Dual role of the trial judge

Leanne Clare , in her position as the director of Queensland Department of Public Prosecutions, was legally responsible for the decision to have me charged in Court and she was legally responsible for producing the charge against me to the Court .

The brief of evidence - provided to the Court as well - is clearly marked as ' for and on behalf of L. Clare , director of DPP '. Afterwards , she was presiding over the court hearing as the trial judge to hear the very one charge against me .

There are 2 aspects of this issue :

1. breach of internationally accepted principles and Human Rights declarations by allowing the person involved in my prosecution to become the trial judge in the case against me ,  

2. After the public outcry ( following her decision to drop the charges against the policeman accused of killing an aboriginal man on the Palm Island ) Leanne Clare was kicked out as director of Queensland Department of Public Prosecutions - therefore she was considered not to be ' fit and proper ' person for this administrative position . BUT she was considered to be ' fit and proper ' person to be offered the position of district court judge .

Is it my naiveté thinking that from a judge it is expected higher level of integrity and respectability than from a holder of position in government bureaucracy ?

Then again , this is Queensland .......

Leanne Clare - former director of
Queensland Department of Public Prosecutions
and now District Court judge.

Can you imagine in any other 'democratic' country , claiming the ' separation ' and
' independence ' of judiciary from other form of government , to have the actual prosecutor ALSO playing the role of ' independent ' judge at the same time !

In Queensland they are even bragging about it ! Have a look at the actual entry about Clare in the Wikipedia ! ( copy below ) Poor people did not have a slightest chance of the fair trial in court with the 'judge' deliberating the case being presented by her own prosecution office .
They do not even care about maintaining pretences of impartiality any more !

The arguments for the conflict of interest :

- she was the lawful claimant of the legitimacy of the charge against me made to the Court ( when she was director of Qld DPP ) and therefore she can be seen as having vested interest in my prosecution

- she would not like being seen that when she was director of Qld DPP she made wrong decision of bringing unreasonably the charge against me to the court

- she could be seen that as the trial judge she was trying to validate (by ' successful prosecution ') as correct the decision to charge me in court which she made as director of Qld DPP

- in relation to the charge against me she was acting both as a member of executive branch and judiciary branch of state apparatus , breaching the principle of independence of judiciary by having professional association with the case against me in different capacities

- due to , perceived as likely , the conflict of interest , the complicity in my persecution , and reasonable apprehension of bias of a person performing 2 functions in relation to the charge against me she cannot be viewed as the objective , independent or impartial person

- The trial judge conduct during the trial ( e.g. the jury was called out 5 times on the second day of trial ; interruptions in front of jury just to create confusion ; her attempts to cause me distress) indicated her sympathy towards the prosecution and the bias against me .

- such high position of trust in the society as the judge , such high power they yield in deciding about lives of other people in the society implies that they should be beyond any suspicion of possible bias , partiality or prejudice

- The notion that her position in the organisation was too high to entail ' personal ' involvement is erroneous in the view of unknown internal procedures and practical workings of the organisation (Qld DPP) The level of her personal involvement can only be established by the enquiry or investigation

- If the head of the government department is supposed to have nothing to do with what this department is doing it would not make Qld Premier or the taxpayers particularly happy

- My conviction is not for what actually happened during the incident I was involved in
( broken hand ) but for what could hypothetically happen in the worst case scenario
( loss of use of a limb ) ( GBH )

- Using the same legal principle that an event does not have to occur but there is the possibility that it could occur ( and that principle is not questioned by lawyers and judges themselves ) and the legal principle of the likely guilt/responsibility ' by association' when the event is taking place , ( notorious case of the ' innocent bystander ' – Daniel Aaron Mead – convicted in Queensland Court for ' robbery with personal violence ' while acknowledged in court that he did not touch the victim or took any money himself ) when looking at the issue of the trial judge involvement in my prosecution , it is irrelevant if she was , could have been or might have been ' personally ' involved in my prosecution .

The fact is that she was a member of the executive branch of the government in control
of the organisation prosecuting me , she was performing a vital role in that prosecution
( therefore she was ' associated ' with my prosecution ) and the public perception of that role conflicts with the propagated independence of judiciary .

- Those legal principles , used for my conviction and that of Mr. Mead , should be used to determine unsuitability of Leanne Clare to be the trial judge in the court case against me , as applicable with the view of the equality of all Australian citizens before the law .

Due to the procedural unfairness the trial has been intrinsically flawed by departure from the essential requirement for a fair trial THE RIGHT TO BE TRIED BY AN IMPARTIAL JUDGE .

Her selection as the trial judge seems to be in conflict with the separation of powers implied in the Australian constitution .

Legal reference :

Universal Declaration of Human Rights - article 10 -

' Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair trial and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal …. '

~ ~