1) Final Letter to
2) Letter to
3) Details of
Court Proceedings in
4) Legal
Considerations & Argument
5) Arohata Women’s Prison,
****************************************************************
1) Final
Letter to
To: New
Zealand Governor-General
NZ Chief
Justice - High Court
NZ Chief
Justice - Family Court
NZ Chief
Judge - District Court
NZ
Public Service (various)
Race Relations Conciliator
Ombudsman’s
Office
Human
Rights Commission
Commissioner
for the Child
British
High Commission
Australian
High Commission
Private & Public Prosecution Lawyers
NZ
Media 11th
September 2002
I
needed to write to you all finally further to my previous letter of the 1st
February 1991 (attached) and following the subsequent court case in March that
year in the Auckland & North Shore District Court involving both myself and
my wife Mary. Precisely as I had predicted, this jury trial was a complete
farce and an appalling miscarriage of justice that made a mockery of the entire
To begin, whilst faking a skilful, energetic defence
for Mary, her lawyer Paul Dacre with no objection
from my own counsel Geoff Wells, established an artificial situation whereby my
own defence would subsequently be severely and unjustly restricted. This
ensured that the jury would never hear the details of exactly what had happened
to us. All charges against Mary were then dropped but not before the cosy
coterie of corrupt conspirators had obtained their 'pound of flesh'. Prosecution
evidence had been published in the papers, my own position had been irreparably
compromised to the jury, Mary had been held in custody for 6 weeks, her own
daughter Hannah had been abducted yet again and we had been deliberately
defamed in the press both here and in
After
the prosecution case was completed and it came time to open my defence, Wells
took over with his pathetic pretence of (mis)representation
- if he had been counsel for the prosecutiion, he could not have done a better
job! First he tried unsuccessfully to persuade me to plead guilty which I
reasonably refused to do. He then most reluctantly proceeded but deliberately
ignored all my written and verbal instructions (repeatedly discussed in the
weeks prior that I was in custody), failed to pursue any of the lines of proper
defence and argument clearly established (especially a defence of duress),
asked none of the questions we had agreed to beforehand and in his summation,
virtually took an identical position to the prosecution.
In
fact convicted by his own words and the police prosecution case that he was at
great pains to repeat and emphasise, Wells has "a lifetime habit of being
a cheat, a liar, a freeloader and a persistent offender" and is so evil
that he feels no shame or remorse whatsoever. He is literally a sexually
depraved criminal driven by remorseless and relentless guilt in all that he
does and he accepts large amounts of money to represent inmates in jail whilst
working directly against their best interests. This betrayal of the trust of
vulnerable and defenceless, unconvicted prisoners mirrors exactly what he has
done to his own family all his miserable 'adult' life. He (like nearly all the
NZ police I have ever met) is "having a free holiday at the
Wells
deceitfully claims to be a Buddhist and predictably these spiritual beliefs are
as transparently hypocritical, superficial and theoretical as the rest of his
prostituted existence. Like Buddha himself, he misuses his vain and empty show
of religion as a cloak to disguise and justify his truly sinister abdication
and evasion of principal responsibilities, his selfishness, unethical
immorality, unprincipled greed, unrestrained ambition and essential wickedness.
Whilst pretending to espouse non-violence, he stands idly by actively agreeing
to and actually enjoying many of his clients being illegally mistreated and
brutally assaulted by prison staff. This voyeuristic sadism is a really twisted
and depraved perversion and in essence his behaviour is much worse and more
violent in real terms than the prison officers who actually do the beatings in
Mt Eden prison and elsewhere. In fact, he is completely split behaviourally,
lives a double life and shows many of the indicative symptoms of paranoid
schizophrenia. Along with a number of others who unlawfully make money within
the criminal (in)justice and law enforcement system in
In
turn the presiding judge Bruce Buckton absurdly controlled evidence throughout
the entire proceedings so as to prevent a full and proper disclosure of all the
relevant facts and events. He deliberately limited the presentation of a proper
defence (giving a good insight into what they were desperately determined to
keep quiet), obscured the real issues and together with the prosecutor
Christine Gordon actively encouraged rampant perjury by all but two prosecution
witnesses. He obstructed any of the necessary legal argument that would have
inevitably given rise to all charges against me being dismissed well before the
jury were to retire, if everyone had behaved properly and responsibly. He
covered up illegal activities of police officers, other judges, prison
officials and lawyers, was completely biased, fully determined to stop me
giving evidence at all costs and would allow no hint or inference of
impropriety or criticism of lawyers, judges or legal processes under any
circumstances whatsoever, whether merited or not. Buckton in his summation
stressed the prosecution case with 'admirable' dedication and partiality,
outrageously misled, misdirected and manifestly manipulated the proceedings and
the jury, restricted the scope of their freedom of inquiry and totally
pre-empted any possibility of the only fair and just verdict - full acquittal
on all of the charges based on understandable duress. I was predictably found
guilty of 6 charges of obtaining credit by fraud. This describes their own activities exactly.
Buckton
is of course worse than Wells because he is supposed to be fair and balanced
yet behaved highly improperly, completely contrary to his paid
responsibilities, with the full support and encouragement of his judicial
superiors. At very least, he undermined the British criminal justice system's
envied (but completely undeserved) reputation for probity and he exemplifies
and confirmed everything I wrote about Auckland judges in my letter of the 1st
February 1991 prior to this trial. Buckton was only ever "nice" and
"reasonable" when he was up to no good and being devious and
predictably reserved his "compassion" for the sentencing at Takapuna a week after the trial finished, well away from
the Central Courts, the press and the jury and long after their verdict. In
common with all those guilty people who have behaved illegally and typical of
violent police, Buckton's references at this time to
the "tragic misunderstanding" and his imposition of what seemed on
the surface to be a compassionate, light sentence was the usual deceitful ploy
of someone who tries to leave a completely false and misleading favourable
final impression. The sentence merely required me to settle some (but not all)
of the unpaid motel bills by instalments over several months but only after
Buckton had left me in custody for a further week after the verdict as a de
facto punishment for refusing to plead guilty. This was a clumsy (and vain)
attempt to disguise the obvious impropriety and unfairness of the hearing,
convince me that he was really fair and just as well as a way to discourage me
from proceeding further with the case and appealing the convictions. According
to the pre-planned intrigue, the case would then be safely buried away in court
records or at worst, consigned to the protracted appeals process in higher
courts where incriminating details would only be open to more corrupt, senior
members of the legal profession and judiciary who have even more to hide and be
ashamed of. No more 'inconvenient' members of the public (like juries)
intruding into their closely closeted domain and inquiring into such matters of
so great potential embarrassment. And naive, childish & gullible New
Zealanders actually believe that there is less corruption on their country than
in
Buckton
by covert agreement with Gordon, Dacre & Wells
also failed to deal with the situation regarding the other outstanding motel
accounts - considerably less than half were subject to court order and will
never be paid by those legally and ethically responsible (see below). A number
of motel owners were therefore left distressed, angry and confused with the
mistaken impression that I had done something wrong, serious questions were
unanswered, circumstances unexplained and I am as usual left to fairly
apportion guilt while the real criminals continue unrestrained and unrepentant.
The only people that have profited from this shameful human rights violation
and criminal conspiracy have been the numerous corrupt public servants and
miscellaneous officialdom directly and indirectly involved who are supposedly
paid to resolve such a situation justly and fairly yet who have merely
aggravated and protracted it for reasons of shallow ambition and self-centred
expediency. To quote Christine Gordon, and the only thing she said that made
any sense at all, "the evidence is quite compelling" against all of
them!
My
own verdict - the greatest bunch of bludgers, freeloaders, frauds and criminals
I have come across here or in
CHRIST's portrayal of the lawyers
of HIS day is even more relevant and valid today (Matthew 23:3-7, 13-15, 23-33
and Luke 11:39-44 & 46-52 in particular) and I especially have the most
profound contempt for Wells, Edwards, Dacre, Gordon
and Buckton. Without the full complicit cooperation and involvement of the
legal fraternity in New Zealand & Australia (and elsewhere in the world),
the widespread incidence of endemic, institutional corruption and abuse and
misuse of power could simply not occur. Our trial provided yet more
incontrovertible and damning proof of all that I have claimed and alleged for
years about the general situation and this illegally orchestrated charade
continues the grave and abiding miscarriage of justice in our own case. As I
said to Webster of Probation and Parole immediately following my trial, I felt
overwhelmed by shame and revulsion, not about any of my own behaviour or
actions but at all that I had seen and heard. There is not one tiny shred of
manliness, integrity, courage, morality or simple decency amongst all those
directly or indirectly involved. They are the dregs of humanity!
In
our case, a small and insignificant original incident, the total initial
responsibility of the Australian Federal & Queensland state governments and
a number of church organisations here in
Notwithstanding
the outrage that has happened to us, the court case was at least another
learning experience. After watching closely the events before and during the
trial, the fiasco that was the prosecution case and the way in which charges
were arbitrarily dropped, it is obvious that it is always right to plead not
guilty and dispute evidence. It was certainly an education to see what can be
done and how the outcome of any particular case can be totally manipulated to
suit the devious scheming of those within the system. Precisely opposite
verdicts can be readily achieved based on identical evidence and/or facts -
guilt or innocence is irrelevant.
As
I also predicted some time ago, there has been a certain poetic justice to the
whole affair. We enjoyed a week's free accommodation at the Railton Hotel as
guests of the Salvation Army, all the unpaid motel bills were effectively
settled by the NZ government (as I said they should be, out of our subsequent
benefits) and we received over $200,000 in compensation additionally in
benefits, paid so justly from your taxes. In contrast to you freeloaders, we
earned every cent we received! Despite the distress intentionally caused to
Hannah, Mary, Paul and myself and the games you played with our lives, we see
and appreciate how this was and is for the benefit of
us all in ways none of you even remotely understand. We also accept what has
happened to us with none of your own blind, self-indulgent, destructive
masochism and we have grown immensely as adults and Christians from the
experience.
Most
importantly, through the grace of GOD, Paul and I were supported and generously
provided for by the
Best
of all, we have delivered you all into the hands of your MAKER. Dismissal,
public disgrace, prosecution and imprisonment would not be nearly as bad as
what GOD has in store for each and every one of you unless you as individuals
genuinely repent, confess publicly in detail and do your utmost to remedy the
damage and redress the injustice you have caused to us and to others, either
directly or by default. What amazes, appals and even encourages us, because of
our faith, is that you could be so stupid, simple-minded, obtuse and
unintelligent as to believe that your clumsy, inept
and transparently obvious conspiracy so lacking in originality could have
fooled anyone with any real wisdom or discernment. We know what you all are, we
know what you stand for, we see the lengths to which
you are prepared to go to avoid exposure, the games you play and the depth of
your depravity. At the time we merely mirrored back your own pretence of
foolish affability and feigned pleasant innocence in order to lure you into a
false sense of security and encourage the worst excesses of your guile and
deviousness.
In
truth all you have done is to further harden your own consciences, erode your
own enjoyment and quality of life and give us all yet another insight into the
feelings of impotence, inferiority, insecurity and inadequacy which dominate
your miserable, monotonous, trivial, pointless and unfulfilled existences. In
contrast, our beliefs and commitment to GOD and HIS real work have deepened and
developed through our experiences in
You
Have All Been Warned!
Faithfully,
Michael Shelley †
3) Details of
Court Proceedings in
Prior
to the hearing itself, the jail administration predictably did their best to
unsettle and obstruct our defence preparation, disrupted my visits, deliberately
organised another inmate to threaten me and finally had me viciously assaulted
by a prison officer (James Gregory) in front of nine (9) fellow officers. All
of these I clearly identified in my pointless complaint to Judge R.J. Gilbert,
yet another fraud and alcoholic posing as a NZ District Court judge. Typically
I was then myself charged falsely by these cowardly criminals and infantile
thugs who brazenly fabricated their perjured lies in the staff room directly
opposite my cell. Frank Moynihan, the prison manager responsible, then confined
me to my cell for a week at the crucial time before and during the hearing,
knowing full well what had really happened and conspiring willingly with his
corrupt subordinates (and superiors). Mary was herself improperly and
inhumanely denied bail by covert arrangement for nearly 7 weeks in all despite
the minor nature of the charges and the usual treatment afforded to women in
these circumstances. Being brought into the court from custody maximised both
the appearance of our guilt and our difficulties in preparing and presenting
the best possible case and they mistreated Mary as a way of trying to
intimidate me into silent submission, offering to drop all charges against Mary
if I would plead guilty. I refused and they did this anyway, just as I knew
they would. Whilst in custody, Mary was denied necessary medical and nursing
support and medication to help her understandable anxiety and was actively
encouraged to harm herself. It is difficult to adequately describe the full
depravity of those slothful, incompetent, sadistic, brutal
and bludging parasites who pretend to work in the
My
own lawyer, Geoffrey Wells deceitfully tried to gain my confidence at
During
the hearing itself, Mary, Paul and I were illegally prevented from any needed
contact by our two prison escorts using the usual recourse of irredeemable
criminals and savages - threats and intimidation. The male officer was a
revolting, fat, thuggish infant and emotional cripple, often featured on
television footage about Mt Eden jail and the female was a coarse, vulgar,
tartish bleached blonde who is sexually twisted and enjoys male strip shows - a
pair fairly indicative of the standard of personnel in the NZ prison system! There
was never any real evidence against Mary on any of the charges, ever, nor
against me on the abandonment charge even before the hearing yet the prosecution
was allowed to proceed unhindered and unchallenged. In fact, the essence of the
charge of abandonment is that a child is left with no proper arrangements for
his or her care - the intent of the act. We had no choice but to reluctantly
leave Hannah with the social work department of DSW and this therefore implied
that they were unable to provide proper care for her, something we would take
no exception to whatsoever! The police were well aware that there was no
substance to these charges in the first place and proceeding with them was
simply in response to the truth I had written about them, a malicious and
vexatious prosecution to satisfy their own vindictive spite and enormous guilt.
Like so many parents today, many police physically and emotionally effectively
abandon their own children each and every day. These charges were also
deliberately designed to make it very difficult for us both in custody as there
is an extreme and imbalanced prejudice in jails focused at anyone charged with
offences against children - they hoped we would be assaulted by other inmates. It
also ensured the most unfavourable press coverage with the usual media
manipulation by the police and justice system so common today and we were defamed
yet again in the press both here and in
The
case for the Crown was incompetently prepared, poorly researched and ineptly
presented and Christine Gordon for the Prosecution made a complete fool of
herself. If she had not been a female and if some of this apparent chaos had
not been a deliberate ploy to obscure the crucial issues and chronology of
events, she would have (and should have) been openly rebuked by the trial
judge, Bruce E. Buckton for her appalling negligence. Incredibly Buckton
actually complimented Gordon for her efforts and in general both he and all
lawyers present were mutually obsequious and flattering towards one another for
no good reason whatsoever. Not even the slightest suggestion or hint of legal
impropriety or incompetence was permitted and the entire charade was obviously
for their own benefit and self-gratification. In contrast, Buckton affected a
totally imbalanced, harshly critical and very severe treatment of the most
junior policeman involved (Constable Scott Williams) when Gordon was really
responsible herself and should have checked this testimony in the ample time
she had to prepare. All but two of her witnesses knowingly perjured themselves
and the contrived performance Buckton put on about the police’s impropriety
with the statements obtained from those at the Abbey Hotel was a farce - it
happens every single day! Nothing will have been done about it since and this
was yet another act by Buckton to deceive the jury and ourselves into believing
that he was fair, diligent and uninfluenced. With all the charges, the police
were so confident of judicial complicity that they outrageously flaunted their
illegality in the preparation of most of their affidavits and no-one was
concerned that Mary and I had not been warned or even interviewed by the police
about any of the charges laid after our arrest at Whangarei,
an unbelievable oversight.
In
Gordon's opening address, she was allowed to remark about the incident at the
Railton Hotel (owned by the Salvation Army) and this unfavourably prejudiced my
own whole case despite there being no evidence whatsoever against me on this
particular charge. The prosecution in particular deliberately distorted the
true events of the 23rd May 1990 using perjured testimony by several of their
witnesses, crucial facts were deliberately concealed and a full and fair
disclosure of evidence prevented to hide their own impropriety. Gordon was able
to allege that a "similar pattern" of events occurred after the 23rd
May 1990, a deliberate and damming misrepresentation
which left a very unfortunate impression on the jury - Wells left this
unchallenged and made no subsequent attempt to deny or explain the situation
fully. In general, Gordon did not deal in any detail with the charges where I
did not check in myself, she totally distorted the events at the Aarangi and Muriwai Beach Motels
to prove intention to defraud and claimed that there was no evidence as to why
Webber/Hyslop should settle the motel accounts in
charges 4, 5, 6 & 7 as I had specified. Again Wells made no attempt to
explain these crucial aspects and Buckton himself subsequently obstructed any
evidence from me about this despite it being introduced by the prosecution. In
fact Buckton, Dacre and Wells all clearly conspired
to not mention or deal with Hyslop & Webber's
fraud and responsibility for what happened and prevented any evidence being put
as to what was done to Hannah except some very vague passing references. Our
reasonable belief at the time that we were being illegally victimised by the
system, the sort of position this placed us in and the very different moral and
legal obligations we rightly believed that we had after all that had happened
to us were not mentioned and not allowed to be brought out as they needed to
be.
Dacre launched into what
appeared to be a spirited, legally competent and technically skilful defence
for his client but this of course was totally unnecessary and yet another
pre-planned and rehearsed performance designed to gain our confidence and
deceive us as to their true intentions - they were all along going to have the
charges against Mary dismissed after they had played their devious games. Dacre was very strict (and absurdly so) with the
prosecution about rules of evidence from the very beginning, not for Mary's
benefit but to later prejudice my own case and to severely limit my ability to
introduce wide ranging testimony crucially relevant to my defence of duress. Wells
was well aware of what Dacre was doing, had agreed to
this beforehand and fully realised the eventual implications of this tactic for
my own defence. Predictably he did not say anything in court nor explain it to
me until it was far too late. As soon as the prosecution case was complete and
well documented in the press, the "in chambers" games began and
charges against Mary were dropped to suit their own agendas which had nothing
to do with the law or with our needs and true legal position. Although Section
347 applications were made by Paul Dacre on Mary's
behalf, the jury were called back in while Wells and Buckton by prior
arrangement pretended to postpone this for me - no such applications were made
at all on my behalf although there were a number of valid grounds for doing so.
Buckton said that there was "No evidence that the two were in concert
except for her being present", a convenient and untruthful distortion of
reality which suited their nefarious purposes and which allowed him to
discharge Mary on the final charge (Anchor Motel) as this could be unfair
"by inference or association". This sounded "reasonable"
but was merely more deceit designed to lead us on, to stop Mary giving damming
testimony and to make it look as though they were being fair.
This
ploy, together with the selective dropping of the car conversion charge,
pre-empted any evidence about the reasons which compelled Mary and I to leave
Hannah in Auckland, which motivated us to go to Tauranga,
about our efforts to get back our stolen car there, about our contact with the
"Good Samaritan" organisation, about our actions at the Cottage Motel
and our contact with the owner (Anna Broom, a liar and a cheat) and finally
about Mary's and my own emotional state at the time. In addition it prevented
testimony about the reasons for our subsequent trip to
In
fact Wells did not contest any legal technicalities or points at any stage and
from the outset he completely ignored all of my detailed verbal and written
instructions given to him before and during the trial. His cross examination
was deplorably and intentionally pathetic, ineffectual or totally absent and he
left all key prosecution witnesses' testimony effectively unchallenged under a
number of ruses. To allay my suspicions, Wells deceitfully alluded that I would
be given an opportunity to put my side of the case later and cover all these contingencies
then. I had clearly instructed Wells during my testimony to briefly cover the
background of our situation including a brief history of events in Australia,
our simple Christian lifestyle, the reasons and circumstances of our move here,
what happened with our Australian benefit, our efforts to sort out our
difficult situation, the approaches we made to the churches, why we finally
booked into the Muriwai Beach, Railton and Aarangi Motels and how we subsequently organised our return
to Australia at our own expense. Next it was agreed to deal in detail with my
original arrest, the suspicious misconduct of the police, the deliberate
omissions and misrepresentations by them with my statement, why bail was
refused (based on deliberate police misinformation) in contrast to the normal
treatment of other tourists so charged, my mistreatment in custody and the
deceit by my original lawyer (David McNaughton) as regards the conspiracy with
Australian police to have the charges against me here dropped and have us
return to Australia to face their pre-arranged conniving there. Finally we had
agreed to explain why their attitude subsequently changed and to give evidence
explaining why the (fair) negotiated settlement of these three original motel
accounts was not paid following the appalling events of the 23rd May 1990 - the
illegal and provocative conduct by the police, DSW and the court was in
particular to be exposed.
Just
before I was about to take the stand as the only witness in my own defence,
Wells desperately tried to convince me to change my plea to guilty with the
promise that he would try to get me bail. When I didn't agree to this and
insisted that he proceed with my defence, his attitude changed completely and
both he and Buckton stopped pretending to be fair, pleasant and helpful and
both became hostile, adversarial, unpleasant and obstructive. Wells had
deliberately misled me and totally misrepresented what he would present in my
defence and after my inevitable conviction later that day, he spitefully
neglected to even ask for bail despite having undertaken to do so, a really
nasty, vindictive and cowardly game by both he and Buckton. There was no
exploration of essential aspects of our situation, no explanation allowed as to
the reasons for our actions and no grounds for defence whatsoever were
established, notably the aspect of duress, the contractual obligations of the
moteliers and the obvious impropriety that surrounded our treatment. My entire
defence was deliberately and absurdly limited to a "skeleton without
flesh", one hour in total instead of the previously discussed and agreed
upon entire day, and my evidence was deliberately scheduled for late on
Wednesday 20th March 1990 with no-one present from the media, the first time
this happened during the trial. Everyone rushed to finish the case that
afternoon, surprising even Christine Gordon, and several other charges were
simply ignored (Lake View Motel at Rotorua, the
Adelaide Motel in Wellington, Raumati Beach Motel on
the Kapiti coast) so as not disrupt their carefully
pre-scheduled timetable.
In
general Wells just sounded really ridiculous, he was less than useless, made no
attempt to provide an explanation as to why motel accounts were left unsettled
and in general was a far more effective litigant for the prosecution than
Gordon. He made many fatuous remarks and statements which confused and
alienated the jury, deliberately avoided any submissions or clarification of
central and key issues and rigidly controlled and led my own testimony to
disguise what actually happened and to avoid the underlying rationale of our
behaviour coming out. He was vague and nebulous and said that this was a
"bizarre situation" (with no further explanation), that I intended to
make "some form of settlement when (my) situation allowed it" and
reduced a plausible and undoubtedly successful defence to a farce and an
inevitable failure. Worst of all, he destroyed any credibility my case might
have had and actively assisted the prosecution by making extraordinarily inane,
inflammatory and incriminating remarks and completely irrelevant comments such
as:-
- me not "having a free
holiday at the expense of the motel proprietors", a statement he repeated
three times in case the jury missed his point - in fact this is an accurate
description of his own parasitism and bludging.
- my "not so common
sense" to re-emphasise Gordon's contention to the jury that my guilt was a
matter of "common sense" with no consideration of relevant legal
issues.
- offhandedly mentioning the addresses
I had given "of people who should cover motel bills" but gave no
further explanation of why I had done this, a vital aspect of many of the
charges.
- said vaccuously
"what avenues did I really have?" (whilst
implying I had a number!) yet prevented me from giving
details of all the efforts we made to get help before any bills were left
unpaid.
- specifically
questioned me about Abbey's, Cottage, Anchor, Rama Rama and Cimarron Motels,
not to help the defence but as he plainly stated later in his summation,
"There was no necessity for Mr. Shelley to give evidence but he did and he
filled in a lot of gaps" for the prosecution and "made a full
confession"!
- went out of his way to emphasise
that the original accounts had not been paid 10 months later but made sure that
the jury did not realise that this was on the advice of our previous lawyer,
Carl Edwards and was consistent with our supportable claims of complete
innocence, freedom from moral and financial responsibility and understandable
duress.
- stressed my own open
acknowledgment of King's and Mallison's honesty but
not my opinion of the rest of the prosecution witnesses.
- allowed Revfiem
at the Anchor Motel and Broom at the Cottage to perjure themselves without
effective challenge and to claim that I had made a specific agreement to pay -
I was, in contrast to them, very careful to be scrupulously honest in all my
testimony as I take the oath on the Bible very seriously.
- "The judge will direct on
the law" - unfortunately there were no submissions from him about the law
and Buckton, Wells and Gordon were clearly committed to avoiding discussion of
any relevant legal considerations.
- "The onus is on the
prosecution to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt" and Well's
pathetic "defence" ensured that they had no difficulty doing this.
- "You might accept that he
was over-optimistic and naive ...- events would tend to support that he
was" - this sort of thinly veiled sarcasm was a great help to the
prosecution!
- "Ladies and gentlemen of the
jury, you need to make a decision according to law but give credence to Mr.
Shelley's evidence, no matter how you may be obliged to treat it"!
- asked the jury to "Look at
it through the eyes and mind of the accused" but they were prevented from
hearing any explanation from me or from gaining any insight whatsoever as to my
position and state.
- referred lamely to "a rather
tragic series of events especially in relation to Hannah" when he had made
it much worse for everyone, especially Hannah. Wells later tried to convince me
to agree to Hannah going to
- actually
said that I had passed "through a number of institutions charging up accommodation
and leaving without paying"!
Wells
presented no exhibits whatsoever despite our prior arrangements and the
availability of these in the court room. In particular, my exhaustive written
documentation about the history of our time in
Buckton
took up where Wells left off, re-emphasised all of Wells' disastrous points in
his own summation and made a series of references and comments of his own which
were outrageously biased, highly selective, largely irrelevant and unfairly
prejudicial. Examples of these were:-
- "Don't be influenced if I
seem to have a view of my own" - this rendered the concept of impartiality
of the jury absolutely meaningless.
- "Don't be influenced by
anything you have read, seen or heard about this case" - this very
effectively directed their memories back to the unfavourable and untrue media
publicity of the year before, reminding them completely unnecessarily of inadmissible
aspects of the case and influencing their judgement unfairly.
- "Judge the credibility and
reliability of all the witnesses" - there was no real cross examination of
any of the prosecution witnesses and my own evidence was so limited as to be
nearly useless so this was impossible.
- "Put aside sympathy or
bias" - he certainly did and my only remaining defence was destroyed.
- "This is a bit like seven
separate trials, don't mix them up but consider each case on its merits" -
this approach had the desired effects of obscuring the vital legal differences
between the individual charges whilst detracting from any appreciation of the
overall justification for our actions - they wanted seven convictions on
record.
- "What representation was
made on booking in, what was the state of mind of the accused?",
"Draw an inference from this", "Which version of the events do
you believe?", "Did Mr. Shelley attempt to pay a reasonable
charge?", "Did Mr. Shelley settle the accounts before leaving?",
"Did he leave before the charge was tended?", "Was there a
reasonable expectation of payment from the addresses given?" - but no discussion was permitted by him as to the legal
responsibility of the owners in relation to charges and payments and there was
no possibility of the jury not getting his point. All these aspects were
irrelevant to our true situation anyway.
- "Your attention is drawn to
the facts of the evidence and to the offences calmly and dispassionately"
- there is only guilt where there are &quoot;offences", rather than
charges.
- "He is only guilty if you
are sure and unanimous" - he had made sure that they were left with no
alternative verdict.
- in reading my evidence ("no
matter how you have to treat it") and statement to the police ("real
genuine attitude coming through"), he misquoted totally out of context,
inappropriately focused upon aspects which were unfavourable and gave very
strong and improper direction to the jury.
- he
twisted one of my essential contentions ("Everyone expects you to know how
their businesses run") which is the truth and needed to be dealt with as a
legal consideration.
- he
referred to my unmet arrangements to settle Muriwai/Aarangi
(& Railton) yet I was denied a proper opportunity to give evidence about
this. These previous arrangements were relatively fair and would have been
complied with except for what happened on the 23rd May and he was well aware of
this. Buckton conveniently did not mention this fact, implied that I should
have paid the agreed amounts, glossed over and prevented any testimony about
the "unfortunate events" of that day and then immediately went on to
our arrest by police.
- he emphasised that it was "a
year since the debts were incurred" when the real questions are not why
had we not paid the accounts but why had they done nothing about what happened
to us all and what does this say incontrovertibly about their guilt?!
- he stressed my note to Anna Broom
at the Cottage Motel in which I refused to pay myself but allowed no mention of
why Webber/Hyslop should settle these.
- stressed that there was "no
contesting of
None
of the summing up was put on the court record and it is easy to see why!
Faithfully,
Michael Shelley †
4) Legal
Considerations & Argument
As
to matters of justification or excuse (Sections 20-21 Pages 41-42 Crimes Act),
"Lord" Coleridge C said "the absolute divorce of the law from
morality would be of fatal consequence" yet at very least, this is exactly
what happened in our case. A defence of duress/necessity is obviously
absolutely relevant and applicable here, even under the more limited strictures
of the law and legal precedent. It is not as though there was a giving in to
temptation nor any fraud or act of false pretence whatsoever and there was more
than ample justification for my actions, even if my allegations about
impropriety were unfounded. I obviously believed what I claimed and could only
be accused of making a tragic mistake and to have been suffering under a false
impression. I at very worst should have only been convicted of the charges but
had no conviction recorded and some acceptable scheme of restitution worked
out. All the lawyers, the judge and the police were well aware of this,
especially after the 23rd May 1990 (5 of the charges) and their subsequent
behaviour prior to and during the trial simply confirms all my allegations and
completely vindicated my actions - in a sense they have convincingly convicted
themselves.
There
is only one English case in which the defence of necessity was expressly raised
{Dudley and Stephens (1884) 14 QBD 273, 560, [1881-5] All ER Rep 61} and its
extent therefore remains in doubt. If there had been a fair and properly
conducted trial in my case, this would have been tested as per my explicit
instructions to defence counsel - certainly any lawyer or judge seriously
interested in the law (let alone in justice) would have ensured that this
aspect was properly and fully explored. Sir James Stephen rightly surmises that
"It is just possible to imagine cases in which the expediency of breaking
the law is so overwhelming great that people may be justified in breaking it
..." - although the evidence to support my own contentions about collusion
is so compelling that no illegality whatsoever could be inferred or construed
from my behaviour before or after the 23/5/1990. Clearly the circumstances of
necessity negate any implication of fraudulent intent in this case and I can
only be seen to have chosen not only the right and correct action to take but
also the admirable and courageous one - what a contrast to all those other
people involved, especially the lawyers and judges!
Notwithstanding
the defence of duress or necessity, it is obviously vital here to also explore
and clarify what are the specific contractual responsibilities of both
moteliers and their guests. It is fatuous nonsense that moteliers have no legal
obligations whatsoever in this regard as implied by Buckton who typically and
simplistically put all the responsibility onto the guest just as he puts all
his own real family and occupational responsibilities onto others - in this
case, I am left with his job of properly passing judgement, as usual!
To
make a contract, there must be:
(1)
a consideration
(2)
an offer and acceptance
(3)
parties must be able to make a contract
(4)
there must be consent and
(5)
the object must be legal.
Here,
(1), (2), & (4) are all open to question, especially where there was no
mention of money, where settlement was not discussed and where no stated or
agreed arrangement was made or reached? Although it would be not be fair or
just to seek acquittal based on such technicalities alone, the motel industry
as a whole in this country is very remiss and irresponsible with such details. Their
approach is in part because they are so guilty about how much they charge, how
little they do and how they totally demean true hospitality. Moteliers don't mention
money to try to disguise their real greed and also so that guests will not be
appalled until the end of their stay when it is too late! Clearly, all details
need to be sorted out upon checking in and if a reasonable charge must be paid
at the end of stay or at a future date arranged, what is a
"reasonable" charge in view of all contingencies? What behaviour by
moteliers, for example has to be tolerated by guests before it is legitimate to
refuse to pay some or all of their charges? Is the act of checking in obtaining
of credit and is it a representation that it is intended to pay their charges
no matter what these charges may be? Can the owners' omission to mention money
be legitimately construed as the implication that hospitality is being offered
free of charge? The Crown mentioned the Rental Premises section in their
opening address (Crimes Act 1961 S247) whereas motels cannot be considered to
be rented premises in the strict sense as there is no lease or formal
undertaking - in fact, there was no understood or agreed-upon tariff in any of
these situations.
Finally,
even the simplest, least competent and most basic defence would challenge the
aspect of fraudulent intent as there was clearly no deceit or false
representations on my part. In fact, my behaviour following the events of 23rd
May 1990 was exemplary in every respect as there was a realistic expectation of
eventual payment, probably by the government, exactly as what has eventuated. The
evidence suggested that I genuinely regretted what I had been compelled to do,
that I had an honest (and well founded) belief that most of the accounts would
be eventually settled by someone and that I would settle them myself if no-one
else did so - it was the Judge's responsibility to sort out by whom, how much
and when, a simple question of accountability. We were careful to always leave
the units clean and tidy and had even tried to minimise the total expense
incurred by deliberately choosing to not charge any meals and to only make
essential phone calls necessary to try to resolve the situation. With so few
out-of-pocket expenses, the actual cost of each night's accommodation to the
moteliers was at most $15. This mature restraint and general responsibility do
not prove innocence in themselves but add substantial
credibility to the explanations and rationale we gave as to our actions and to
our claims about the emotional state we were in at the time. In the case of the
Aarangi Motel, the owner deceitfully and fraudulently
neglected to mention that I voluntarily offered to pay and did pay $90 for the
first night and he was not financially disadvantaged at all - it was very just
that no further reparation was asked for or ordered in this instance. Any
distress felt by moteliers is very minor compared to what we were put through
ourselves and all
The
onus rests upon the prosecution to establish "intent to defraud" but
there is no evidence that I made false statements of facts or false
representations in order to get credit or that my genuine attitude was any
other than that clearly expressed in all my letters and reports - outraged,
indignant, aggrieved and distressed. Under S.247 of the Crimes Act 1961, to
prove the charge of "Obtaining credit by fraud", a more comprehensive
charge than that of "False Pretences" as covered in S.245/6, there
are four elements which must each be proved:-
(1) A
legally enforceable debt or liability must be incurred - there is no offence
for a void contract (see above).
(2) Credit
must be obtained - it is considered to be obtained, if obtained in fact even
when there is no agreement between parties and the credit must be obtained by
the person guilty of the offence. How much credit was obtained if money was
never mentioned?
(3) The
credit must be obtained by a false pretence or some other fraud.
(4) There
must be an intention to defraud - this requires two separate
and distinct ingredients, first, false pretences or other dishonest conduct or
deceit (page 220 of the crimes Act) and second the co-existent intention
not to pay the debt, presumably ever. The intent to defraud must be established
to convict and this must exist at the time when credit was obtained (See
S.246).
In
this case, if all admissible and relevant evidence had been allowed, the judge
could not have directed the jury to convict on the last aspect of intent alone
(see page 220) due to the obvious doubt that existed as to my real intentions
at the time. There is no evidence of inducement by false pretence (page 221
Crimes Act), I never used a false name, our car registration and best available
address were given and genuine alternative sources were supplied who should
morally have settled many of the accounts, again all consistent with our claims
and statements. There was no untrue statement of facts and the evidence from
DSW admitted that they had no intention of returning Hannah so our behaviour
was understandable. Jed Felgate, the assessing
psychiatrist at Carrington Hospital, supported our case by agreeing that we
acted rationally and believed in what we claimed had happened. What else could
we reasonably have been expected to do under the circumstances? How is any of our behaviour fraudulent even if we had
misunderstood what had been done to us all? Who was really responsible if we
had made a genuine mistake and why did such a case proceed so unjustly to
trial?
Buckton
in summation vacuously implied I should have paid a "fair and
reasonable" tariff (in some cases I did!) within a "reasonable"
time which deliberately ignored the all-important specifics and very
conveniently glossed over the crucial importance of these considerations in
both legal and commercial terms. This trial was the very forum and opportunity
from which to consider and establish these points of law, an excellent chance
to clarify and set guidelines. He also stressed that I had not settled the
Railton/Murawai/Aarangi accounts as per my original
agreement but conveniently passed rapidly over any reference to the events
which caused this decision of mine. There was an issue of principle in this
case and a real danger of injustice unless the jury were instructed to err on
the side of caution - Buckton totally failed to behave with any proper regard
for this, even with the sentence. Considering the time Mary and I had spent in
custody and stress and distress on us all, a fair sentence upon conviction
should have involved little or no restitution in view of the above. In other
verdicts, Judge Mitchell ordered a woman who stole $21,000 from the Deaf
Association to pay back only $4,000 over the maximum period of 2 years (20% of
the amount taken) plus 200 hours of community service. Another woman who
defrauded DSW of $28,000 was ordered to repay the whole amount and serve 7
months P.D.. In my case, there was a real case for
compassion, there was little real out-of-pocket expenses involved (at most,
$1500 in all which includes other motels not mentioned) and we had effectively
both served the equivalent of a six months jail sentence. This was especially
harsh for Mary who was subsequently acquitted with no compensation. It was
hardly our fault that bail was breached in the circumstances - you had been
given ample opportunity to intervene and sort something out in the period May
to July 1990 and again in February 1991 following my letter. If
you had been really concerned about the law (or about justice), you certainly
would have done so.
Faithfully,
Michael Shelley †
5) Arohata Women’s Prison,
Tuesday, November 4, 2003 6:06 PM
From: "Michael Israel" <[email protected]>
To: "Janey Bowen" <[email protected]>
cc: [email protected], [email protected],
"Allan Hawke - Australian High Commissioner in NZ" <[email protected]>, [email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected]
Canberra 5th October 2003
To: Janey Bowen
General Manager
Arohata
Womens Prison
Wellington
New
Zealand
I refer to our phone conversation
on Monday earlier this week. Despite
your assurances, I have not received
the daily 1.30pm (Eastern Australian Standard Time) phone call from
my wife Mary Israel as promised.
I have several legitimate concerns:-
1)
I spoke to Mary, a British subject with Australian residency, at Prison reception when she arrived and she was understandably
angry and distressed but in
good spirits. As the most qualified
and experienced person on this planet to assess Mary's state of health and wellbeing, she clearly poses no threat either to herself or anyone else. As one of your own officers admitted,
she has been put on "at
risk" status for the convenience of your staff and based on (unrealistic) concerns for her safety if placed in the general population. It is also not unreasonable to conclude that this
decision was based on malicious police misinformation and perhaps a similarly motivation from your staff.
The fact that
Mary speaks the truth openly and honestly and is sensitive, spontaneous and
direct with all her
feelings is not a justification for discriminating against her in this way.
Mary back in the late 1990's spent
several periods in Arohata without incident. Also she in this
situation is being disadvantaged significantly by
not being able to wear her own clothes as do normal remand inmates. This is the only reason
I have been unable to talk to her
when I phoned last
Saturday, Sunday & Monday
before speaking to you. Mary rightly refuses to wear
the prison clothing that she is forced
to wear as it is immodest and ugly. Consequently she is not allowed to walk the few metres to the phone
- this is absurd and most improper.
2)
If yet another psychiatric assessment is to be done, why
has no-one called me about this?
Why did no-one call me yesterday when the promised phone call did not eventuate? I need to communicate privately with the relevant health professional.
3)
What is Mary's present
legal status? I was told that
she was awaiting
deportation. I have well founded reservations about Mary coming back to Australia
as one of the reasons that she went to NZ was that a corrupt
Queensland policeman named
Andrew Gale recently threatened to shoot her in the head and dump her body by the side of the road. I quote, "I've done it
before and I'll do it again" and for a change I
am sure that this is a Queensland policeman telling the truth, a rare
occurrence indeed!
As usual the British High Commission
in Wellington is absolutely useless and ineffectual and the head of the Consular Section, Carolyn Livingstone has not even bothered to return my calls despite the assurances
made by her colleague last week. Guilt is
a dreadful thing and they are very guilty
indeed because they know what goes on both here
and elsewhere.
I need your urgent attention to this,
Faithfully,
Michael Israel †
Arohata Womens’ Prison,
I
needed to write this complaint in the course of my life and work after the time
my wife Mary recently spent in custody at the Arohata
Womens’ Prison,
To
begin with Mary was unnecessarily assessed as an ‘at risk’ prisoner despite
being fine when she arrived at the prison. I know because I rang and spoke to
her at reception - she was just understandably a little aggravated by continued
police harassment. Even if she had merited this assessment, however she should
have been given special care with this status. In contrast and typical of the
true violence and depravity that abounds in the criminal justice systems of
this world, Mary was virtually tortured for the entire time she spent in the
‘at risk’ area.
The
unit is managed by Kevin Edmonds, a clearly corrupt individual dripping in gold
jewellery who is a real sadist and unfit to be put in
charge of anyone, anytime, ever. Under his (mis)management
Mary was treated like a detainee of a Stalag concentration camp. To be
specific:-
1)
She was constantly disturbed night and day when what ‘at risk’ prisoners most
need is undisturbed rest. Misusing the flimsiest excuse of close monitoring, staff make inmates’ lives a living hell. There is no peace
and quiet, just incessant noise and during the night 2 strip neon lights are
left on unnecessarily making sleep difficult, for some impossible.
2)
The clothing given is ugly, cold, heavy and uncomfortable as is the absurd
bedding. Mary was only given 1 doona on her first night and was very cold,
another form of deliberate torture.
3)
Inmates are given absolutely nothing to do all day, no TV, not allowed access
to their own Bibles or even able to write letters or complaints to relevant
authorities.
4)
Inmates are locked in their cells for 23 ¾ hours a day.
5)
Inmates are only allowed 1 shower a day despite this being uplifting to the
spirit and the shower recess being only 3 steps away.
6)
There are no opportunities for exercise.
7)
In a ridiculous overreaction, prisoners never get a decent meal but are only
allowed “finger food” with almost no vegetables or meat. On her last day but
only after making continuous complaints, Mary was ‘magically’ given some home
made yoghurt. Prisoners are not given any food or drink from 4pm one day until
8am the next.
In
fact overall it would be hard to design a less appropriate regimen to impose
upon people already in crisis. At risk’ inmates are actually discriminated
against when compared to the general prison population and, as the most
vulnerable and defenceless,, suffer greater privation
and systematic distress.
Our
regular experience with these all too common situations is no accident. As
Christians GOD leads us into areas where people are being unlawfully and inhumanely
mistreated so we can see what really goes on, expose the culprits and their
nefarious activities and warn them about the future implications and
consequences of their actions.
You
all need to read the document ‘Christianity & The Churches’ enclosed,
appended to or sent separately by E-mail, and take the implied warning in it
both personally and seriously. You will all be held accountable for what you do
and fail to do about this and about many other similar situations within the
ambit of your personal and professional responsibilities.
Ignore
this at your peril (Hebrews 10:31)
Faithfully,
HIS Servant,
Michael Shelley †