"Paper shuffling" atrocity - goes unpunished
by mick lambe - June 18, 2003

NAP and PARIAH activists involved in the 'invasion' of Chief Health Officer Shirley Hendy's office in Health house were yesterday found not guilty of the Labor Party's new (and previously untried) law - Section 226B of the Criminal Code "Home invasion and invasion of business premises".

The charge carries a penalty of imprisonment of up to seven years.

More details here

One defendant was excused from proceedings - as the person who claimed to be Scott White to Police after the event - was wearing a 'grim reaper' mask and costume at the time. Scott asserted his right to have the Public Prosecutor prove his involvement.

NT Police want prison for "Paper shuffling"

The Prosecutor was relying on the alleged "shuffling of papers" - "movement of furniture" and the "closing of a door" to invoke the "interference" definition in the "Home invasion and invasion of business premises" section.

The heinous "door closing" claim was dismissed readily, so too the alleged "slight" movement of a desk. Legal argument about "lost productivity" (laughter in Court) was similarly discarded.

The "paper shuffling" (also "ruffling") was the Prosecution's mainstay and 'lame' would be a kindly definition for this argument. It was up there with the 'indecency' argument used to describe the horrors of an art poster, which featured a 3mm penis covered with a leather jockstrap.

The Magistrate felt the "shuffling of paper" was stretching a point, stating, "The law is not concerned with trivia".

Real obscenity

Police attempts to use such heavy laws against political protesters are the real obscenity.

Police mock the reasons this law was introduced (kindly supplied by the PP) and anger myself and other activists with their blatantly inconsistent application of such laws. I have suffered "home invasions" - real ones - and no action (apart from one show trial - which acquitted the offenders) was taken by NT Police to bring the 'invaders' to justice.

The "Home invasion and invasion of premises" legislation makes no distinction between people trying to exercise their right to free speech and to talk to their elected representatives, and '…breaking into peoples homes and ransacking premises.'" - Ema Birkeland Coro

Trespass charge as "backup"

The protesters also faced a Trespass charge described by Chief Magistrate Bradley as the "backup charge" on at least two occasions.

The cynicism expressed in the term "backup charge" cannot (I believe) be aired in Court without being seen as anything less than a criticism of this 'normal' Police procedure.

The four Defendants should not have been found guilty of Trespass - as they were, when it was obviously a standby charge should the protesters be found innocent of 'Office invasion', which (once again) carries a penalty of up to seven years in prison.

There was no evidence that the people who instructed the protesters to leave were authorised to do so, or were even heard by protesters through the closed door. Protesters left shortly after Police instructed them to vacate the office. Nothing was damaged or stolen.

There is nothing 'normal' about the NT Police obsession to gaol protesters here. The refusal to even investigate assaults, home invasions, etc... against protesters (admitted by NT Police to be contrary to Police procedure) demonstrates how the law has become a political weapon in the Northern Territory. One unavailable to critics of the NT Police State.

The activists will be appealing the Trespass decision.

NAP and PARIAH protesters face another bout of this Police 'double-dipping' over the protest at Clair Martin(et)'s office next Monday 23 June, 2003.

The ramifications ...

How may times have people in the NT angered by bureaucratic indifference, acted exactly the same as these protesters? If any damage was done in an office either deliberately or inadvertently, they too would be facing these draconian NT laws.

Broad daylight incursions with plenty of witnesses are hardly events charged with criminal intent.

These laws are made by the people with the most to gain from their political application.

Every aspect of our lives in Australia is being controlled - about 300 new laws are passed every year in Australia with about 3 being repealed. If that were not bad enough. we see that Police are practically immune from the law - especially under 'political' circumstances. Yet they are fully prepared to punish the critics of their hypocrisy - with laws - often tailored to suit that purpose.

People protesting the inaction, corruption, indifference and hypocrisy of the two-headed political entity we call democracy in this country - are being transformed into criminals.