solicitor who was at that point working for the DPP. To spell his name backwards it is Yreva. Anna had the feeling this was not kosher.
In stating the facts to you I will cover those events leading up to the first fatal shootings on the 28th of April and through to the shooting of Mrs. Mikac and her two daughters on Jetty Road at Port Arthur.
My junior, Mr. Perks, will then deal with Bryant’s actions from the Toll Booth at Port Arthur through to the siege and his arrest at Seascape the next morning. He will also cover the police interview of Bryant in early July, 1996, the video film of which will be played to the Court.
See? They did have the video. So how can they say it was lost? Or maybe they got it, as we did, from Mike Willessee.
Mr Bugg continues:
At the conclusion of the playing of that film I will then provide background information on Bryant detailing information in my possession and expert opinion obtained by my office which I will be submitting to assist your Honour in the sentencing process.
Before proceeding further and in fairness to Bryant and his counsel [not clear what being fair to his counsel would mean in this particular setting] I consider that it is proper that I inform your Honour as to the Crown’s position concerning sentence.
The Crown in this State [what really is a Crown? Is it the independent DPP?] is authorised to make submission on sentencing pursuant to Section 386, sub-Sections 11 and 12 on the Criminal Code …
— I will … be submitting that in relation to the counts of murder to which he has pleaded guilty [see above] the sentence of life imprisonment is the only appropriate sentence on those convictions and that your Honour’s discretion under The Parole Act [not to mention your Honour’s discretion in regard to protecting the actual guilty parties] should be exercised by orders under Section 12B (a) that he is not eligible for parole in respect of that sentence.
And there he sits to this very day. April marks 21 years of Mr Bryant’s incarceration.
Enough is enough, eh?
Mary W Maxwelll and Dee McLachlan are co-authors of Port Arthur: Enough Is Enough, a free download at GumshoeNews.com.