Truth on trial case …Latest update 3 October 2003CONFLICT OF INTEREST WITH JUDGES TO HEAR CASE
The Hoser books on trial are to be judged by judges named by him in those books as corrupt!!!
The case of whether or not it's legal to publish the truth about judicial corruption took a turn for the worse today, when the Court of Appeal appointed three judges to hear the case against Hoser, but all of whom evidently have a strong conflict of interest against him.
This is the case where Victorian Attorney General Rob Hulls and a convicted extortionist Anthony Adam Zoccoli are trying to ban Hoser's books, Victoria Police Corruption (1 and 2) and at the same time send Hoser and his family broke by convicting him of "contempt", the contempt being to undermine public confidence in the legal system.
The charge is an unheard of 17th century charge that in theory isn't compatible with free speech as defined by the high court, UN treaties as signed by Australia and other laws, but none of this is stopping head-kicker Rob Hulls in his witch-hunt against Hoser.
The same charge "contempt", via publishing the truth is not possible in other liberal democracies such as Canada, the USA or the UK, but Hulls is intent on making the Hoser case a precedent to stifle all dissent and public disclosure of judicial and political malpractice.
In the Supreme Court, fellow Labor Lawyer, turned judge, Geoffrey Eames, handed down a defective judgement declaring Hoser guilty of undermining public confidence in the legal system.
Hoser and his publisher appealed the verdict.
That Eames heard the case, even though he was named in one of the Hoser books and was also eviently keen to defend other close friends adversely named is evidence of a legal system going off the rails in the first instance, but the choice of appeal court judges is even more worrying.
In the interim and no doubt to help ensure a guilty verdict against Hoser on appeal, Eames was promoted by Hulls to the Appeal court.
Hence the pressure on other judges in the same court not to rule against a fellow judge is probably an obstacle no one, not even Hoser can overcome.
The head Judge, John Winnecke has been appointed to hear the case as chief judge.
He is repeatedly adversely named in both the Hoser books, so it'd be a given he'll find against Hoser's books and be happy to send him into oblivion.
In appeal cases, judges sit in trios and hence the continual contact between Eames and the other nine or so judges in the Appeal court.
The other two judges are Haper, also elevated to the court since Hulls became Attorney General, the man prosecuting Hoser, while, the third is Batt, who sits with Eames in cases more often than many people have breakfasts.
Hoser applied to have a judge or three brought in from another state to hear the case so as to avoid conflicts of interest, but the request was refused.
It seems therefore that the hatchet job against Hoser and his books will complete either next week, or when the judges decide to hand down their judgement.
This isn't a worry because of what happens to Hoser, but rather that the precedent of convicting and fining people who publish the truth about misconduct in government will become more widely used and as a tool for stopping all forms of dissent.
To date the media's coverage of this most important case has been minimal and it is the media itself which stands to lose the most from the case.
In related matters, another defective Eames judgement was knocked down in flames today by the High Court in the Rolah McCabe matter.
The above commentary is not an attack on the legal system, but a statement of facts as they are.
If the case against Hoser is allowed to be another hatchet job on a man who has done nothing more than publish truth, then it is the people within the legal system who are bringing it into disrepute and undermining public confidence in the legal system.
For that matter, Rob Hulls himself has done immeasurable harm to the credibility of the legal system by even charging a man who has published truth and nothing more.
Further details of the case, including relevant documents are at:
Phone inquiries at:
0412 777 211
Cases where Batt and Eames have sat togeather recently as appeal court judges:
Just a few listed here:
R v Nguyen and Okobagerish  VSCA 130 (21 August 2002)
R v Kumar  VSCA 139 (10 September 2002)
R v Fuller-Cust  VSCA 168 (24 October 2002)
Smart v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited  VSCA 111 (19 July 2002)
R v Ng  VSCA 108 (2 August 2002) (WINNEKE, P., BATT and EAMES, JJ.A.)
Kassionis v The Magistrates' Court of Victoria & Hanley  VSCA 73 (17 May 2002) (Batt/Eames only)
Mobilia v Voudiotis  VSCA 72 (17 May 2002) (Batt/Eames only)
R v Weston  VSCA 121 (7 August 2002)
R v Lelah  VSCA 96 (27 June 2002)
R v Brown  VSCA 99 (28 June 2002)
Director of Public Prosecutions v DJK  VSCA 109 (20 August 2003)
R v Siggins  VSCA 97 (20 June 2002)
DPP v Leach  VSCA 96 (6 August 2003)
R v Bux  VSCA 126 (21 August 2002)
Director of Public Prosecutions (on behalf of Hansen) v Moore  VSCA 90 (29 July 2003)
R v Japaljarri (formerly known as Hocking)  VSCA 154 (1 October 2002)
DPP v Rzek  VSCA 97 (6 August 2003)
DPP v Akkari  VSCA 98 (24 July 2003)
R v Holland  VSCA 118 (12 August 2002)
Ipex Software Services Pty Ltd & Ors v Hosking  VSCA 239 (15 December 2000)
R v Daniels  VSCA 78 (22 May 2002) (WINNEKE, P. and BATT and EAMES, JJ.A)
Cehner v Borg & Ors  VSCA 72 (12 June 2003)
Pham v ANZ Banking Group Ltd  VSCA 206 (13 December 2002)
AND MANY OTHERS….
Hoser letter to Supreme Court dated 3 10 2003.
Hoser and Anor V The Queen (Court of Appeal, Supreme Court, no. 5928 of 2001)
File number 5928/01
I refer to the hearing set down for 6 October this year to which I am a party.
I have just been advised that the judges set down to hear the case are Judges Batt, Harper and Winneke. This effectively negates the possibility of a fair trial and/or any perception of one.
Noted is that Judge Winneke is adversely named in both the Victoria Police Corruption books, which are the central element of the trial - being the allegedly contemptuous publications and as a result it is impossible to expect him to judge on the books with anything resembling impartiality.
He also (in violation of truth) found against me in a case in 1997 at an appeal in which he admitted that he had:
1/ Failed to read the transcript of the case being appealed and
2/ Didn't bother to look at most of the grounds of appeal, some of which were upheld in other later cases (e.g. Phung, Katsuno case matters).
These statements are in his written judgement.
Please remove him from the Bench hearing the case and appoint another judge. Again it is suggested that you bring in a mutually accepted judge from interstate. I expect your immediate reply to this letter and before 4.30 PM today. In the event, that Judge Winneke is appointed to hear this case and is not disqualified before it starts, I will make an application for him to remove himself from the hearings at the start of proceedings. Assuming that he will as a matter of course accept the application, this letter is sent now, to avoid this time-wasting exercise and allow you another go at appointing judges for this matter. You may also wish to show the judge this letter, as I'd expect him to agree with the above in terms of his not being able to hear the case. Please advise me as soon as you can what is happening in terms of Judge Winneke and this case by phone and in writing via fax and hard copy letter. Please acknowledge receipt of this letter in writing.
YOURS FAITHFULLY - RAYMOND HOSER
Stop Press One - Judge Winneke has stood aside (Monday 6 Oct at 11 AM and now Judge Vincent will stand in his place)
Stop Press Two - Applications to have judges Vincent, Batt And Harper stand aside failed on this day. All three were sought to be disqualified on grounds of conflict in that they sat with Eames on prior cases and that their employer, Rob Hulls was the man who was prosecuting me, making it very much an "in house hatchet job". For Judge Vincent, disqualification was sought also due to previous public comments relating to this case and previous contempt judgements. The three judges claimed an oath of independence and refused to disqualify themselves and hence heard the case.
Back to the 2003 media release archive page
Back to main media release archive page (all years)