When is a NSW Act of parliament not a legitimate Act? When the Act pretends to be something it is not , a fraud
NSW LEAKS No. 5.
http://indymedia.org.au/search/node/nswleaks/ is the link to four previous times I have on Indymedia published evidence of police corruption I became a victim of in March 1992, which in March 1993 and again in 1994 for the failure of the complaints about police I made to not be investigated; I hold elected members of the NSW Parliament past and present, the Office of the NSW Ombudsman and the NSW Police Force 100% responsible.
The evidence to support the allegations I have made, certain members of the parliament received, has for obvious reasons either has been ignored, or the replies I received can be used as evidence to prove the allegations I have made are correct.
So to present this evidence, which will never see the inside of a NSW Court of Justice. I have decided to establish for this exercise the NSW Court of Public Opinion, and for the jury; I have selected every person who is eligible to vote in the upcoming 2015 State Election.
The offence I am hypothetically charging certain members of the 1983 NSW Parliament with is “Fraud” and since then certain members have become “Accessory after the fact”; first the criminal offence of Fraud?
There are a number of elements that come under the heading of fraud I will ask the members of the jury to consider and keep in mind; for instance the Australian Oxford Dictionary confirms fraud to be something that is not what it seems; or pretends to be; such as a forged Cheque. However, the majority of fraud cases are about money and property, but in this case it is not about money or property, but the Fraud I alleged committed concerns acts of dishonesty and deceit.
The following is Information on the subject of fraud I have copied to this page has been provided by a firm of Lawyers who are accredited criminal law specialist, and on the subject of fraud confirms:
Generally in relation to fraud offences the Courts have said that general deterrence is of paramount importance and because of that many cases will result in the imposition of custodial sentences. In addition to the general factors to be taken into account the following factors will often be particularly relevant; they are;
The length of time of the fraud.
Whether the offender(s) occupied a position of trust when the fraud was committed.
Whether there was any sophistication in the method employed to defraud.
The motive behind the offending?
To Begin; in November 1983 the Ombudsman (Police Regulation) Amendment Bill was introduced to the parliament of NSW parliament I allege to be a fraudulent Bill on the grounds that it was not what it pretended to be. After having passed all legislative processes, and in December 1983 the Ombudsman (Police Regulation) Amendment Act No. 193 was assented by the NSW Governor, who was also the President of the Executive Council, which every Cabinet Minister is a member.
OMBUDSMAN (POLICE REGULATION) AMENDMENT ACT No. 193,
1983,
A Bill for an Act to amend the Ombudsman Act, 1974, so as to enable the
investigation under that Act of conduct the subject of a complaint made
under the Police Regulation (Allegations of Misconduct) Act, 1978.
[Assented to December 31 1983]
What the explanation notes confirms, is up to this point in time, a part of the Ombudsman Act 1974 prevented the Ombudsman from investigating under the Ombudsman Act the conduct of a complaint made about a member of the NSW Police Force, and the principle of Act No. 193 is to amend that part of the Ombudsman Act, so as to enable the investigation under that Act of conduct the subject of a complaint made under a Police Act in this case the then Police Regulation (Allegations of Misconduct) Act 1978.
Now, the only part of the search of the Ombudsman Act 1974 I found prevented the Ombudsman from investigating the conduct of a police Officer I did at clause 13 of Schedule 1 and a copy of this part of the Ombudsman Act in force in November 1983 I have for the Juries information and determination cut and pasted a copy of both pages 1149 and 1150.
1149
OMBUDSMAN.
No. 68, 1974
SCHEDULE 1. . Sec 12
EXCLUDED CONDUCT OF PUBLIC AUTHORITIES
1. Conduct of-
(a) the Governor, whether acting with or without the advice of the' Executive Council;
(b) a Minister of the Crown, including a Minister of the Crown acting as a corporation sole, but not so as to preclude conduct of a public authority relating to a recommendation made to a Minister of the Crown;
(c) Parliament
(d) the Houses of Parliament;
(e) a committee of either House, or both Houses' of Parliament;
(f) either House of Parliament;
(g) a member of either House of Parliament, where acting as such;
(h) an officer of Parliament or of either House of Parliament, where acting as such.
2 Conduct of a person or body before whom witnesses may be compelled to appear and give evidence, and persons associated with such a person or body.
3. Conduct of a body of which one or more of the members is appointed by the Governor or a Minister of the Crown where-
(a) at least one member of the body may be appointed by virtue of his being a Judge of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, a member of the Industrial Commission of New South Wales or a Judge of the District Court of New South Wales; and
(b) such a person, if appointed as such a member, has a right or duty to preside at a meeting of the body at which he is present.
4. Conduct of a public authority relating to a Bill for an Act or the making of a rule, regulation or by-law.
5- Conduct of a public authority constituted pursuant to an arrangement between-
(a) the State of New South Wale and the Commonwealth;
(b) the State of New South Wales and any other State;
(c) the State of New South Wales any other State and the Commonwealth-
6. function of a public authority where acting as a legal adviser to a public authority or as legal representative of a public authority.
1150
7. Conduct of the Attorney General or of the Solicitor General relating to the commencement, carrying on or termination of any proceedings before a court, including a coronial inquiry and committal proceedings before a magistrate.
8. Conduct of a public authority relating to the carrying on of any proceedings--
(a) before any court, including a coronial inquiry and committal proceedings before a magistrate; or
(b) before any other person or body before whom witnesses may be compelled to appear and give evidence.
9. Conduct of a public authority relating to an exercise of the prerogative of mercy
10 Conduct of a public authority where acting as a commissioner under the Royal Commission Act, 1923, or, by the authority of an Act, exercising the powers of such as a commissioner.
11. Conduct of the Council of the City of Sydney and of the Sydney County Council and of the officers and employees of those councils.
12. Conduct of a public authority relating to-
(a) the appointment or employment of a person as an officer or employee; and
(b) matters affecting a person as an officer or employee.
13. Conduct of a member of the Police Force when acting as a constable.
14. Conduct of a public authority relating to the investment of any funds
15. Conduct of a public authority relating to the payment of any money as an act of grace.
-------------------------------------------
Read in conjunction with Schedule 1 is s. 12 of the Ombudsman Act 1974 I have also cut and pasted for the Juries information and consideration.
Investigations
Right to 12. ( 1) Subject to this section, any person (including
complain a public authority) may complain to the Ombudsman
about the conduct of a public authority unless-
(a) the conduct is of a class described in the Schedule 1.
S. 12 confirms as a direct result of clause 13, the Ombudsman has no power to investigate the conduct of a police officer
Other information I found in support of s. 12 was by proclamation published by the Governor Sinclair who confirmed;
EXPLANATORY NOTE
Under section 12 of the Ombudsman Act 1974, a person may complaint to the
Ombudsman about the conduct of a public authority except if the conduct is of a class described in Schedule 1 to the Act. That Schedule currently contains a list of classes of conduct of public authorities that is excluded from being challenged and investigated under the Act.
So, having established the fact that up to November 1983 the Ombudsman under the Ombudsman Act 1974 had no jurisdiction to investigate the conduct of a complaint made under the then Police Regulation (Allegations of Misconduct) Act 1978.
This brings me to the Police Regulation (Allegations of Misconduct) Amendment Bill, and after all legislative processes had been carried out, it too; on the same date December 31 1983 was also assented by the NSW Governor. The following is a copy of the first page of Act No. 191 and the notes:
POLICE REGULATION (ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT)
AMENDMENT ACT No. 191, 1983.
An Act to amend the Police Regulation (Allegations of Misconduct) Act,
1978, with respect to .the constitution and functions of the Internal
Affairs Branch of the police Force; to make further provision with
respect to complaints about the conduct of members of the police Force:
and for other purposes. [Assented to December 31 1983]
The part of the explanation notes I have underlined confirm the principle of Act No. 191 was to make further provision with respect to complaints about members of the Police Force, This provision the noters ref to can be found on page 12 of Act No. 191 and a copy of that provision I have for the Juries information and determination cut and pasted to this page;
After s. 25 insert-
Investigation under the Ombudsman Act. 1974.
25a (l ) Where after considering all the material and information
provided for the Ombudsman under this Part. The Ombudsman is
not satisfied that a complaint has not been sustained and is not
satisfied that the complaint has been sustained the Ombudsman
may-
(a) make the conduct to which the complaint relates the subject
of an investigation under the Ombudsman Act 1974.
For all intents and purposes, one would believe that the parliament by having Act No. 193 repeal clause 13 from Schedule 1 part of the Ombudsman Act 1974 that the NSW parliament had taken the necessary steps; to enable the Ombudsman to investigate under the Ombudsman Act 1974 (in accordance with s. 25A); conduct, the subject of a complaint made under the then Police Regulation (Allegations of Misconduct) Act 1978.
In November 1983 when the Parliamentary Counsel prepared the Ombudsman (Police Regulation) Amendment Bill; it attached a list of the amendments proposed to me made by that Amendment Bill to the Ombudsman Act 1974. I have for the Juries information and determination I have submitted a copy of that list of amendments the Parliamentary Counsel prepared and every member of the parliament received a copy of this list.
Ombudsman (Police Regulation) Amendment Bill
Clause 1. Short title.
Clause 2. Specifies that section 1 and 2 shall commence on the date of Assent to the Act and the remainder of the Bill shall commence on the day on which Schedule 3 to the Police Regulation (Allegations of Misconduct) Amendment Act 1983 commences.
Clause 3. Specifies that the Ombudsman Act 1974 is the principal Act.
Clause 4. Provides that the principal act is amended as set forth in Schedule 1 as attached to the Bill.
Schedule 1.
Clause 1. Contains consequential amendment.
Clause 2 (a) and (b). Amend the definition of “prescribed conduct” in subsection 5 (1) and inserts a new subsection 5 (1a) to provide that where the Ombudsman is unable to determine (from information supplied by the Commissioner of Police) whether a complaint made against a member of the Police force has not been sustained or has been sustained, a further investigation may be carried out under the Act.
Clauses 3 (a) and (b). Contain consequential amendments to subsections 10 (2) (c) and 10 (2) (d).
Clause. 3 (c). Inserts a new subsection 10 (2) (e) to ensure that any further investigation of police misconduct under the Act may only be delegated to a special officer of the Ombudsman who is a member of the investigate staff of the Internal Affairs branch within the Police force.
Clause. 4 (a). Contains a consequential amendment to subsection 13 (3).
Clause, 4 (b) Inserts a new subsection 13 (4a) so that in deciding whether to discontinue an investigation of prescribed conduct, the Ombudsman shall have regard to the public interest.
Clause 5 (a) Clarifies section 15 (a)
Clause 5 (b). Inserts a new subsection 15 (2) to require the Ombudsman to inform the Commissioner of Police in writing, and giving reasons, where the Ombudsman discontinues an investigation.
Clause 6. Effects consequential amendments to section 16 and subsections 24 (1) and 25 (1).
Clause 7. Inserts a new section 25A to provide Part IV of the Act, except section 29, does not apply to or in respect of the investigation under this Act of prescribed conduct.
Clause 8. Contains consequential amendments to section 29.
Clause 9. Inserts new subsections 32 (4) and (5) to ensure that any further investigation into Police misconduct under the Act by Officers of the Ombudsman my be carried out only by officers who are members of the investigative staff of the Internal Affairs branch within the police Force.
Clauses 10 (a) and (b) and 11 (a). Make provision with respect to the production in evidence of information obtained in the course of any such further investigation through omission of paragraph 34 (b) and provide for insertion of a new paragraph 34 (b) and insertion of subsection 34 92) and (30 as well as consequential amendments to subsection 35 (1).
------------------------------------------
Any adding to or omitting from Schedule 1 the conduct of any public authority is carried out by the NSW Governor in accordance with s. 14 of the Ombudsman Act 1974 a copy of which I have copied to this page.;
Amendment 14. (1) The Governor may, by proclamation published in the Gazette, amend the Schedule
of Schedule so as to add to it, or to omit from it, any class of conduct of a public authority.
Comment. What I did not find, and I believe the members of the jury will also agree; missing from this list of amendments in 1983 to be made to the Ombudsman Act 1974, by the Ombudsman (Police Regulation) Amendment Act No. 193, is the amendment under which, and in accordance with s. 14 of the Ombudsman Act 1974, would the NSW Governor be able to repeal clause 13 from Schedule 1 of the Ombudsman Act 1974.
Without the amendment to enable Act No. 193 to repeal clause 13 from Schedule 1, and what Act No 193 was not, is that which it pretended to be. An Act that enabled, the investigation under the Ombudsman Act 1974 of a complaint that had been made under a Police Act.
What else the failure to repeal clause 13 affected, is all of the proposed amendments listed Act No. 193 in 1983 was to make to the Ombudsman Act 1974.
From 1983 to the present day a legislation in a Police Act has confirmed “Investigation of complaints under the Ombudsman Act 1974” and to contradict such legislation, clause 13 of Schedule 1 allege has been used to defeat any Ombudsman investigation; by making inadmissible the results of any evidence of police corruption an Ombudsman obtained under the Ombudsman Act 1974.
Which leaves this question to be asked, was this act in 1983 to not draft the amendment in question, the principle reason for the drafting of the Ombudsman (Police Regulation) Amendment Bill, and was it an error on the part of the Parliamentary Counsel, or not? Or did the parliamentary Counsel act on instructions given to the P / C by the Executive Counsel?
For this question to be answered certain facts have to be kept in mind, (a) in 1983 an inconsistency was created when clause13 was not repealed and s. 25A was inserted into the PRAM Act 1978.
I have cut and pasted to this page for the information of the jury a copy of page 2 of Schedule 1 currently in force showing clause 13 has been re-written however, the legislation to exclude the conduct of a police officer from investigation under the Ombudsman Act is still current today. What else is current is the law at s. 156 of the Police Act 1990, and what this page contains is evidence of the same inconsistency still evident today,
OMBUDSMAN ACT 1974 -SCHEDULE I file:/E:/schl.html
New South Wales a member of the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales, a Judge of the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales or a Judge of the District Court of New South Wales, and
(b) such a person, if appointed as such a member, has a right or duty to preside at a meeting of the body at which the person is present.
4 Conduct of a public authority relating to a Bill for an Act or the making of a rule, regulation or by-law.
6 Conduct of a public authority where acting as a legal adviser to a public authority or as legal representative of a public authority.
7 Conduct of the Attorney General, or of the Solicitor General or of the Director of Public Prosecutions, relating to the commencement, carrying on or termination of any proceedings before a court, including a coronial inquiry and committal proceedings before a magistrate.
8 Conduct of a public authority, relating to the carrying on of any proceedings:
(a) before any court, including a coronial inquiry and committal proceedings before a magistrate, or
(b) before any other person or body before whom witnesses may be compelled to appear and give evidence.
9 Conduct of a public authority relating to an exercise of the prerogative of mercy.
10 Conduct of a public authority where acting as a commissioner under the Royal Commissions Act 1923 or, by the authority of an Act, exercising the powers of such a commissioner.
11 Conduct of a public authority where acting as a Commissioner under the Special Commissions of Inquiry Act 1983 Act I923.
12 Conduct of a public authority relating to:
(a) the appointment or employment of a person as an officer or employee and;
(b) matters affecting a person as an officer or employee, unless the conduct: unless the conduct:
(c) arises from the making of a public interest disclosure (within the meaning of the Public Interest Disclosures Act 1994), or;
(d) relates to a reportable allegation or reportable conviction (within the meaning of Part 3A of this Act), or to the inappropriate handling or response to such an allegation or conviction.
13 Conduct of a police officer when exercising the functions of a police officer with respect to crime and the preservation of the peace.
14 Conduct of a public authority relating to the investment of any funds.
2 of 3 26/ 02/ 2013
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Division 7 investigation by Ombudsman
156 investigation of complaint under Ombudsman Act 1974
(1) If of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so
the Ombudsman may make a complaint, together with
any investigation of the complaint and any related issues,
the subject of an investigation under the Ombudsman Act 1974.
For the past 31 years what no Ombudsman has been able to do and at the same time is comply with both clause 13 in Schedule 1 and any opposite legislation a Police Act has contained, and what the jury needs to consider is not one Ombudsman has reported this inconsistency to any parliament.
On the subject of inconsistency, and before I discovered the Ombudsman (Police Regulation) Amendment Act No. 193, on November 5 2009 I wrote to the Office of the Ombudsman and I received this reply Ref No. E/2009/1999.
In reply to the matter of inconsistency I raised; the Assist Ombudsman on November 13 2009 replied about the allegations I made of the inconsistency that existed and whether it had been brought to the attention of the Premier? The Assist Ombudsman confirmed that he was responding to my letter and accompanying documents.
When the issues I raised were referred to him, he responded immediately and the advice he was offered; was based upon the current provisions of the Ombudsman Act and the Police Act under which the Ombudsman operates.
Continuing the Assist Ombudsman affirmed that there is currently no inconsistency between the two Act’s that in practice prevents the Ombudsman from conducting an investigation into the conduct of a police officer, and attached a copy of s. 156 for my information.
Comment: In replying the information that the Assist Ombudsman “conveniently’ ignored is a copy of Schedule 1 I provided, which contained clause 13, the statute to exclude the conduct of a police officer from investigating under the Ombudsman Act 1974 the conduct of a Police Officer.
-----------------------------
It was February 2011 when I discovered the Ombudsman (Police Regulation) Amendment Act No. 193, and reporting my finding to the Office of the NSW Governor and on March 30 2011 I received a reply in which I was advised:
As your letter raises important legal and constitutional issues I have referred the matters to the Dept of Justice and Attorney General fro consideration and advice. I shall write to you again once that advice has been received.
On May 10 2011 true to the words of the NSW Governors Official Secretary I was informed of the following. The dept advises that there is no legislative inconsistency that would prevent the Office of the NSW Ombudsman from exercising the power to investigate the conduct of a police officer under s. 156 of the Police Act 1990.
Comment. Part of the documents I sent to the Office of the NSW Governor and was passed onto the Attorney General for advice and consideration; included a current copy of Schedule 1, and clause 13 that excluded the conduct of a police officer from being investigated under the Ombudsman Act 1974, and this time it was the Attorney General who chose to ignore the law at clause 13 of Schedule 1.
Another Commission that is part of the NSW Government it is the NSW Law Reform Commission who in correspondence to which I attached evidence of inconsistent legislation and the consequences of taking no action.
In reply the Executive Director, referring to my correspondence and attached information confirmed after having examined the matters stated I do not consider there are matters of substance that the Law Reform Commission should examine in any further detail, I took this to be evidence of further cover up.
I then took up the matter with the ICAC the authority able to investigate political and parliamentary corruption, and I have copied to this page the correspondence I attached to all the information from 1983 to 2011 I had obtained to prove dishonesty / fraud and how together the Ombudsman and police were involved. What I did not receive is any reply, and despite sending emails the ICAC completely ignored the evidence I had placed before this Commission.
P. O. Box 9470
Wilsonton
QLD 4350
20. 6. 2011
The Commissioner of the ICAC
GPO Box 500
Sydney NSW 2001.
Dear Sir,
You will find I have submitted for your consideration and determination, evidence of a serious legislative error made in 1983 a member of the Ombudsman staff blew the whistle on to me in December 1993.
In a letter I sent the Minister for police on the 8. 12. 93 I conveyed to the Minister that a member of the Ombudsman staff had blown the whistle on this Office discovering a legislative error had been made, the results of which from 1983 until the discovery of this error in 1993, any investigation of a complaint made under the Police Regulation (Allegations of Misconduct) Act 1978 the Ombudsman under the Ombudsman Act investigated became invalid.
I have attached to this brief copies of correspondence received from the Office of the NSW Governor and information to prove in 1993 no corrective action was honestly taken, instead dishonest action was taken to cover up the error made and continuing with the error and new legislation, any investigation by the Ombudsman under the Ombudsman Act 1974 commenced in accordance with s.153 of the Police Service Act 1990 became invalid and any evidence such in my case, would have become inadmissible.
Dishonestly failing to correct the error in 1993, since then and to the present day has allowed clause 13 of Schedule 1 to seriously affect the outcome of every investigation of a complaint made under the Police Service Act 1990, the Ombudsman investigated under the Ombudsman Act 1974.
I first raised my concerns with the ICAC in 1993 when I passed on the information the member of the staff blew the whistle on, and to which I received no reply. I again raised this matter with the ICAC in 2007 to which it responded claiming it was a matter for the parliament.
I disagreed for the same reasons I do today, when no honest action was taken in 1993 and corrupt action was, this fact was within the jurisdiction of the ICAC as it is again today.
Just as I have sent a copy of what I have sent the Office of the NSW Governor, I will be including as well this brief of information and correspondence I have this day sent the ICAC by registered post.
I wait the Commission’s response.
Yours faithfully
Robert Lee.
The conduct of the ICAC to ignore evidence supporting the most serious offences members of parliament can commit, the abuse of public trust, I took my complaints to the Inspector of the ICAC a Mr. Harvey Cooper a retired Supreme Court Judge, who in reply I received two-pages, which only the second page I have copied for the members of the jury to consider and make a determination.
----------------------------------------
In your consideration of the Ombudsman Act 1974 you state that clause 13 of Schedule 1 excludes the conduct of a police officer from being investigated by the NSW Ombudsman.
This is not quite correct. Clause 13 excludes only conduct of a police officer when exercising the functions of a police officer with respect to crime and the preservation of the peace. Police conduct, which is illegal or improper may well not be conduct, “when exercising the functions of a police officer with respect to crime and the preservation of the peace”
The power of the NSW Ombudsman to investigate police officers has been made clear in a number of sections of the Police Act 1990 and in particular sections 127, 132,140 and 156 which overrides clause 13 of the Schedule to the Ombudsman Act.
Even if errors were made in the drafting of the legislation (which is far from clear) this would not amount to corruption. Consequently, the decision of the ICAC to take no action of your complaint does not amount to misconduct of the type described above.
It follows that there is no further action I can take on your complaint.
Yours Sincerely
Harvey Cooper
Inspector
----------------------------------------
POLICE ACT 1990-SECT 127
Making of complaints
127 Making of complaints
(1) How made, A complaint must be made in writing to an investigating authority.
POLICE ACT I99O -SECT I32
Complaints received by 0mbudsman
132 Complaints received by Ombudsman
(l) As soon as practicable after receiving a complaint the Ombudsman must refer the complaint to the Commissioner.
POLICE ACT I99O - SECT I40
Decision of Ombudsman as to investigation of complaint
140 Decision of Ombudsman as to investigation of complaint
Office of the Inspector of the ICAC
Letter to Robert Lee -30 August 2011. 2.
Comment. First the wording of clause 13 of Schedule 1 is very clear, and supported by information published by the Ombudsman’s office under the heading “What you cannot complain to us about”, and the claim that s. 156 overrules clause 13 is false and the opposite is true, it is clause 13 that makes s. 156 invalid,
Then there is the claim that s. 127, 132 and 140 provide the Ombudsman with clear power to investigate Police is false, and to support my allegation is why I cut and pasted the information I have to page two of the Inspectors correspondence.
Section 307C of the NSW Crimes Act 1900 False or Misleading Documents, (1) A person is guilty of an offence if”(a) the person produces the document to another person, and (b) the person does so knowing that the document is false or misleading, and (c) the document is produced in compliance or purported compliance with a law of the state. Page two of the Inspectors letter of 30 August 2011 supports an allegation the Inspector had committed an offence under s. 307C of the Crimes Act, and so far has got away with the ICAC taking no notice.
Other information I received on the reasons why clause 13 was re-written it was explained to me that:
The overall results is to give the Ombudsman the power under his own Act to investigate complaints that relate to matters of police administration, but to exclude investigation from Ombudsman investigation complaints relating to crime and peacekeeping activities.
So far I have provided evidence to support an allegation of an act of deception committed in 1983 with the drafting of a fake Amendment Bill; the Ombudsman (Police Regulation) Amendment Bill. Together after both Bills were returned to the Assembly they became (a) the Police Regulation (Allegations of Misconduct) Act No 191, 1983; and (b) the Ombudsman (Police Regulation) Amendment Act No. 193, 1983. It is a legislative fact both Acts on December 31 were assented by the NSW Governor to become statutory Acts of parliament.
--------------------------------
Which brings me to the Dept of State Records, and from the website I have printed to this page are the standard / principles for making and keeping full and accurate records as required, under section 12 (1) of the State Records Act 1998. The principles are:
Records must be made
Records must be accurate
Records must be authentic
Records must have integrity
Records must be usable
Each principle is supported my mandatory compliance requirements.
To be full and accurate records must:
Be made
Be accurate
Be Authentic
Have integrity, and
Be useable.
What I have cut and pasted to this page is a copy of the information State Records has published, is information provided to State Records by the NSW Ombudsman on the NSW Ombudsman.
New South Wales Ombudsman
Date range:
18/ 10/ 74 +
Category:
Statutory Body
Creation:
Ombudsman Act, 1974 (act no 68.1974)
Administrative History note:
The Ombudsman’s office was established under the terms of the Ombudsman Act in October 1974. The Ombudsman, an Independent and impartial person was authorised to investigate complaints by any person about the conduct of a New South Wales Public authority (except those exempt by inclusion in the Schedule to the Act), (1). The first Ombudsman was appointed on 2 April 1975. The act also enabled the Ombudsman to investigate complaints about the conduct of public authorities. This work commenced on 12 May 1975. (3)
The Ombudsman Amendment Act 1976 (No. 39, 1976) enacted in December 1976, extended the
Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to cover the investigation of local government authorities. (4). The police Regulation (Allegations of Misconduct) Act (No 84, 1978) resulted from difficulties concerning the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction in regard to complaints about Police. The Act required a Police Tribunal (Generally the Internal Affairs Branch) to investigate complaints made to the Ombudsman against members of the Police Force. (5)
However, amendment to the Police Regulation (Allegations of Misconduct) Act in 1983 (Act No. 191, 1983) gave the Ombudsman direct powers to investigate complaints about Police. Under these amendments the Ombudsman could question witnesses and police officers when their evidence conflicted prior to reaching a decision.
In February 1984 the Ombudsman’s Office was established ass an administrative unit separate from the Premier’s department (6)
In November 1987,the Ombudsman was declared to be an inspecting authority in the terms of the Telecommunications (Interception) (New South Wales) Act 1987,Act No. 290, 1987) and required regularly to inspect the records of authorities which intercept telephone calls and to report the results of these inspections to the minister.
The Ombudsman (Amendment) Act 1990 (No. 79) established a Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Office of the Ombudsman (8) for the purpose of monitoring and reviewing the work of the Ombudsman. Other legislative changes included the Freedom of Information Act 1989 (Act No 5) which authorized the Ombudsman to investigate complaints about the determination of Freedom of Information Ombudsman applications (9) and the Ombudsman Amendment Act, 1991 (Act No. 3) which authorized the Ombudsman to appoint a Deputy Ombudsman and an Assistant Ombudsman (10).
The Ombudsman (Amendment) Act 1993 (Act No. 37) enabled the Ombudsman to present reports directly to the presiding officer of each House of Parliament, limited his powers to prevent the disclosure of privileged or secret information. (11) Changes to the Ombudsman Act in January 1991 removed the responsibilities under the Freedom of Information Act.
The protected disclosure Act 1994, (Act No. 92,1994) (which commenced operation on 1 March 1995), appointed the Ombudsman as an investigating authority in relation to disclosures which show or tend to show maladministration. (12)
On 1 December 200 2 the community Services Division was established to monitor, review and inquire into services provided by the Department of Community Services, the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care and organizations, which were funded by the Minister for Community Services, Ageing and Disability Services.
FOOTNOTES.
(1) Ombudsman Act 1974 s. 12.
(2) Report of the Ombudsman of NSW for the period 2 April, 1975-30 June, 1976 p. 3
(3) NSW Government Gazette 9May, 1975 p. 1791
(4) Ombudsman (Amendment) Act, 1976 Section 1
(5) The Police Regulation (Allegations of Misconduct) Act 1978 sis 17 – 12
-------------------------------------------
Comment. The part of the first paragraph I have underlined and highlighted in yellow is a direct reference to Schedule 1 “Excluded conduct of Pubic authorities”.
The second part, the information I have underlined and highlighted in blue, the claim made by the NSW Ombudsman; in 1983 the Police Regulation (Allegations of Misconduct) Amendment Act No. 191 gave the Ombudsman direct power to investigate complaints about Police and this claim is both false and misleading; for the information to refute this claim is the fraudulent Ombudsman (Police Regulation) Amendment Act No. 193, which I allege the NSW Ombudsman has deliberately omitted from the State Records on the NSW Ombudsman.
The fact that the Ombudsman (Police Regulation) Amendment Act No. 193 is missing from this part of State Records on the NSW Ombudsman, I reported to the Executive Director of State Records, and in reply I was told I would receive a reply.
When after a time had passed I had received no reply I took up the matter with the Director General of State Records, and when the D/G failed to reply, I next took up the omission of Act No. 193 with the Minister responsible for State Records, and when he did not reply I took up the disappearance of an act of parliament from the records on the NSW Ombudsman, I wrote to the Shadow Minister for State Records, showing that the records on the NSW Ombudsman were both inaccurate, false and misleading, and received this reply;
From: Peter Primrose
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 10:18 AM
To: 'rlee1936@netspace.net.au'
Subject: RE: express post.
Dear Mr Lee
I have referred this matter to the ICAC, including all your correspondence. When I have their response I will forward it to you. They may also choose to contact you directly.
Regards
Peter Primrose
On July 16 the Deputy Commissioner of the ICAC Ref No, E14/1549 advised the Shadow Minister that the Commission is currently considering the information and I will write to you once we have completed our initial assessment.
On July 30 the Shadow Minister sent me the decision the ICAC had made a copy of which I have provided for the information and consideration of the members of the Jury.
From: Peter Primrose
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 10:48 AM
To: 'rlee1936@netspace.net.au'
Subject: ICAC
Dear Mr Lee
The ICAC have advised me that they will not be investigating further the matters that you raised in your correspondence to me.
Should you wish to discuss the issue with the ICAC, they can be reached on 02 82815999, or email icac@icac.nsw.gov.au
Their reference number for your matter is E14/1549.
I am sorry that I cannot be of any further assistance.
Regards
Peter Primrose
This is the second time the ICAC has made a decision to not investigate the conduct of members of the parliament on whose instructions the Parliamentary Counsel in 1983 drafted a false official Ombudsman (Police Regulation) Amendment Bill, which without the amendment to amend the Ombudsman Act 1974 so as to enable the investigation under that Act of conduct the subject of a complaint made under the then 1978 Police Regulation Act, was a fraudulent Act on the grounds that it was not what it seemed or pretended to be.
The first time was in 2011 the ICAC didn’t even acknowledge receipt of the allegations I made, which I had a Registered Post receipt the allegations were received by the ICAC, and I have shown the jury the results of what happened when I took my complaint to the Inspector of the ICAC.
This time the complaint I made to the ICAC concerned the failure of the Ombudsman to not have recorded in the records on the NSW Ombudsman; the 1983 Ombudsman (Police Regulation) Amendment Act No 193.
The definition of an “instrument can be many things, such as; “her evidence was an instrument in his arrest” and; “a means by which something is affected or done, such as an instrument of government”, an Act of parliament.
Section 318 of the NSW Crimes Act 1900, covers persons who make and use false official instruments to pervert the course of justice”. I believe this part of the NSW Crimes Act 1900 can be applied to the members of the 1983 Executive Council, who made a decision to make it so the Ombudsman (Police Regulation) Amendment Act No. 193 could not amend / repeal from Schedule 1 the law at clause 13, which excluded the conduct of a police officer from investigation under the Ombudsman Act 1974.
I believe the jury has enough clear information upon which to determine if criminal offence of Fraud and other offences under the Crimes Act have been committed including S. 307C False or Misleading Documents, and in 1983, s. 318 Making and Using a false official instrument (an Amendment Bill) to pervert the course of justice. And then there are offences that come under Section 347 Accessories after the fact – how tried and punished.
In correspondence I have sent the Ombudsman and the Joint Parliamentary Committee I attached a copy of all six pages of the Ombudsman (Police Regulation) Amendment Act No 193. http://www.austiil/edu.au/au/num_act/oraa1983n193387.pdf
To both the Ombudsman and the Joint Parliamentary committee I separately asked this question, to be told, in 1983, what part of the Ombudsman Act 1974 did the notes of Act No. 193 refer too as needing to be amended, so as to enable the investigation under that Act of conduct, the subject of a complaint made under the PRAM Act 1978.
I can confirm the Ombudsman ignored my request for this information, and in reply a member of the Joint Parliamentary Committee sent me a copy of the same Act No. 193 I had attached to my correspondence, to which a note had been attached which started:
Dear Mr. Lee,
In your letter of May 2013 you noted the difficulty you had experienced in locating the Ombudsman (Police Regulation) Amendment Act No. 193, 1983. I have enclosed a copy of this Act for your reference.
Best Regards.
Comment. To receive a copy of Act No. 193, and to claim in my correspondence I experienced difficulty in locating a copy of Act No. 193, the fact I attached a copy to my correspondence to ask the question that I did, proves the claims made by this Public servant was a lie, and a poor attempt to not provide me with the information I requested. There are other members of the present parliament who have acted in a similar fashion in order to not provide me with the information I requested.
Over the years I have placed before members of the parliament evidence of a complaint the Police did not investigate and which the Ombudsman under the Ombudsman act re-investigated and proved the Ombudsman did not have the authority / jurisdiction to investigate any complaint made about a Police Officer. From a prepared statement in reply the Ombudsman advised members of the Parliament the following information.
---------------------------------
Mr. Robert Lee first complained to this office about the conduct of police in 1992. Following an investigation by police this office re-investigated the matter in 1993. This investigation was conducted pursuant to s. 24A of the Police Regulation (Allegations of Misconduct) Act 1978, which entitled this office to use powers conferred by the Ombudsman Act 1974.
Over recent year Mr. Lee has focused his attention on the legislative framework that supports the work of this Office. This has led Mr. Lee to advance a theory, all to the effect that the legislation concerning this Office’s role in complaints about Police is fundamentally flawed.
Although Mr. Lee has pursued this matter for many years, I regret to advise that none of the matters he has raised would cause me to doubt either the conclusion that this Office is unable to further assist him, or the integrity of the legislative provisions under which this Office continues to function.
I trust that this information is of assistance.
Yours Faithfully
Bruce Barbour
Ombudsman.
I believe the information I have so far presented in the NSW Court of Public opinion is more than enough to refute the Ombudsman’s prepared advice; and enough information for the members of the jury to question; the integrity of the legislative provisions under which this Office continues to function.
What each member of the jury can do if they believe the evidence is sufficiently enough and beyond reasonable doubt, each member write to their state member attaching a copy of the Ombudsman (Police Regulation (Amendment Act No. 193, 1983 (link provided) and ask this question, which the Ombudsman will not answer, and that is: What part of the Ombudsman Act was it the principle of the Ombudsman (Police Regulation) Amendment Act No. 193, in 1983 to amend, so as to enable the Ombudsman; to investigate under the Ombudsman Act 1974; conduct of a complaint made under a Police Act?
I would appreciate it if any member of the Jury could leave a message, if they believed there was enough evidence to support a prosecution?
Robert Lee