AND TAKE NOTICE that the grounds for the appeal are

1. The Magistrates Court had no jurisdiction to try this case.

a) there has been no definitive declaration by the Legislative Assembly in accordance with s.5 of the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act 1992.

b) It is the exclusive jurisdiction of the Assembly to state if an offence has occurred and especially to prosecute in the Legislative Assembly sitting in its judicial role under ss. 5,25, and 26 of the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act 1992.

c.) The constitutional requirement of the separation of powers applies
to the exercise of the powers of the house of representatives and exercise of similar powers vested in the legislative assembly by s.12 of the northern territory (self-government) act, as enacted under the legislative assembly (powers and privileges) act. There is a constitutional requirement that the judiciary does not have power to declare whether legislative assembly has been improperly interfered with or to punish persons for their exercising of their right to freedom of expression within the legislative assembly.

Only one of the branches of Government has jurisdiction over the Act in question, and in this case clearly it is the exclusive jurisdiction of the Legislative Assembly, and in fact, there can be no offence without a vote under s.5 of the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act 1992.

2. The Defendants who were unrepresented were not adequately advised of their rights.

a) The hostile media campaign (epitomized by Attorney General Peter Toyne's public remarks on the court case) made an unbiased jury trial seem unlikely to Defendants.

b) The Defendants were emotionally and physically exhausted by the government and Police campaign mounted against them. We were dealing with a statistically improbable number of other cases and legal matters at the time.

3. The politicization of the trial was evident. Particularly during the sentencing/press conference finale. Political bias.

a) The Magistrate and Public Prosecutor seemed bound by a need to exonerate Superintendent Bert Hofer, who I witnessed assault a defenseless female in parliament.

b) I absolutely refute all of Magistrate Wallace's comments to the assembled press (during sentencing) about this assault.

c) I will rely on the (Police doctored) video tape and the transcript to demonstrate why.

d) The Court was used at times by the Prosecutor to help Police gain evidence in matters unrelated to the alleged offence for overtly political reasons.

e) Evidence was withheld and tampered with.

f) Cross examination and evidential criteria were grossly prejudicial to the Defendants.

4.) The Defendant does not believe the Constitution has been correctly interpreted in light of Mabo and other changes in Australia's social and legal framework since its inception.

5.) The Defendant believes a Parliament that presides over a racist and corrupt state has less rights under the Constitution than those people that protest said racism and corruption.

6 . The sentencing was manifestly excessive and ignored the circumstances of the Defendants. Namely…

a. The stressful political situation and economic disadvantages of the Defendants.

b. Their political motivation. This is the criminalisation of political protest.

c. The enormous amount of evidence revealing a campaign by NT government and Police to marginalize and destroy NAP (Network Against Prohibition) and PARIAH People Against Racism In Aboriginal Homelands. Conceded by the Magistrate.

7. Evidence of 'selective prosecution' on political grounds -- some examples being the refusal of Police to even investigate complaints made by the Defendants assaulted in Parliament. Despite the best efforts of Magistrate Wallace to whitewash these assaults to the Press they remain a demonstrative reality. The complaint I made against Prosecutor Paul Frances Tudor-Stack has also 'vanished'. Magistrate Wallace defended Mr Tudor-Stack's bigoted remarks, despite having little knowledge of the circumstances.

a) Attempts to bring NT Attorney General Peter Toyne's comments on the trial -- which I believe amount to Contempt of Court -- to the attention of the court have yet to meet with success.

mick lambe - Dated 19th day of November, 2003

The following are the amended grounds of appeal submitted by Gary Meyerhoff:

Amendment of Appeal (21 November, 2003)

IN THE MATTER OF a conviction (or order or adjudication) made on the 5th day of June, 2003 by the Court of Summary Jurisdiction of Darwin in the Northern Territory of Australia on the hearing of a certain information (or complaint) wherein PAUL FRANCIS TUDOR-STACK of Darwin, was the informant (complainant) and GARY MEYERHOFF the Defendant.

TO: Mr Wallace SM a Stipendiary Magistrate for the Northern Territory of Australia and to the Clerk of the aforementioned complainant.

TAKE NOTICE that GARY WILLIAM MEYERHOFF of 19 Gilbert Street Ludmilla intends to institute and duly prosecute an appeal AND HEARBY APPEALS to the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory of Australia against a certain conviction (sentence, or order of adjudication) made on the aforementioned date by the said Stipendiary Magistrate, sitting as a Court of Summary Jurisdiction at Darwin in the Northern Territory.

Whereby you convicted and sentenced the defendant on one count of 'intentionally disturbing the Legislative Assembly' while it was in session on Tuesday, 14 May, 2002, contrary to section 61(a) of the Northern Territory Criminal Code to 21 months imprisonment, suspended after five months.


AND TAKE NOTICE that the appellant intends to institute and duly prosecute the appeal at the sittings of that Supreme Court which will be in accordance with the rules of that Supreme Court if practicable commence at Darwin on a day which is the first day after the expiration of 21 days from the service of this notice on which sittings of that Supreme Court for hearing appeals under the Justices Act have been set down to commence.

AND TAKE NOTICE that the amended grounds for the appeal are

1. The Magistrates Court had no jurisdiction to try this case.

a) there has been no definitive declaration by the Legislative Assembly in accordance with s.5 of the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act 1992.

b) It is the exclusive jurisdiction of the Assembly to state if an offence has occurred and especially to prosecute in the Legislative Assembly sitting in its judicial role under ss. 5,25, and 26 of the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act 1992.

c.) The constitutional requirement of the separation of powers applies to the exercise of the powers of the house of representatives and exercise of similar powers vested in the legislative assembly by s.12 of the northern territory (self-government) act, as enacted under the legislative assembly (powers and privileges) act. There is a constitutional requirement that the judiciary does not have power to declare whether legislative assembly has been improperly interfered with or to punish persons for their exercising of their right to freedom of expression within the legislative assembly.

Only one of the branches of Government has jurisdiction over the Act in question, and in this case clearly it is the exclusive jurisdiction of the Legislative Assembly, and in fact, there can be no offence without a vote under s.5 of the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act 1992.

2. The Defendants who were unrepresented were not adequately advised of their rights.

a) The hostile media campaign (epitomized by Attorney General Peter Toyne's public remarks on the court case) made an unbiased jury trial seem unlikely to Defendants.

b) The Defendants were emotionally and physically exhausted by the government and Police campaign mounted against them. We were dealing with a statistically improbable number of other cases and legal matters at the time.

3. The politicization of the trial was evident. Particularly during the sentencing/press conference finale. Political bias.

a) The Magistrate and Public Prosecutor seemed bound by a need to exonerate Superintendent Bert Hofer, who assaulted a defenceless female in parliament.

b) I absolutely refute all of Magistrate Wallace's comments to the assembled press (during sentencing) about this assault.

c) I will rely on the (Police doctored) video tape and the transcript to demonstrate why.

d) The Court was used at times by the Prosecutor to help Police gain evidence in matters unrelated to the alleged offence for overtly political reasons.

e) Evidence was withheld and tampered with.

f) Cross examination and evidential criteria were grossly prejudicial to the Defendants.

4.) The Defendant does not believe the Constitution has been correctly interpreted in light of Mabo and other changes in Australia's social and legal framework since its inception.

5.) The Defendant believes a Parliament that presides over a racist and corrupt state has fewer rights under the Constitution than people who  protest said racism and corruption.

6 . The sentencing was manifestly excessive and ignored the circumstances of the Defendants. Namely…

a. The stressful political situation and economic disadvantages of the Defendants.

b. Their political motivation. This is the criminalisation of political protest.

c. The enormous amount of evidence revealing a campaign by NT government and Police to marginalize and destroy NAP (Network Against Prohibition) and PARIAH People Against Racism In Aboriginal Homelands. Conceded by the Magistrate.

7. Evidence of 'selective prosecution' on political grounds -- some examples being the refusal of Police to even investigate complaints made by the Defendants assaulted in Parliament. Despite the best efforts of Magistrate Wallace to whitewash these assaults to the Press they remain a demonstrative reality.

a) Attempts to bring NT Attorney General Peter Toyne's comments on the trial -- which I believe amount to Contempt of Court -- to the attention of the court have yet to meet with success.

8. It is my contention that Section 61 of the NT Criminal Code breaches our implied right to freedom of speech and access to government as implied in the Australian Constitution.

9. It is my contention that the “War on Drugs” and subsequent “tough on drugs” and zero tolerance legislation are illegal and breach international law.

10. It is my contention that due to the ongoing “War on Drugs”, the defendants have available to them the provisions of the Geneva Convention, to which Australia is a signatory and should have been treated as such.

11. Magistrate Wallace displayed overwhelming bias against the defendants. This includes but is not limited to:

a) Magistrate Wallace ignored any defences put up by the defendants, namely:

i) That the defendants were justified in their actions in that they were attempting to prevent the parliament from breaching international law,

ii) That the defendants had available to them the defence of provocation, in accordance with NT Criminal Code Section 34 Subsection (3), in view of the harassment and intimidation faced by the defendants in the months proceeding the incident. Magistrate Wallace did concede that the defendants had been intimidated by the NT Police but refused to take this into account when reaching a verdict.

b) Magistrate Wallace disallowed many questions, on the basis that the above defences were not available to us. He also disallowed witness subpoenas on this basis, including Police Commissioner Paul White.

c) Magistrate Wallace refused to stand himself down from the matter due to his bias, despite numerous applications made by the defendants. Of particular concern is the relationship between Magistrate Wallace and the Prosecutor, Peter John Thomas, Magistrate Wallace ignored any applications of this nature.

d) It is our contention that Section 61 of the NT Criminal Code breaches the right to freedom of speech and access to government implied in the Australian constitution. Magistrate Wallace refused to adjourn the matter and refer it to the NT Supreme Court or the Federal Attorney General, in accordance with Section 162 of the Justices Act or Section 18 of the Crown Proceedings Act respectively.

e) Magistrate Wallace forced us to proceed despite my application for an adjournment, on grounds of ill health, ongoing police harassment and intimidation, no legal representation and other reasons.

f) Magistrate Wallace refused our requests for internet access in the courtroom.

Gary Meyerhoff

21st November 2003

Much gratitude to Daniel Taylor, a student at law, who has assisted us, whilst doing shift work and helping with the Letty Scott case -- amongst others.