Conditions prove CJ Martin out of line

Perhaps the most extraordinary thing about the mutual flagellation society that masqueraded yesterday as a Northern Territory Supreme Court hearing, were the conditions that Chief Justice Brian Martin imposed upon the “fifth Parliament invader” Scott White.

After handing Scott a 10-week fully suspended prison sentence with a two-year good behaviour bond, Justice Martin then announced the three conditions associated with the bond.

The first was that Scott return to Tasmania “in a few days” (he was staying with his parents at their Stuart Park home). The second was that he not have anything “directly or indirectly” to do with any of the other eight convicted parliament invaders (some are his friends and three have served their sentences). The third was that Scott not participate in any Network Against Prohibition activities and “not get involved” (with them) for the next two years.

The second is the most outrageous. Justice Martin pointedly named every one of the nine people charged with walking into and disturbing the NT Legislative Assembly that terrifying day back in May, 2002.

The first three names were Luke Masters, Aaron Stallard-Bryce and Andrew Deacon. All three were in their late teens when charged with “intentionally disturbing the (LA) while it (was) in session”.

The trio have “served their time” as they say, mainly through community service. None is in involved any longer with NAP, which staged the protest to draw attention to the Martin Government’s absurd and widely discredited “Drug House” laws.

That Justice Martin should issue such a dictate speaks volumes of the judiciary’s view of the progressive human rights and political activist group.

If ever there were any doubt about it being the proscribed and certified enemy of the state, yesterday’s farce sheeted home the cold truth.

The state and its operatives – including the NT Legal Aid commission, which supposedly represented Scott – detest NAP.

Ironically, it took the Crown solicitor Gemma Beggs – who, while merely doing her job, made it clear at the outset she wanted Scott jailed – to cut through the hyperbole with a simple truism.

While explaining Scott’s role in the protest, she said NAP believed that “using illicit substances (was) a personal choice”.

In walking into parliament and waving a placard around for 60 seconds, she said, Scott was “protesting the government’s actions”.

The tenor of the hearing was what depressed most, given that it demonstrated how these things go, and how people’s fate hangs on a thread when they come before a judge.

Every day, the Justice Martins of the world slip easily in and out of messianic mode, forgetting they are human, donning the crown of thorns and adjusting their tones to suit their exalted messages.

It would be interesting to know how Scott would have been dealt with, had his parents not been present in the front row of his court room (there was no question he would have known who they were).

Only he knows if his words were tailored to suit their ears. But it was a co-incidence that in passing sentence, he used the word “family” several times, and how his actions – for which of course, he was “responsible” – had brought them stress.

He even went as far as saying: “You are now living with a woman who fathered your child.”

It was as if Justice Martin were trying to convince Mr and Mrs White that while dispensing the best of Westminster justice, he could be a compassionate god as well as a harsh one.

His summing up reeked of paternalism – it was like a ping-pong match between the forces of virtue and darkness.

“You are entitled to credit by mitigation,” he said referring to the “limited role” Scott played in the protest, and the four days spent behind bars in Tasmania and Darwin during his extradition back to the NT.

But somber was he when dismissing the claim by his lawyer, Ian Read, that he was contrite and no longer involved with NAP.

“I do not accept that,” he said sternly, in a concession to Beggs, who had reminded the court that Scott ran as a NAP candidate in the seat of Casuarina at last year’s NT election.

Ms Beggs also referred to the NAP website (www.napnt.org), which she said proved that Scott was still critical of the “justice system”.

Of Mr Read’s claim that his client was simply “misguided” in committing an “unfortunate” act, Justice Martin said: “I do not believe that.

“You were an adult who disrupted the proceedings of a democratically elected parliament.”

His best censorious voice was saved for the old hoary toad: “You have a right to protest lawfully . . . I emphasise lawfully.

“But you crossed the boundary of what is lawful and that is a serious offence.”

Then he flipped to the other side of the coin and returned to good Scott: “It must be said (that) you are a person who has a strong public conscience. You act upon your views to the detriment of your family.”

His tone was almost cheerful as he described the defendant’s new life of responsibility, family devotion and community-mindedness in Tasmania.

But back to bad Scott: “Had you voluntarily returned to Darwin and pleaded guilty (earlier), you would have saved your family stress.”

Good Scott: “You continue to be a person with a social conscience.”

The good judge couldn’t have tried harder to labotomise those present if he’d had an operating table and a kit full of surgical tools . . . Big Brother is good . . . NAP is bad . . . you must love Big Brother.


The universal attitude was that NAP was very much the enfant terrible, a point on which both lawyers even agreed, as evidenced by Mr Read’s own diatribes, during which he told the court that despite his role in protest activities, Scott was or had in the past been involved with “respectable” groups such as police youth and land care.

To his credit, Read’s summary of the “good Scott” was one of only two highlights of the morning, the other being the fact that Scott was free to go.

After describing Scott as a former champion middle-distance runner in Queensland, being ranked nationally in the 400 metres and 800m, he moved on to his three-year stint in the Australian army from when he was 18, during which he attained the rank of lance-corporal.

“He enjoyed the camaraderie and oddly, the discipline,” was the patronising way Mr Read put it.

As for Justice Martin, he saw an opportunity to grandstand and grabbed it, which is not surprising from the former South Australian league footballer, who is known to be fond of an audience and fonder still of holding one.

His comments at the death typify the fear the state has of NAP. How dare he order Scott not to associate with people who are his friends (one of whom is in jail because he, too, is a man of principal)?

What purpose will this order achieve and how can it be workable?

His order was delivered with all the malicious intent of somebody who himself has overstepped the “boundary” – to use his word - of his authority. What he did when handing down the three conditions in sentencing Scott, was a blatant attempt to socially engineer four men known to one another with varying degrees of familiarity, and not have them bump into one another and discuss “old times” for the hell of it, all while the threat of prosecution hangs over them if they are seen and-or heard doing so.

The decree undeservedly impugns the state of mind of three young men, Masters, Stallard-Bryce and Deacon, and are as unjustifiable as they are despotic.

The bewigged trio choreographing the action yesterday went to bed last night knowing that it was all just another day at the office.