P.O. Box 11
Mt Crosby News
QLD 4306
4th April 2001
Att: Helen Couper
Chief Officer, Complaints Section and Deputy Director Official Misconduct
Division
Criminal Justice Commission
Brisbane
cc Chairman, CJC
BY FAX: 3360 6333
Dear Helen
Thank you for your response (2nd April 2001) to my complaint lodged in October 2000. It is a trifle ironic that, despite the CJC requesting a report in November from the QPS, it was only several months later that the 12 month period for action to be taken against The Bulletin passed. This might lead one to question the efficiency of the investigation by the QPS. I am pleased that you are conducting an enquiry into what happened.
My understanding is that, according to CJC research in October 2000, no investigation had been lodged into The Bulletin at that time by the QPS - prompting your initial request for the QPS report (source: Peter Jones - November 2000).
This appears to be the real cause for the delay and failure to respond to the DPP Complaint. I would suggest that the QPS are fudging to cover their own tracks. In any event why did the DPP not follow-up their referral to the QPS?
Your response completely misses the basis of my allegation that double standards apply at the DPP and that my arrest was politically motivated.
I will use your own explanation of the process to prove my point.
You state on page two of your letter that:
"A proceeding for an offence against the Criminal Law (Sexual Offence) Act 1978 can only be commenced with the authority of the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General obtains advice from the DPP. The DPP provides advice having regard to evidence gathered during an investigation by the QPS. It is then in the discretion of the Attorney-General whether to give authority to commence proceedings."
While the stage highlighted above was the key reason The Bulletin failed to be charged that stage was completely omitted in the process leading to my arrest.
I will provide you with clear, unequivocal proof that this in fact the case. I would also refer you to the document handed to Peter Jones in my meeting with him in November last year.
The key issue is that it was the DPP who advised the Attorney-General to proceed with my arrest despite NO POLICE INVESTIGATION TAKING PLACE into a vexatious complaint initiated by The Courier-Mail. The alternative is of far more concern - ie that the Attorney-General's office decided to proceed against me without any recommendation from the DPP. Chapter seven in the book "ENEMY OF THE STATE" spells out why The Courier-Mail were upset with me.
It should be noted that it was public knowledge that I was the web master for Pauline Hanson's One Nation at this time.
My claim that the process leading to my arrest was not followed is clearly demonstrated by documents in your possession. I will now spell out where that evidence can be seen.
In the colour plates at the centre of the book "ENEMY OF THE STATE" supplied to Jones you will see the "Authority to Prosecute" dated 29th July 1999. You will note that the order signed by the Attorney-General refers to an alleged offence that took place two days earlier on the 27th July 1999.
In other words the QPS, in terms of the procedures you spell out, had investigated the complaint lodged by The Courier-Mail with the DPP and had recommended my arrest.
You will also see the Bench Charge sheet handed to me on the 30th July. This document states I was arrested for breaching Sexual Offences Act.
Police evidence tendered at my trial:
In the TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS No PS893 of 1999 you will see on pages 10 and 11 the arresting officer Myers refers to telephone records gained from Telstra many weeks AFTER my arrest.
On page 13 of PS893 arresting officer Myers spells out between lines 10 and 60 the process behind my arrest. In particular she states at 15 that "He declined to take part in a record of interview and he was arrested and conveyed to the City Watch house."
There is reference to my business card which was handed to Myers at the Watch house AFTER MY ARREST.
On page 15 of PS893 Myers states that, after my arrest, on line 12 "No, he didn't make any admissions."
On page 21 Detective Taylor states on page 21 of PS893 on line 50 that on 29th July when looking up the "offending page" that "I didn't see anything in relation to the matter before the Court, Mr D'Arcy's name". This on the day the Attorney-General ordered my arrest!
On page 22 Taylor says on line 10 that "It wasn't until the following day which was the 30th, that Detective Myers told me that she'd been given approval to proceed, and she told me that Mr Balson was coming to the office, the taskforce Argos office."
This despite the fact that they had no evidence! Who gave the approval to proceed if the police were supposed to first make a recommendation to the DPP?
Taylor says in her evidence that on the 29th July The Courier-Mail, as mentioned in her statement, see scan in the colour plates of the book that they had a copy of the document allegedly naming D'Arcy. It was on the vexatious evidence supplied by a third party - and without any discussion with myself that the authority to proceed with my arrest was given. Why arrest me on the basis of this phone call?
In the book "ENEMY OF THE STATE" I spell out on page 119 how the Police, months later, called for the trial date (6th October 1999) previously agreed to to be aborted because the Police HAD NOT GOT THEIR EVIDENCE TOGETHER. Court records will confirm these events referred to in the book.
In her summing up in finding me NOT GUILTY of the offence Magistrate McCullum spells out that the police investigation had been inadequate. This is quite extraordinary as the police had ordered my arrest within two days of a complaint while holding no evidence and had nine months to gather the same.
It is a fact that the only "evidence" held by the QPS at the time of my arrest was a vexatious complaint initiated by the The Courier-Mail to the DPP. The police statements tendered to support the QPS case confirm that copies of the document that appeared on the Internet were only obtained from The Courier-Mail DAYS AFTER MY ARREST. (ie they didn't even have a copy of the document naming D'Arcy until DAYS AFTER MY ARREST!)
Clearly the manner in which an authority to prosecute me was ordered is in question. Either what you say in your report as to the process is true or a fabrication. I believe it to be true in which case how come I was arrested without the benefit of a Police investigation first taking place as demanded for The Bulletin.
Yours sincerely
Scott Balson
Phone 3201 1353