Best in Netscape 800 X 600 or greater

On line since 22/05/98	This page hosted by Get your own Free Home Page

Introduction

I read the article "Call for judges' code of conduct" in the Advertiser 12/11/94 with keen interest, and reflecting upon my own experience with the so-called Justice system, I was forced to assume that ex Chief Justice King was recommending that the current judiciary be given more freedom and power to be a 'law unto itself'.

The article spoke of "judicial independence", "the justice system's integrity", "accountability of judges", and "ability of the courts to deliver justice", and I was left wondering if this was the same Court system I had attended in the past.

I considered Mr Kings view that "a judge ought to be accountable only to the law and his own conscience", and I thought from my own experience that the two were totally opposite entities that did not blend together. I read of his view that "a judge should be removed from office, or made subject to criticism or disciplinary action.…only for conduct which is unlawful in a serious respect or WHICH INFRINGES RULES OF CONDUCT WHICH ARE CLEARLY DEFINED IN AN AUTHORITATIVE CODE" and that "the judiciary should give serious attention to "THE FORMULATION OF SUCH A CODE".

Then I realised why I had not received justice from this Court system, and why many people in this State are falling victim to any accountability, integrity, rules of conduct code etc; that may have been lacking in the past.

But the final clinch came in the concluding comments of ex Chief Justice King: "I have no doubt that the capacity of the courts to deliver independent justice can best be secured by placing every aspect of the administration of the courts under the ULTIMATE CONTROL of the judges who are responsible for the delivery of that justice".

Apart from dreading the consequences of such ultimate control, based upon my past experience, I thought, was Mr King hereby agreeing that independent justice had been out of the courts' control in the past. That's a long time to be administering injustice. I was forced to conclude that any criticism or disciplinary action against any judge, independent or under control of the Government, should be accountable to a code of conduct formulated only by persons independent of both the courts and the Government. That might have to narrow things down to the people who have fallen victim to such a system that has been found lacking all this time, people like you and I.

In Addition

I have information which shows that it is the State Government Insurance Commission (now Motor Accident Commission) who is acting fraudulently against claimants, and that those genuinely injured are the ones who become victims of such fraud, with no opportunity to tell their side of the story to the public. Persistent complaints to the Government reveal a cover-up being maintained throughout on this issue. If you are interested in various aspects of this information, including the role of investigators and medical practitioners for SGIC (now MAC), legal representatives and the Courts then read on.

Back to the Top

Send your e-mail to Peter

---

       

Page Construction by Production Line Pages Design and Layout Copyright © 1998 All rights reserved.