 |
 |
Retrial
ordered because of 'bias'
A Northern Territory judge has stunned Darwin
activists by upholding an
appeal by one of them in the Supreme Court and ordering a retrial
because of
magisterial bias.
In a shock
30-minute summing-up
of the testimony by Justice David Angel, the court heard that
Magistrate David
Loadman had not given the appellant, Rob Inder-Smith, of Nightcliff, a
''fair
go''.
Comments by
Magistrate Loadman
such as, ''I don't care'' and ''don't argue with me'', which laced the
transcript,
were highlighted by Justice Angel who delivered the judicial equivalent
of a
laceration of Mr Loadman's handling of the case.
He also
criticised the
''misplaced sarcasm'' and ''ill-considered statements'' directed at the
defendant.
''In my
view, the appellant
was not given a fair go . . . it was an unfair trial,'' Justice Angel
said.
''Comments such
as 'I really
don't care' and 'don't argue with me' . . . suggest that Mr Loadman,
while
going through the motions, had made up his mind about the appellant's
guilt.
''He also said
something about
the barmy army . . . his remarks speak volumes. The whole tone of the
trial is
a concern.
''I set aside
the conviction and
order a retrial.''
The case began
in late 2003 and
finished last April with Inder-Smith being convicted of hindering
police and
disorderly behaviour.
The charges
stemmed from a
protest rally in
Raintree Park, in Darwin's CBD, in October 2002, staged by
controversial human rights group, the Network Against Prohibition.
After being
sentenced,
Inder-Smith, 45, appealed.
''Its good to
have this
victory,'' he said.
''But they will
still get to
have another go at me. It's like trying to hang a man a second time
after the
first attempt has failed. I've said all along the charges were trumped
up and
that there's no way that I or any of my co-defendants in other cases,
will get
a fair hearing.
''Justice Angel
simply
articulated what we already know.''
Mr Inder-Smith
said he was
shocked to hear before yesterday's decision that the prosecution would
not be
contesting the appeal because it, too, had recognised the bias by Mr
Loadman.
''I'm not the
first person to
be victimised by a spiteful magistrate and I won't be the last,'' Mr
Inder-Smith said.
''Those two
charges against me,
like the 100-plus
faced by NAP, have been either baseless or politically
motivated.''
Dozens of
plain-clothes and
uniformed police attended the October, 2002, ''smoke-in for human
rights'', and
in a highly publicised fracas in which they called for reinforcements,
five Napsters
and another man were taken away in paddy wagons.
Napsters and
people attending
have maintained that it was a peaceful protest and that police incited
a
''riot''.
Mr Inder-Smith
was not arrested
until more than a month later.
Napsters
arrested that day face
a litany of serious charges, including damaging police vehicles.
Mr Inder-Smith
said his two
charges were laid only because he and fellow Napster Micky Barry had
attended a
meeting with senior police, and shown them photographs depicting police
violence at the October rally.
''The same
photos include ones
where I am supposedly wrestling with a policeman,'' Mr Inder-Smith said.
''But that is
only one
perspective.
''It shows that
I come into
contact with 'Cop A' and was therefore 'hindering' him in his duty. Of
course
the prosecution took this line as proof of their case before Loadman.
''But the other
perspective is
that I was merely trying to push Cop A away after he grabbed me.
''This happened
because I was
exercising my rights and demanding to know their names.
''It proves how
easy it is for
innocent bystanders to be arrested for no good reason, and especially,
how
suspect police can be in their so-called duty.
''NAP has grown
used to these
'dodgy brothers' charges.
''It's part of
the campaign of
harassment and intimidation we've had to face since we formed three
years
ago.''
Mr Inder-Smith
said he had
resolved that day not to get involved if police showed up.
''I had
expensive musical
equipment to protect,'' he said.
''But when you
see your friends
being set upon by violence-prone police, or as in one case, the face of
a young
woman being ground into the dirt by one of them, it's hard to stay
separate
from the action if it is occurring all around you.''
Ends
