by Mary W Maxwell, LLB
In this article I present the bare-bones of a lawsuit that Bryant could conceivably file, having to do with injuries he received just before he was arrested. He had spent the night in a cottage called “Seascape,” and in the morning it burst into flames. Although he was accused of having set that fire, that is a foolish charge. He ran out with his back aflame.
Claim for Personal Injury in a Fire
For: The Supreme Court of Tasmania
Martin Bryant, plaintiff. v John Doe, defendant
Civil Case number: ___________
I. The Parties
- The plaintiff — P — is Martin Bryant, born May, 1967, resident at Risdon Prison.
- The defendant — D — is John Doe, an officer in the Tasmanian Police Department, resident in Tasmania, age: over 50. His real name can be provided to the court. He is being sued in his personal capacity.
II. Statute of Limitations
- The injury in this case occurred on April 28, 1996, thus it may be out of time for filing a civil action.
- P seeks an extension of the statute of limitations deadline based on the fact that he did not know until now that he could sue.
- P was unable to learn about suing as he has no helpers.
- P lacks an attorney, and is mentally challenged.
III. The Status of Guardianship
- P once had a guardian, Perpetual Trustees, appointed without his knowledge or say-so.
- P does not know if Perpetual Trustees is still his guardian.
- P thinks Perpetual Trustees got appointed to look after his money but he no longer has money.
- If P does have a guardian he does not want that guardian to appoint an attorney for him without his say-so.
IV. Facts
- On April 28, 1996, P found himself in the Seascape Cottage around 1:05pm. Before going there he visited an old man, Roger Larner outside his home.
- Larner gave a statement to police (Exhibit 1). That statement says “I recognized him to be a person I have known for about 15 years, and that is Martin BRYANT.”
- P had left his house in Newtown around 11:00am that day and did some surfing at Roaring Beach before visiting Roger Larner.
- The car P drove was a yellow Volvo and had the surfboard on its roof.
- After visiting Roger Larner, P also attempted to visit Sally and David Martin at their B&B which is called Seascape cottage. As P reported to police when he was interviewed in prison on July 4, 1996, he had knocked on their door but the Martins were not home.
- P is not sure how he got into their house but does believe that after his stint at roaring beach, he may have attempted to kidnap someone.
- It has been suggested recently that P was somehow mind-controlled at that moment. After all, for P to kidnap someone is way beyond his skill or desire.
- The driver was driving a BMW – could it possibly be that P saw a chance to take possession of such a nice car? It seems unlikely, but P thinks it’s possible.
- P told the police, at the aforementioned July 4 interview, that driver of the BMW had a wife and small child in the car. P says he waved his gun at them and told the driver to get out and to climb into the boot of his car.
- P then allegedly drove away in the BMW with the man in the boot., leaving the lady and the child, about 3 years old, to fend for themselves.
- The next thing P recalls is that he was inside Seascape cottage. P was later told that the BMW was burnt on the lawn of Seascape but he doesn’t know anything about that.
- Around 6pm at Seascape, P was in a phone call with a police negotiator named Sgt Terry McCarthy who phoned from an office in Hobart. There is a tape of that phone call; it has been broadcast to the public.
- During that conversation, and several more conversations that evening with Sgt McCarthy, P seemed to be reading a part that had been given to him by Rick. In other words, the conversation with McCarthy was mostly scripted. (McCarthy judged that to be the likely situation.)
- P’s friend Rick (surname unknown) was with P at all times inside Seascape on 28 April, 1996, as judged by those phone conversations with Sgt McCarthy.
- Rick and P had been pals for at least a while prior to 28 April, 1996, as judged by P’s relaxed interactions with Rick at Seascape.
- During P’s phone call with Sgt McCarthy, Rick or other persons shot bullets out of the window from upstairs. They apparently did not aim at anyone; no one got hurt.
- P pretended that Rick was his hostage and that P was negotiating for a way to escape.
- P asked Sgt McCarthy to arrange for a helicopter to take him to Adelaide. McCarthy said he would see if that were feasible.
- P said to McCarthy that he felt like he was on a Hawaiian holiday.
- P pretended that he was holding Sally and David Martin hostage by tying them up; this was a joke – the Martins were not actually there. In the case presented to the Court by the DPP, it is alleged that Bryant had stopped by in the morning and murdered them both.
- P said he was frying eggs for the Martins.
- McCarthy asked if anyone had been hurt inside the cottage; P said No.
- P’s last chat with the negotiator Sgt McCarthy ended around 9.30pm. P probably fell asleep after that.
- The next morning P was alerted by the smell of smoke.
- P ran outside, and realized his clothes were on fire.
- P pulled his clothes off. He was, of course, unarmed.
- P was tackled by three men and handcuffed.
- An ambulance was called and P was taken to hospital with bad burns.
V. Statement of Claim
- D – John Doe — the person who burned down the cottage, is responsible for much suffering on P’s part, both mental and physical, for the last 22 years.
- P now sues D for damages.
- D is sued in his personal capacity, not as “on the job” — since the job does not call for arson.
VI. Prayer for Relief
- P asks the judge or jury to determine the amount of money he should be paid, including exemplary damages.
- P respectfully recommends that the judge issue a bench warrant for John Doe if it appears that the arson was criminal.
- If the Officer’s action was criminal that crime may include attempted murder.
- If so, that would alter the problem of the statute of limitations. But this would require that the Officer first be prosecuted.
Signed, __________. Date _________
Responsibility for the Fire
From my reading of various existing investigations, it appears that a policeman threw a grenade or similar device into Seascape cottage around 8:00am on Monday April 29, 1996, the day after the Port Arthur massacre. That device is what caused the whole house to burn down.
A member of the Tasmanian Police, Officer Bob Fielding, has stated in a video: “At the end of the day, er, I’m satisfied we made the right decision in fact, in waiting and forcing him to come to us as opposed to vice versa.”
“Forcing him to come to us” must mean “smoking him out.” The speaker, Fielding, has never provided a different interpretation for what he said.
I believe this suffices to indicate that the fire was started by police. The name of the man, a member of the SOG (Special Operations Group) who actually threw the device, is well known, but I choose to call him John Doe for now.
John Doe may be charged and tried for the crime of arson, unless the plan to smoke a person out is considered acceptable procedure for police. Note: even then, the police department would be liable for the property damage. Possibly this has already been paid out.
Does Martin Have a Claim for Damages?
Would the police department, or the grenade-thrower in particular, be liable for the physical damage done to Martin? I think so. We don’t know of any efforts that were mounted to get Martin out of the cottage on the Sunday, for an arrest, or on that Monday morning. For example, there wasn’t any megaphoned message “Come out with your hands up.”
We do know that Constable Pat Allen asked permission to shoot the occupant of Seascape when he had him in his sights on Sunday evening. The officer in charge, whom I take to be Sgt Andrew Fogarty, said “Permission denied. This has to happen.” Many SES staff are reported to have heard that peculiar statement.
It may have been reasonable for that policeman to give permission for the shooting down of that man, as he was thought to be endangering other lives. On Sunday evening, police believed “the gunman” inside Seascape held at least one hostage, maybe three.
Note: although I have made a case elsewhere for Martin Bryant’s innocence of any killing on the dates April 28-29, I am not pleading his innocence here. You could say I proceed with this lawsuit for injury on the basis that the conviction of Bryant stands.
What Justified the Use of Fire?
To have shot a dangerous suspect is one thing, but to have created a fire when you don’t know how many innocents may get consumed by that fire is quite another.
When Bob Fielding said “we forc[ed] him to come to us” he did not offer any justification or rationale. What if there were hostages inside Seascape cottage, tied to a chair? Starting a fire would have caused their death.
The Australian police rules of engagement in a hostage situation are: for the hostages’ lives to be protected (as we found out in no uncertain terms during “the Sydney siege”).
The life of the hostage-taker also has some value. As with other captures of criminals, it must not be done lethally without a reason. You must arrest him if possible (as we found out in no uncertain terms during “the Sydney siege”).
What Was Martin Suspected Of?
At this point, 8am on Monday, April 29, the person in Seascape was suspected of having done a lot of killing in plain sight at Port Arthur Historic Site, and at a nearby store. About 32 people had been shot dead. Still, the true identity of the Port Arthur gunman had not been worked out.
Police found Bryant’s passport in the glovebox of a yellow Volvo that had been abandoned near the entrance/exit of Port Arthur Historic Site. I assume police had determined the particulars of the car registration. That, supposedly, is how they knew to contact Bryant’s mother, Carleen.
Carleen Bryant, along with Petra Wilmot, the suspect’s girlfriend, were taken to a Hobart police station to give statements on Sunday around 8pm. Also, a search was made of Bryant’s premises on Sunday night. Guns were found there, but that of course does not indicate that the killer at the Broad Arrow café was Martin Bryant. Many people have guns.
Can Martin File a Lawsuit for the Injury He Suffered in the Fire?
If a hostage, or even a passer-by, got hurt by that fire, he or she could sue for damages. What about Martin – can he sue? I say yes. Now I am going to tell you my prejudice (pre-judice because he has not yet had a trial).
I think the SOG man who threw the grenade wanted Martin to die in the fire. Better to have a dead patsy than a live patsy.
I think it’s widely recognized that Martin was only a patsy and that someone else, a professional marksman, had done those killings at Port Arthur.
But I shan’t go into any of that today. I want to show instead how the prisoner could file a claim, a civil action, in regard to injuries from the fire.
In the United States he would definitely be able to file for compensation under federal law 42 USC 1983. Australia does not have that specific mechanism, but it has the ordinary tort of personal injury.
Last year in Adelaide I produced a play called “A Moot Court Trial for Martin Bryant.” In that play, and in the above lawsuit, I strictly cite only facts that are already in the prosecutor’s file – and have been since 1996. No speculation is involved, no fiction, no clever ruses.
The real Martin Bryant has been basically incommunicado ever since 1996. It is reasonable to guess that no lawyer would represent him in this putative lawsuit, owing to a psychological barrier — namely, the 1996 massacre still hangs heavy in Tasmania.
It is supposedly a topic to be avoided at all costs, including the cost of injustice.
–Mary Maxwell will appreciate criticism of the way she has drafted the pleadings, or any other strategies you can think of.
So has anyone ever successfully sued a government officer in a personal capacity ? I mean in Australia of course.
Berry, I don’t know the answer as regards lawsuits, but as regards prosecutions I recently read of a policemen being successfully prosecuted.
That is, he was found guilty — for something he did in the course of duty, for which the judge said “in the course of duty my arse” or words to that effect.
STIPULATE – An agreement between attorneys that concerns business before a court and is designed to simplify or shorten litigation and save costs. During the course of a civil lawsuit, criminal proceeding, or any other type of litigation, the opposing attorneys may come to an agreement about certain facts and issues. Such an agreement is called a stipulation. Courts look with favor on stipulations because they save time and simplify the matters that must be resolved.
Defense attorney: :Your Honour, the defense stipulates to paragraphs 18, 19 and 20 in the Plaintiff’s pleadings.”
Plaintiff’s attorney [correction: plaintiff’s attorney wannabe] agrees to the deletion of Paragraphs 18, 19, and 20.
My take on Port Arthur is that a crime scene was merged with a drill as a means of obfuscating government liability and that the Seascape fire was based on destroying the record of the latter
Would it not be simpler for the persons acting for MB to get the State to disclose for the DNA on the solo can in the cafe?
Yep, get an appeal on ‘new and compelling evidence’. Prove he’s innocent and show he was ‘strapped up’ by Government officials. Then sue for damages.
Dee, what r u talking about? “wouldn’t it be simpler for the persons acting for MB…”
There are no persons acting for MB.
And why do u use the phrase. “get the state to disclose”? Since when are we able to get the state – MINUS THE HELP FROM VANESSA GOODWIN – to disclose anything?
At your website almost exactly 2 years ago I wrote an article about the new law in Tasmania that allows a person to re-open an old case with new evidence. That legislation, by the way, was introduced into Tassie Parliament by Vanessa, in imitation of a similar South Australian law. LONG LIVE VANESSA.
HERE IS MY ARTICLE IN CASE THERE IS AN ATTORNEY who wants to deal. (You know that Sue Neil Fraser is using that legislation even as we speak.):
https://gumshoenews.com/2016/04/27/re-opening-martin-bryants-case-with-fresh-evidence/
My current article about suing for injuries is plainly a psy-op — I am trying to get people to look at MB as the aggrieved party instead of the guilty party. For some reason the public always finds it OK to talk about the money aspect of a case, whereas the guilt of that famous killer martin Bryant is a no-no topic.
But I thought that’s the point. “the new law in Tasmania that allows a person to re-open an old case with new evidence”… If Vanessa (now unable to do it as she has passed on) what about the next AG?
The comments to that link have another post of mine.
Terry Shulze April 29, 2016 at 2:02 pm
Mary, I explained all this in private emails to you. So once again, Bryant was there when the BMW arrived at Seascape with Pears in the boot.
Bryant as part of his script to the negotiator told a stuffed up version of how he kidnapped Pears. Take a look at the siege tape transcript and you can see how bad he got that story.
When he was subjected to the theatrical production for the ‘Record of Interview’ there is a clip of him re-telling that story. It was probably as a result of a prompt from one of the investigators asking something like “Martin, tell us again about the story of the kidnapping”. We don’t know how he was prompted as the transcript begins at the point he starts telling the story.
In the version he gave in the Record of Interview he got the firearm wrong, the location wrong, the people wrong, the vehicle wrong and the event wrong. HOWEVER, although Bryant was not a credible witness of the event, there was a very credible witness to the event. That was Jim Laycock who knew Bryant since he was 10 years old. He knew him from when he came in the Broadarrow Cafe that Laycock owned. He knew where Bryant sat, how he liked his hot chocolate and Devonshire tea, the conversations he had with his daughter. Laycock said it wasn’t Bryant.
I further note that the above post was not included in the ‘Enough is Enough’ booklet.
A woman stole $50,00 cash from her employer cash. There was a videotape of the theft and she is doing time now. She does not even claim innocence. She is guilty, period.
However, the cop who came to arrest her at her home squirted an excessive amount of MACE at her, while saying that he was doing it for fun, and this caused her to be blinded for life.
She has a videotape of the arrest. She does not care if the cop is prosecuted. She’s in court today on a civil action for money damages.
What will the judge do?
By the way, she’s also a pedophile, with charges pending against her for that.
I should have added: she is suing the cop in his personal capacity as it is not in the job description of any cop — AS FAR AS WE KNOW — to use excessive MACE for fun.
So what percentage of Aus plea bargains are subject to forfeiting the right to sue?
I guess there’d really be no way of knowing
Wow, wow, wow, I never thought of that before, Berry (and there would need to be a gag order as well to cover up such a blatant contract).
Anyway, MB dinna make no plea bargain. He got 1035 years for his “Guilty” plea.
Jahar didn’t do no bargaining either. He got “the gurney” for his heavily-disguised Not Guilty plea.
DEFINITELY Jahar can sue for injuries, even if we don’t prosecute anyone for the knife-wound-in-throat type thing. [Did you hear Sgt McClellan say, at my Open Mic session, that the scene at the boat “should never have happened”?
But the same li’l ol’ barrier exists; we can’t contact Jahar. He’s under SAM’s y’know.
Quel perfect system.
People need to understand: this is what you’re fuelling if you engage in any so-called “plea bargain”. A justice system cannot be compromised in any way without major consequences.
My legal knowledge is pretty limited, but having perused the mass of data that is in alleged conflict with the arrest and imprisonment of Bryant, I fall back to the position that:
When a man is in custody without fair trial; and
The politicians in power are previously nervous about angry armed constituents; and
When the politicians generating the entire exercise have the moral turpitude of John Howard, the fish-net-stocking bloke; Tony Abbott and Amanda Vanstone; and
Because the legislation for the buy-back was prepared well in advance; and
DNA testing is apparently outlawed…
… I lean towards bringing the perpetrators to trial prior to seeking damages for Bryant. Litigation is always easier following a successful prosecution.
However, considering the snow-flake’s chance in hell of forcing the oligarchs to trial, I have decided to wait until after the Revolution before pursuing this objective.
At the risk of digressing, can anybody tell me how to launch a revolution? It was evidently a respectable consideration in 1790 and 1776 so there should be no objection to a similar coup now.
Those were horse-drawn revolutions then, so one would think that with modern technology a quick-sticks revolution today would be a breeze.
Actually, I’m hoping it will be even quicker. If this Syria madness kicks off, then maybe the Chinese will do us a favor and nuke Canberra.
Tony, you say “Litigation is always easier following a successful prosecution.”
My claim is: there is no prosecution on the horizon here (either a prosecution for arson by the cop, or attempts to get Martin acquitted — much less any prosecutions for the real murderer(s) in Broad Arrow on April 28, 1996), so why not look around and see what else is do-able?
As far as I know, this personal-injury suit is do-able, except for that persnickety stumbling block: access to the prisoner.
No access. What about a suit against the Tas police for holding someone hostage? Now we are down the legal rabbit hole
Yeah, you are right, Mary. I just enjoy indulging in foolish daydreams of one day shoving Howard and Downer into the defendant’s box, and then later kicking their arses in prison.
Mary you summed it up in one sentence:
‘ It is reasonable to guess that no lawyer would represent him in this putative lawsuit.’
Or ANY lawsuit….
And I’m pleased that you didn’t mention that mythical ’30 year embargo’ on evidence that many truthers bandy about….
The only way that Martin Bryant will ever have any chance of being released from jail is if any of the well known victims are ever found alive & kicking!
AJ, I have some knowledge that Mikac’s kids didn’t die! now, if this is correct there’s a case!
I do know from a truthful source that a good part of the apparent ‘dead bodies’ where sent to the Hobart hospital, with trained nurses asking questions! in other words dummies did enter the Hobart hospital, fact! These nurses were told to keep quiet, this was told to me prior to flying out to Tassie. Wendy Scurr will sooner or later disclose the truth via a video also revealing Mikac’s untruths! Mary would know I have tried with several Lawyers to take this case on, but no takers, wonder why? While in Tassie I was handed the official paper to go into the prison with the Lawyer I was speaking too, along with Carleen, BUT Carleen had to sign this paper to enter the prison, she declined! on grounds that Mr.Brown, her Lawyer would be offended, so case closed, we couldn’t go any further on the grounds this was Carleens’s son, and no other sig was valid….There was talk of sneaking myself in, via the lawyer, to chat with Martin, then the Lawyer seemed to think I would have been recorded and couldn’t ask any questions anyway, and being open to an arrest…I feel try to contact some of these Nurses who worked on this day, cant hurt!
Lol Cherri…..And here I was attempting to be discreet! Btw we have a mutual good friend (not on FB)…..
Aj I’m not on FB and would never be, but sure this mutual friend is friendly 🙂 There’s more I could say, but will hold my tongue for now. Wendys vid will be an eye opener for sure….Cheers
[…] The Best Defense Is an Offense: Bryant Can Sue for Injuries […]