Damages awards must consider inflation - judge

Courts would have to start taking the continuing inflation into account when awarding damages for loss of incomes, Mr. Justice Murphy said in the High Court yesterday.

He was delivering a judgement on an appeal against an $84,000 damages award by Mr. Justice Blackburn in the A.C.T. Supreme Court.

“The continuation of inflation will require the courts to evolve principles to do justice in assessing the way in which future loss or expense will be affected by inflation,” Mr. Justice Murphy said.

“The development of such principles is long overdue.

“In calculating the present value of future loss of wages as a basis for assessing loss of earning capacity, the prevailing practice is to assume unchanging wage rates when clearly the wage rates will increase.

“This is not a reasonable way to achieve restitution.”

The High Court dismissed the appeal.

From the archives:

Please also note that Lionel Murphy, was as corrupt as they get.

Tax evasion, organised crime and porn are just some of the allegations made against him, not mentioning paedophilia on night flights to Brisbane. 

The best part about all of this is that his 'brotherhood' looked after him, where over half of the allegations where dismissed.

How it pays to be supported by 'friends' in high places.

The police are also part of the corruption.

And people are 'judged' by scum of the Earth like him, who demand to be called 'honourable'? 

A cancer to society dies from cancer in 1986, how befitting.

The tentacles of the corrupt Anglo-Masonic legal system reach far and wide.

New Sheriff of Victoria, Julie Brown – SHOW US YOUR (LAWFUL) APPOINTMENT!

The authorities of this colony have a long history of using force, intimidation, violence and threats of incarceration against the good people of whatever state you live in.

Victoria Police do it and were called out for it, in a recent County Court of Victoria case.

See article: Victoria Police – Thug Life - Unlawful Violence

The so called ‘Sheriff’ and other ‘employees of the Sheriff’s Office, which are supposed to be deputies are also involved in unlawful actives BUT the corrupt courts keep them going.

VERY briefly,

There are a few laws in play.

The authorities will have you believe that the Victoria’s Constitution, the one from 1975 is the one in use as it is ‘in force’.

BUT is the in use ‘lawfully’?

Victoria’s original Constitution is an Imperial Act from 1855.

Was it repealed ‘lawfully’? The short answer is no, where the government is hiding this fraud on the people of Victoria.

Let’s move on to the so called Sheriff of Victoria.

The Sheriff of Victoria is an officer of the Supreme Court of Victoria, and as such is subject to the procedures and policies of that Court.

Most importantly the appointment of the sheriff must be gazetted.

The sheriff is mentioned in the Supreme Court Act 1958 Section 194

The sheriff’s actions are also subject to the Sheriff Act 2009, where in this case Section 51 - Offence to impersonate sheriff, deputy sheriff, sheriff’s office or justice employee is in the spotlight.

The so called ‘Sheriff of Victoria’ is multi million dollar annual extortion  perpetuated by all connected within, including the judiciary in ‘our’ (the people's) courts.

Let's see what the Supreme Court of Victoria says about extortion with regards to people oops, 'persons' in office, as stated in Section 183 of the Supreme Court Act 1958:

- Can YOU (the accused) make an appointment to see this sheriff, Julie Brown?

- Can YOU find where this position of sheriff is within Oragnisation Chart of the Department of Justice? 

- Can YOU (the accused) challenge the action of this sheriff in a so called court of law, and obtain her lawful appointment, as part of the burden of proof on the accuser?

- Can YOU get a subpoena from the business called a court for the sheriff to produce the lawful appointment?

The truth is the answer to the above questions is, No.

Will your barrister be the one that exposes a generations long fraud?

Will that person ever be able to work again, if he/she does?

The truth is there is no lawfully appointed 'sheriff' of Victoria, therefore no lawfully appointed ‘deputies’, where they say they work “at” the office, and therefore no lawfully issued warrants.

See article:

Tasmanian magistrates not sworn in correctly for 30 years

See hidden video within Fines Victoria, 

(277 William St Melbourne 3000):

Sheriff's warrants do not exist - verified on video

The tentacles of the corrupt Anglo-Masonic legal system reach far and wide.

“Your licence, please” – Corrupt police, courts and a ‘racist’ judge?

 The Anglo-Masonic government of the colony called Australia has caused and evidently still does cause harm to many ‘ordinary’ Australians, some actions visible while many are not.

The truth is that European migrants or now the derogatory term ‘wogs’ have been bullied, discriminated and degraded also held back from promotions, by Anglos in positions of power, just for being a wog.

A so called ‘judge’ whom people have to refer to as ‘Your Honour’ has lost his (alleged) honourable status, where he showed his true colours towards ‘ethnics’ with vexatious and ‘racist’ remarks, against Mr. Kyriazis.

Realistically, ‘judge’ Geoffrey Chettle (also referred to as judge Shittle, by some) should be removed from office.

IF someone called him by his nickname in court then surely there would be repercussions, a contempt of court perhaps, yet the ‘authorities’ are allowed to be belligerent, abusive and racist?

Abuse of power

So, Mr Kyriazis was found ‘guilty’ on two charges:

1). Failing to produce licence,

2). Give name and address to authorised officer.

There are problems with regards to those two charges.

On the first charge, when seen by the officer, it would have been safe to judge, without a trial by jury, that Mr. Kyriazis is over 26 years of age, where in Victoria a person is not required to carry a driver licence on him/her, as seen within law, that being an excerpt from the Road Safety Act 1986 Section 19, (8):

On the second charge, Victoria Police officers are also very familiar with the ‘Kaba’ cases, that being Kaba v Watson and DPP v Kaba, on the request of giving your name and address to an ‘authorised’ officer.

See reference:

https://policeaccountability.org.au/kaba-decision-on-random-vehicle-stops/

On the first charge, there is zero lawful standing to charge Mr. Kyriazis for ‘failing to produce licence’, where if it has gone through, it is truly a vexatious litigation and a corruption of the court or specifically judge ‘Shittle’, where a judicial review must follow.

This is another exposé of how truly corrupt the legal system really is.

Mr. Kyriazis experienced harassment and degrading behaviour from the judge and as a result causing stress and elevated emotional behaviour.

See link to article from Neos Kosmos

https://neoskosmos.com/en/2018/09/07/news/australia/legal-saga-over-mispronunciation-of-greek-name-kyriazis-as-mr-crazy/

Many experience passive aggressive behaviour from the judiciary, but are unable to recognise this.

Vic Supreme Court rules that courts have fair hearing and equality obligations to assist self-represented litigants

There is a LOT of 'misbehaviour' by the judiciary going on in the colony's court rooms.

MANY judicial registrars/magistrates/judges do not follow the rules or worse the law.

Their misbehaviour goes unnoticed the accused, which could be understandable, but that's worse it's not caught out by the so called legal professionals.

Because they're 'officers of the court' and first and foremost they serve the courts, you're just their 'customer' as mentioned by one magistrate.

The brotherhood could sanction a lowly lawyer that points out the injustices by the judiciary and goes against them, where real life consequences would occur, e.g. job loss resulting in a tarnished career.

Solicitors, lawyers, barristers, QC's etc are not there to 'buck' or expose the fraudulent legal system, but rather support it against the serfs, irrespective of however many from the general population (allegedly) 'win' against the system.

In any event, see the following documentation, especially if you're what they hate, i.e. a self-represented litigant. 

Matsoukatidou v Yarra Ranges Council [2017] VSC 61 (28 February 2017)

See full document:

Summary

The Supreme Court of Victoria has delivered an important decision on the obligations of courts to ensure fair hearing and equality rights under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) (Charter) in the context of unrepresented litigants, and in particular where a litigant has a cognitive disability.

Facts

Betty and Maria Matsoukatidou (mother and daughter respectively) were charged by Yarra Ranges Council with offences under the Building Act 1993 (Vic) for failing to secure and demolish their home after it was destroyed following an arsonist attack. They each received fines (Betty with conviction) from the Magistrates Court of Victoria.

After their appeals to the County Court under the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic) were struck out for non-attendance, they applied for orders reinstating them. At the hearing, Maria and Betty appeared self-represented.  Maria has a learning disability and Betty's first language is not English. Consequently, they struggled to present their case and the judge dismissed their applications without adequately explaining the relevant procedure or applicable legal test. 

Maria and Betty sought judicial review of the orders made on the grounds that, in the way that the hearing was conducted, the judge failed to ensure their human rights to equality and a fair hearing under sections 8(3) and 24(1) of the Charter respectively.

Sitting in the Supreme Court of Victoria, Justice Bell had to consider whether a judge in the County Court is required to apply those Charter rights when hearing and determining legal proceedings. In this respect, submissions were made on behalf of Maria and Betty and the Attorney-General (who intervened).

Decision

Justice Bell accepted that courts and tribunals have an obligation to apply human rights in circumstances covered by section 6(2) of the Charter.

Equality under section 8(3)

The right to equality contained in section 8(3) of the Charter includes the right to equal and effective protection against discrimination, as defined in the Equal Opportunity Act 2010.

Justice Bell identified that Maria’s learning disability substantially diminished her capability to participate effectively in the hearing, including her ability to communicate with the judge.

The County Court judge should have recognised Maria as a person with a disability. Conducting the hearing on the basis she was an adult without a disability had the effect of disadvantaging her. As the judge failed to make any adjustments and accommodations in relation to the conduct of the hearing, a fundamental deficiency had occurred in relation to Maria's right to be equally and effectively protected from (indirect) discrimination. Consequently, her right to equality had been breached.

Fair hearing under s 24(1)

The right under section 24(1) of the Charter is not just to a fair and public hearing; it is to decision by a competent, independent and impartial court or tribunal after such a hearing.

Justice Bell identified that self-represented litigants are usually disadvantaged in all kinds of legal proceedings. Consequently, a judge has a duty to ensure a fair trial by providing due assistance.  These matters are not limited but may extend to issues concerning substantive legal rights as well as the procedure to be followed. Justice Bell stated "The proper scope of the assistance depends on the particular litigant and the nature of the case – the touchstones are fairness and balance".

 With regard to whether a fair hearing had been conducted, the evidence revealed Maria and Betty’s applications for setting aside the strike out orders were listed for hearing in the County Court the day after being issued. The Council was legally represented through counsel instructed by a solicitor whereas Maria and Betty were self-represented. Justice Bell found that the County Court judge did not appear to take into account Maria and Betty’s English capacity. The hearing was conducted too quickly for their comprehension and this compounded the disadvantage they experienced.

In the light of them being self-represented, some assessment needed to be performed by the judge as to how the hearing would be conducted. For this purpose, the County Court judge needed to gain some understanding of their capabilities by appropriately engaging with them at the outset, which ought to have revealed that Maria had a disability.

Maria and Betty should not have been prevented from explaining how the loss of their home to arson had affected their participation in the criminal legal process. The loss of their home would have been a traumatic event.

As they were self-represented, the judge in the County Court hearing their applications was required to give them such advice and assistance to ensure their effective participation in the hearing and equality of arms with the legally represented party. As the judge failed to do so, Maria and Betty’s rights to a fair hearing under section 24(1) of the Charter were breached.

The orders of the judge of the County Court refusing Maria and Betty’s applications to set aside the strike-out orders were in turn set aside by the Supreme Court and their applications have now been remitted to a different judge for hearing and determination according to law.

Relationship between the Charter and common law

Justice Bell identified that in almost all cases, self-represented parties will be entitled to seek judicial review for breach of the rules of procedural fairness and excess of jurisdiction when a court or tribunal fails to apply the right to equality under s 8(3) and a fair hearing under s 24(1) of the Charter. He explained the obligations of courts and tribunals under the Charter to apply those human rights in proceedings are very close to, and in almost all cases coextensive with, their obligations under the common law to give self-represented parties such advice and assistance as well as ensure a fair trial.

Commentary

This important decision confirms that courts have a responsibility under the Charter to ensure that self-represented litigants can participate effectively in legal proceedings. Courts must ensure that self-represented litigants understand the relevant procedure and legal test and in particular must make reasonable adjustments to ensure a fair hearing for self-represented litigants with cognitive disabilities. Justice Bell unequivocally stated that the duty to ensure a fair hearing is “inherent in the rule of law and the judicial process. Equality before the law and equal access to justice are fundamental human rights". The case builds on Justice Bell’s 2007 decision in Tomasevic.

Betty and Maria Matsoukatidou were represented pro bono in the Supreme Court hearing on the Charter issues by Kylie Evans and Evelyn Tadros of the Victorian Bar, Colin Biggers & Paisley and the Human Rights Law Centre.

Court documents reveal corrupt police falsify statements

 A huge burden on society, including taxpayers is a corrupt arm of government called the Judicature, that being the judiciary, staff connected with the administration of justice including the police.

Court documents obtained from a source that wishes the details not to be published in order to remain unidentified, show that Victoria Police falsify statements to suit their alleged ‘facts’ in order to gain successful outcomes for police.

Remembering that a ‘person’ has the ‘right to a fair hearing’ is not a saying or anecdote, but rather a law, and at a state level, it’s enshrined in the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act, 2006 Section 24.

Cited court documents have shown on many occasions that the prosecution ‘supports’ the false statements of corrupt police, where ultimately the judiciary especially in the lower courts also turn a blind eye to police corruption.

BUT does the accused ever get a ‘fair hearing’ in Victoria?

For one, it’s not a level ‘paying field’ as it’s two versus one, where the prosecution in the office and the court room (two different ‘persons’) are against you, the accused.

When you (first and foremost) their 'customer' first enter the business called the court, you're greeted with a lie, by the clerk behind the desk.

You are asked how do you wish to plea, where you are told that there are two choices that being guilty or not guilty.

You are being 'sold' a lie, first off the bat the court is being dishonest with you!

You have another choice that they do not want you to know about, as it is not 'beneficial' for the court, that being a plea of "no plea"

See document within the link: How to plea in court

The prosecution also falsely claims that the "Preliminary Brief" that you are supplied with is factually the full brief, contrary to the titled document.

What will they think of next?

Claim that an 'Excel' spreadsheet is an actual warrant? Which has actually been done in court many times before. 

SO, with regards to this ‘alleged’ fair hearing one is to obtain in Victorian courts according to the law, it is stated in Section 24 (1)

“A person charged with a criminal offence or a party to a civil proceeding has the right to have the charge or proceeding decided by a competent, independent and impartial court or tribunal after a fair and public hearing. “

The focus in the above paragraph are the words  “independent and impartial”.

Also the Court is to function solely in Crown (the King or Queen) in right of the State of Victoria.

You will see in law or Acts the words “Act to bind Crown” followed by “This Act binds the Crown, not only in right of the State of Victoria..”

A document in the public domain authored by the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria states otherwise.

See link to original document: 

Courts acting under dictation owned by financial services institutions

The document states the following, at the end of the first page:

"Develop, maintain, and enhance key relationships with internal and external stakeholders to influence decision making processes and outcomes critical to the success of MCV, including court staff and judiciary, Court Services Victoria,  and other Victorian government departments."

---

Therefore the Victorian judiciary or rather more accurately the judicature does not function independently nor impartially, where they are influenced for the (financial?) benefit of the businesses for the stakeholders.

Who are these ‘stakeholders’?

The truth is that they are banking and financial services institutions, like Vanguard and BlackRock.

Therefore, will any person obtain a “fair hearing” in Victoria?

Keep in mind that the mainstream media deliberately under reports corruption within the Judicature, where it's through truly brave people labelled as whistleblowers that maybe the authorities can be held accountable, although past events show otherwise.

Should you have some documentation you wish published, then comment on any post with a link to that document where it may be published here without revealing your response i.e. the source link.