Tribune How the Shrewsbury 24 Were Vindicated

27.03.2021 How the Shrewsbury 24 Were Vindicated By Eileen Turnbull In the 1970s, 24 construction workers were convicted for their role in a successful strike – the story behind their vindication this week reveals the degree to which the state wages war against the working class. Read our new issue today – digital subs £5! Amid all the gloom on Tuesday 23 March, the first anniversary of the UK’s Covid lockdown, there was a ray of sunshine for the labour movement. On that day, the Court of Appeal quashed the convictions of the North Wales building worker pickets who had been prosecuted at Shrewsbury Crown Court over 47 years ago. Six of them had been jailed, and 16 others had received suspended prison sentences at three trials. The first, involving six so-called ringleaders, began in October 1973 and lasted 12 weeks. Three of the pickets were found guilty of conspiracy to intimidate, unlawful assembly, and affray, and were sent to prison. The leading picket, Des Warren, received the longest sentence – three years on each count, to run concurrently. Amnesty International adopted him as a prisoner of conscience while he was in jail. Two further trials, which each lasted approximately four weeks, saw three other pickets jailed. 16 were given suspended prison sentences, and just two were acquitted. These convictions remained unfinished business for many trade unionists. The premature death in 2004 of Warren became the catalyst for a group of trade unionists in Liverpool and North Wales to revisit what happened: in 2006 they decided to launch a campaign to attempt overturn this historic miscarriage of justice. It has taken 15 years to achieve that goal. The Background 1972 was a year of high trade union militancy. More strike days were recorded that year than any other since 1945, including the first ever national building workers’ strike. Construction workers faced hostile and powerful employers, lump labour, and isolated workplaces that changed constantly whenever a contract finished. Health and safety measures on building sites were non-existent, and building workers faced dangerous working conditions on a daily basis. On average one building worker died each working day in the early 1970s. There were over 70,000 registered industrial injuries and diseases each year in the industry. Four unions were involved: UCATT and the T&GWU—which are now both part of Unite—and the GMWU and FTAT, now both part of the GMB. The strike started on a selective basis on 26 June 1972. The unions organised picketing of sites throughout the country. After a pay offer from the employers was rejected on 8 August, the unions stepped up picketing and called an all-out strike. At the end of the 12-week dispute, in September 1972, they won the highest ever pay rise in the history of the building industry. They did not win an improvement in conditions, but decided to accept the offer, regroup, and fight on for better health and safety and to eradicate the lump. The Arrests On the evening of 14 February 1973, five months after the strike ended, six of the pickets were arrested in their homes and driven to police stations in Shropshire. 18 others received hand-delivered summonses. The 24 North Wales pickets (18 T&GWU and 6 UCATT members) were charged with over 240 offences, including intimidation, affray, and criminal damage. The six arrested were also charged with conspiracy to intimidate. None of the 24 had been cautioned or arrested during the strike. There were no picket lines and no confrontations with the police. The prosecutions focused on picketing in the Shrewsbury and Telford area on 6 September 1972 – specifically at the ‘Brookside’ site, which was owned by Robert McAlpine Ltd. Approximately 80 police had accompanied the pickets on the site. The Fight for Justice In 2008, as a campaign committee member, I was asked to carry out research into the background of the case. We needed to obtain fresh evidence, not available at the time of the original trials, that would support an application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) on behalf of the convicted pickets. The scope of the task was daunting, notwithstanding that I had never carried out research before and that I, like all campaign members, was doing this on a voluntary basis. I travelled throughout the country, searching archives and libraries in Kew, Warwick, Salford, Hull, Shropshire, Oxford, Cambridge, Bournemouth, and central London. I discovered that the government was withholding many files relating to the trials. Despite repeated requests they refused to release them, relying on Section 23 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, which relates to national security. The campaign launched a Downing Street e-petition and a paper petition calling for the release of the missing documents, which gathered tens of thousands of signatures. Labour MPs raised many Early Day Motions. This culminated in a three-hour debate in the House of Commons on 23 January 2014, sponsored by David Anderson MP, calling on the government to give full disclosure. The MPs voted by 120 to 3 to release the documents. The government has never released them. The pickets’ application to the CCRC was submitted on 3 April 2012. Over the following four years we sent in further submissions based upon the evidence that I unearthed, particularly at the National Archives. Despite the strength of our case, the CCRC turned us down in October 2017. It was a desperate day for us all. But our lawyers, Bindmans, advised us that the CCRC had failed to apply the correct legal test to our evidence and recommended that we challenge the decision through a judicial review. The campaign was up for it, and so were eight of the original ten pickets that had applied in 2012. They never gave up. Their courage was vindicated when the CCRC’s barrister threw in the towel half way through the hearing in the Administrative Court in Birmingham on 30 April 2019. But it took the CCRC a further ten months to reconsider the case. The Latest Hurdle Finally, on 4 March 2020, it announced that it would refer the convictions of the eight pickets to the Court of Appeal: Des Warren, John McKinsie Jones, Ken O’Shea, Malcolm Clee, Michael Pierce, Terry Renshaw, Kevin Butcher, and Bernard Williams. The CCRC publicly invited any of the other pickets to apply to them. The families of four deceased men contacted the campaign to ask to join the action. We successfully submitted further names: Alfred James, Roy Warburton, Graham Roberts, and John Seaburg. The appeal had two grounds, based upon evidence that I discovered in the National Archives: Original witness statements had been destroyed by the police and this fact had not been disclosed to the defence counsel or the court; and A highly prejudicial documentary, Red Under The Bed, was broadcast on ITV halfway through the first trial, the content of which was contributed to by a covert agency within the Foreign Office known as the Information Research Department. This week, the Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the first of these grounds: ‘If the destruction of the handwritten statements had been revealed to the appellants at the time of the trial, this issue could have been comprehensively investigated with the witnesses when they gave evidence, and the judge would have been able to give appropriate directions. We have no doubt that if that had happened, the trial process would have ensured fairness to the accused. Self-evidently, that is not what occurred. Instead, we are confronted with a situation in which an unknown number of the first written accounts by eyewitnesses have been destroyed in a case in which the allegations essentially turned on the accuracy and credibility of their testimony. As we have already described, we consider it correct to infer that the descriptions by the witnesses would in many instances have changed and developed as they were shown the photographs and as the police gained greater understanding of what those responsible for the investigation sought to prove. Those changes and developments could have been critical for the assessment by the jury of whether they were sure that the individual appellants were guilty of the charges they faced. The jury either needed to have this evidence rehearsed in front of them to the extent necessary, if the statements were still in existence, or they needed to be given clear and precise directions as to how to approach the destruction of the statements if that had occurred. Neither of those things happened, and in consequence we consider the verdicts in all three trials are unsafe.’ Justice At Last The pickets are overjoyed with this decision. They always maintained their innocence. They were prosecuted for taking part in a strike and picketing to gain support from their fellow workers. The government thought that North Wales workers would be an easy target because trade unionism was weaker there than in the main industrial centres; the press and TV of the day contributed to the witch-hunt against them. But the campaign succeeded not only because of the vital evidence that I discovered, but also the tremendous support that we and the pickets received from 21 national unions, the TUC, hundreds of union and Labour Party branches, trades councils, and individuals. Our victory has been hailed as a boost by other campaigners, including those demanding justice for Orgreave and Grenfell. Winning takes patience and perseverance, as well as unity and solidarity. Thank you to everyone who has supported us. About the Author Eileen Turnbull is the Researcher and Secretary of the Shrewsbury 24 Campaign.

Commonwealth appeals ‘habeas corpus’ ruling

A 'landmark' refugee legal battle is putting Australia's immigration detention regime under scrutiny A landmark refugee rights case is underway in the High Court, and it could have major implications for Australia’s immigration detention policies. The federal government is appealing a ruling that led to the release of Syrian man, known as AJL20, who was released from detention in September last year. In the previous case, the Federal Court accepted the legal principle of habeas corpus, which is used to rule whether the detention of a person by the state is lawful. Refugee Mostafa Azimitabar walks free after being released from the Park Hotel in Melbourne. Dozens of men were suddenly released from hotel detention. Behind the scenes, a tireless fight goes on Lawyer Alison Battisson, who represents AJL20, described the case as a "landmark" decision that could have further implications for other detainees facing prolonged detention without reason. “It is looking to find a way around decades of law that enables the indefinite detention of incredibly vulnerable people being refugees,” she told SBS News. “The Commonwealth is obviously very concerned about this case." The High Court appeal hearing started on Tuesday, escalating the legal stoush over the habeas corpus ruling to Australia's highest court. The man at the centre of the case is a 29-year-old refugee from Syria who came to Australia as a child and had been detained for six years. In 2014, AJL20 had his visa cancelled on "character" grounds under section 501 of the Migration Act, making him an "unlawful non-citizen" in Australia. However, Justice Mordecai Bromberg last September found AJL20 had been unlawfully detained because the Department of Home Affairs had failed to make arrangements for his deportation to Syria, which was the primary purpose of his period of detention. Ms Battisson said AJL20's case was significant because it showed the courts could hold the Department of Home Affairs to account when it did not fulfil its obligations. “Australia has the most heinous and harsh detention regime in the Western world of asylum seekers,” she said. “What is clear is that the Commonwealth is beginning to look at long term detainees who they’ve taken no action for for years - whether they should be taking action now or releasing them.” Commonwealth appeals ‘habeas corpus’ ruling Government lawyers on Tuesday made their case for the decision to be overturned - arguing it had resulted in an unlawful non-citizen being wrongly let into the community. Before court on Tuesday, Solicitor General Stephen Donaghue described the decision as a “complete aberration” in Australia’s migration system. Dr Donaghue said the Migration Act made clear that an “unlawful non-citizen” must be held in detention until they have been granted a valid visa, or leave the country. “Unless you hold a visa you are in the unlawful non-citizen category,” he told the court. The government has admitted it did not meet its refoulment obligations, but claims the Federal Court ruling of "unlawful" detention remains the wrongful determination. “Even if there was inexcusable delay - no such remedy is sought here,” Dr Donaghue said. A warning sign on the fence of the Brisbane Immigration Transit Accommodation, where a number of Medevac transferees are held. In a Brisbane immigration detention centre, this refugee says he struggles to access halal food Lawyer Justin Gleeson, representing AJL20, rebutted these claims - describing his client's detention as “purposeless” and “arbitrary”, while defending the Federal Court’s habeas corpus ruling. “That is what the government doesn’t want to face up to,” he told the court. Mr Gleeson also said the Australian government had acted in its own self-interest, without taking responsibility for their refoulment obligations. “The remedy will be, at the least, damages for false imprisonment,” he told the court. Mr Gleeson also said the government had failed to use its “discretionary powers” to provide his client an alternative other than facing indefinite long-term detention. He said the failure to provide a reason for detention meant the Federal Court was justified in ordering his release from detention. Farhad Bandesh Hope for Australian immigration detainees after men freed under centuries-old legal principle The Australian government argues the Federal Court should instead order the Department of Home Affairs to comply with its refoulment obligations by making arrangements for AJL20’s return to Syria. The High Court case comes as dozens of asylum seekers who came to Australia under now-repealed medevac laws have been released from immigration detention in Melbourne, Brisbane and Darwin since early this year. Lawyers acting on behalf of the transferees have claimed this decision follows complex and ongoing legal battles seeking to prove the detention of the men was unlawful. Ms Battisson said the medevac cohort is a “complex” group and it is unclear how the AJL20 case could “impact on those releases”. The High Court has now adjourned to consider its decision.

Paul Bongiorno

This picture shows vials of the AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine and a syringe in Paris on March 11, 2021. - Scott Morrison October vaccination goal under threat as AstraZeneca bombshell causes rollout chaos This picture shows vials of the AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine and a syringe in Paris on March 11, 2021. - European countries can keep using AstraZeneca's coronavirus vaccine during an investigation into cases of blood clots that prompted Denmark, Norway and Iceland to suspend jabs, the EU's drug regulator said on March 11, 2021. AstraZeneca explained: Why it’s no longer ‘preferred’ for under-50s AstraZeneca side effects Seven people who had the AstraZeneca vaccine tell us its side effects COVID risk looms large as Londoners ignore social distancing to mourn Philip Philip outside Buckingham Palace View from The Hill: Voters could wreak vengeance if Scott Morrison can’t get rollout back on track WA to welcome Kiwis without quarantine requirements Australia bumps up its Pfizer vaccine order by 20m Australian medical team head to PNG to aid COVID response April 2022: When Australia will most likely be fully vaccinated, maybe COVID risk looms large as Londoners ignore social distancing to mourn Philip Philip outside Buckingham Palace OPINION Paul Bongiorno: Not even the states can save the Morrison government from itself this time The Ferguson Report: Chris Lilley offers Andrew Laming empathy training Dennis Atkins: Scott Morrison’s treatment of Christine Holgate shows his true colours Madonna King: Dear Andrew Laming, I’ve written your resignation letter for you Garry Linnell: Why Morrison’s ‘She’ll be Right’ vaccination model is failing on so many levels LIFE Facebook, Instagram outage sends users scurrying to Twitter Selling fast: Most of the half-price airfares are already gone Virus forces shutdown of Cambodia’s world-famous Angkor temples How to make the most of the New Zealand travel bubble IFM looks offshore as large-scale renewables projects hit the doldrums in Australia Calls for JobKeeper 3.0 as vaccine rollout flounders ‘Fully panicked’: Nationwide outage hits Vodafone SPORT Sydney Roosters co-captain Jake Friend retires from NRL on medical advice French Open moved back a week to May 30 amid COVID-19 crisis Olympic torch events called off in Osaka due to surging COVID infections Tiger Woods was speeding before crash Sam Kerr says Matildas will embrace underdog status against Germany, the Netherlands WEATHER PUZZLES Trivia Crosswords Sudoku There’s something smug about the reaction of the federal government and its health advisers who believe the disaster they are presiding over could be worse and there’s nowhere else on earth you would rather be. It’s a message the Prime Minister repeated at three news conferences this week – despite the unraveling of a vaccine rollout they all had a year to plan for. Sure Australia is nowhere near the plight of Brazil, India, Papua New Guinea – or for that matter France and Italy – all facing repeat waves of a pandemic claiming thousands of lives and pushing their health systems to the verge of collapse. But by now, four million Australians were promised they would be vaccinated. We were promised that by October the whole population would have received at least their first jab, and the nation would be well on the way to a return to accustomed prosperity. Morrison pleads pandemics are by definition unpredictable and this one-in-100-year crisis has the whole world on a steep learning curve. But the evidence is our Prime Minister and his government are slow learners and proud of it. Still ringing in our ears is the assurance from Health Minister Greg Hunt that the vaccine distribution will be “a marathon not a sprint”. The head of his department, Brendan Murphy, scoffed at questions as to why we had not embarked earlier on a rollout like Britain and the United States. Dr Murphy said on more than one occasion: “We’re not in a hurry in Australia. We don’t have a burning platform, as I’ve said on many occasions. We can take our time to do this vaccination properly.” The tragedy is that the slow and fraught rollout was horribly botched. Last month, to much fanfare, Greg Hunt proclaimed a “momentous day” with the beginning of the program to vaccinate everyone over 70 in “one of the largest logistical exercises ever undertaken in this country”. Vaccines weren’t delivered, doctors were left in the dark, their clinics swamped by confused patients only to be turned away. Former head of the federal health department, Professor Stephen Duckett, described the vaccine distribution as “overhyped and under delivered”. Warnings from the Labor opposition, some state health authorities and experts that the government had put too many eggs in the AstraZeneca basket proved sadly prescient. Not only is the Australian manufacturer CSL behind schedule, the product itself is now thought not safe enough for anyone under 50 – a sizeable chunk of the population. The credibility of that vaccine was not helped by the Prime Minister’s panicked early evening news conference on Thursday night. Now Morrison says he has “secured” another 20 million doses of the Pfizer vaccine by the end of the year, even if they all arrive by then, few expect the national inoculation target will be reached much before March or April next year. “Secured” of course doesn’t mean delivered, and again we are relying on a product we are incapable of manufacturing and have to import. The fact that Australia does not have the capacity to produce these modern mRNA vaccines is surely a disastrous example of our failure to invest in and keep up with vital technological innovation. Monash University’s Professor Colin Pouton is calling on the federal government to fund a fast-tracking of a factory here to do the job. Midweek, the premiers of New South Wales and Queensland washed their hands of any blame for the disaster Australia’s rollout of the COVID-19 vaccines had become. Gladys Berejiklian and Annastacia Palaszcuk made it very clear the states were responsible for 30 per cent of the distribution, the Commonwealth for the rest – and completely responsible for the supply of the vaccine. The states ignored Morrison’s pressure to curb lockdowns and keep borders open, and that saved the health of the nation and contributed in no small way to the incipient economic recovery. But on the vaccine planning and delivery, the emperor in Canberra has no clothes and the nation will pay dearly for longer. Paul Bongiorno AM is a veteran of the Canberra Press Gallery, with 40 years’ experience covering Australian politics

Australian Unions

How new archaeological discovery in Yorkshire could rewrite British prehistory | The Independent Inbox mark gregory 11:50 (37 minutes ago) to me How new archaeological discovery in Yorkshire could rewrite British prehistory | The Independent

Mark, Join me at this special briefing on the implications of the Omnibus Legislation at 2pm (Eastern time) on Thursday 8 April. You can register here. The Morrison government’s Omnibus Bill was a severe attack on workers’ rights. Drawn directly from the wish list of the big employer groups it would have had a devastating effect on working people – especially the most vulnerable. Once again, the government underestimated union members – and has paid the price. Our campaign managed to stop four out of the five major elements of the bill. This was a testament to our dedicated opposition to these attacks on workers. But the changes that have been made will make sure that casual work will remain insecure, uncertain, and far too prevalent. The government also walked away from any action on wage theft – showing who it really works for. These decisions have major implications for us as a movement. This briefing will unpack the details of what was passed and what this will mean for us. We will also discuss the next steps for us as a movement, and how we can make sure these issues follow the government to the next election. Register for the briefing at this link. I will see you there. In Union, Sally McManus

Spike Lee has again been asked to chair the Cannes Film Festival jury after last year's event was cancelled because of the pandemic. The Malcolm X and Do The Right Thing director will be the first black film-maker to take on the prestigious role. Lee has premiered seven films at the festival. "Cannes will always have a deep spot in my heart," he said in a video message. This year's event is due to take place in July instead of its usual May slot. "Book my flight now. My wife Tonya and I, we're coming," the director added. But with Covid-19 cases still at high levels in France, there is a chance that the event could be called off again. "Throughout the months of uncertainty we've just been through, Spike Lee has never stopped encouraging us," festival president Pierre Lescure said in a statement. "We could not have hoped for a more powerful personality to chart our troubled times."

The Sydney Womens March

Fukushima Daiichi nuclear Human cost of the disaster remains immense

The Morning Star AS we mark the tenth anniversary this week of the disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, where an earthquake and a tsunami led to a meltdown of nuclear reactors, the emission of huge amounts of radiation and a continuing humanitarian disaster, the fact remains that only in a world with the political drive to rid itself of nuclear power can we be safe from nuclear disaster. Even 10 years later, the human cost of the disaster remains immense. The release of radioactive caesium and strontium isotopes over a wide area poses as yet not understood risks to human health, including the risk of cancers. Tens of thousands of people remain displaced from their homes. Towns like Iwaki and Iitate will likely never see human habitation again. A vast “no go” zone some of some one thousand square kilometres surrounds the remains of the plant. And as a recent report by Greenpeace pointed out, many former residents have faced the unenviable choice between returning to their radioactively contaminated homes or leaving their properties forever. The response of the Japanese people, if not Japanese politicians, was a swift and enduring one. In the two years immediately following the disaster, public support for nuclear power dropped from over 85 per cent of the population to below a quarter. Japan is decommissioning around half of its reactors completely and only nine ever restarted after the events of 2011. By way of contrast, targets for (cheaper and safer) renewable energy production in Japan have been broken time again, with the country hitting its 2030 target of around 23 per cent of energy from renewable sources nearly a decade earlier than planned. Yet in other regards, successive Japanese governments have been drawn in by the seductive but ultimately false allure of nuclear power as a somehow “green” energy source. The current government under Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga is aiming for around a fifth of the country’s energy in 2030 to be provided by nuclear. Parallels can be clearly seen closer to home, where in a 10-point plan for a Green Industrial Revolution unveiled by Boris Johnson and the then business secretary Alok Sharma in November 2020, the government promised hundreds of millions of pounds of subsidies to develop and bring online small modular and advanced modular reactors. As expounded by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, the case against civil nuclear power remains a straightforward yet convincing one. Nuclear is hugely expensive, even more so when compared to the alternatives. Cost over-runs and crippling delays are frequent. In Britain at least, nuclear only remains viable because of the vast public subsidies it receives. One nuclear project alone, the reactor at Hinkley Point C, is expected to cost around £25 billion by the time of its completion and it is already four years late. More fundamentally however, as the long nightmare of Fukushima demonstrates, the cost of even a single nuclear disaster in human terms is unimaginably high. Even relatively minor nuclear safety breaches, which happen on a regular basis, can have serious unintended consequences. This is compounded when, as was the case in Fukushima, governments and corporations are unable or unwilling to provide transparency to their people and other countries about the scale of nuclear accidents, in part to protect the wider legitimacy of their nuclear programmes. Most frustrating of all, of course, is the fact that the UK is in some regards perfectly placed to take advantage of the shift to renewable energy, with plentiful supplies of wave and wind power, both on and off shore. Every pound invested in nuclear power is one that could be better spent on wind, wave or solar, with the much greater number of skilled and well-paid jobs they bring. In the medium term we can expect no relief. The dangers associated with nuclear will be further heightened as climate change drives the increasing frequency of extreme weather events in unexpected places. On current projections of global warming, the unexpected snow storms which paralysed much of Texas’s electricity grid are merely a harbinger of things to come. Other countries, particularly those in the Global South, will look at the renewed turn to nuclear in the developed world and see a high-prestige and supposedly “green” power source, particularly as small modular reactors technology continues to develop. For the right type of company, nuclear power remains a profitable business — and much like other big polluters, that profit will be fiercely defended. Ever since the opening of Calder Hall at Sellafield in 1956, billed by the government of the day as Britain’s first civil nuclear power plant (in actual fact, one of its key functions was the production of plutonium for weapons use), British civil nuclear has raised not only an environmental question but a political one. The American philosopher George Santayana once said that “those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Governments across the planet seem determined to repeat the errors of nuclear power which led to Fukushima. The best way for Morning Star readers to work for a clean, safe and sustainable future for people both here and across the world remains energetic democratic participation, including through the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, at 64 years old one of the oldest and most active campaigning groups in the country. Dr Ian Fairlie is vice-president of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and a former official government adviser on radiation biology.

The Independent UK

There is nothing wrong with a U-turn if it means that a government abandons the wrong policy and adopts the right one. The case of the proposed coal mine in Cumbria has seen such zigzagging from both the local council and the national government that a U-turn is too simple a description. The important point is that Boris Johnson has ended up in the right position. This week’s confirmation that the project will not go ahead came in the form of a letter from a planning decision officer in Westminster to Cumbria County Council. Formally, Robert Jenrick, the communities secretary, has “called in” the planning application and has not yet made a

Iconic 3801 Restoration

An iconic and widely adored steam locomotive from the 1940s has returned to the tracks today to the delight of rail lovers across NSW. For the first time in almost 14 years Locomotive 3801 will run again, offering passengers a chance to return to a bygone era of rail travel. The train is the last streamlined steam locomotive in the state and arguably the country's most famous as it's the only engine to have visited all mainland states and territories. A steam train in front of the Central station clocktower A class 38 train, most likely the 3801, passing Sydney's Central Station in 1980.(Supplied: City Of Sydney) To mark its long-awaited return, the 3801 is taking 1,500 passengers on sold-out trips between Sydney and Hurstville today and tomorrow. In the next few months 3801 will also make trips to the Southern Highlands, Albury, Wagga Wagga, Junee, the Blue Mountains and towns in western and northern NSW. Passengers can choose to travel in the open saloon or a private compartment car. The train has always attracted major public enthusiasm, says Transport Heritage NSW CEO Andrew Moritz, and is the most asked about engine in their historical fleet. "This engine has a following all of its own," he said. "Being the 'glamour express' it has always been a crowd favourite and attracts crowds wherever it goes." In 2013, when Transport Heritage NSW was established, Premier Gladys Berejiklian said the organisation should prioritise returning the 3801 to service. The 3801 is an important piece of Australian rail history.(Supplied: Transport Heritage NSW Via SJB Photography) When Locomotive 3801 first launched in 1943, it immediately changed the image of NSW railways and epitomised the romance of the steam era. The 38 class was fast, powerful and streamlined, and only the best crews were rostered to work the trains. "It is that iconic epitome of steam, it represents the best technology of the day," Mr Moritz said. "The streamlining makes it so representative of that Art Deco era, and the modernity that the railways were trying to project." In 1964 the train made the fastest journey at the time between Sydney and Newcastle in just over two hours and in 1970 it became the first steam locomotive to cross the continent to Western Australia. However, the 3801 was marred by tragedy in 1990 when an inter-city train hit the locomotive while traveling to Cowan, NSW, killing six people on the steam train. The impact completely destroyed the last carriage of the 3801 and a nine-month ban was introduced on steam trains in NSW.

Wendy Bacon Imagining an Independent Inquiry into Federal Attorney General Christian Porter By Wendy Bacon, 8 March 2021

Imagining an Independent Inquiry into Federal Attorney General Christian Porter Many people, including senior lawyers, are calling for an independent Inquiry into whether Christian Porter is a fit and proper person to be the Federal Attorney-General of Australia. In Perth, a group of legal academics has referred Porter to the Legal Practice Board of Western Australia to see whether he is fit to practice law. Two academics from University of Melbourne Law School are taking similar steps. Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Attorney General Christian Porter have asserted that an independent inquiry would bring the ‘rule of law’ in Australia to an end. Democracy itself would be threatened. In this piece, I discuss the issue of the rule of law and consider some of the evidence that could be relevant to an inquiry. Firstly, here’s a summary of events so far . Background This week, Four Corners again probed the Canberra Bubble. Their program followed up on an earlier program in November 2020 and a further explosive report on February 26th by journalist Louise Milligan. She reported that a woman, who has not been named, reported to NSW police in February 2020 that as a 16 year old school student, she was raped by a man now serving as a Federal Cabinet minister. Milligan did not name the Minister. On March 3rd, the Federal Attorney-General Christian Porter called a media conference and publicly acknowledged that he is the Minister. The woman alleged that she was forced to have oral sex and was anally raped in a bedroom at Sydney University’s Womens College at the end of a debating tournament in 1988. She was on the same national team as Porter and two other male students. He was then a 17 year old student from Perth’s exclusive private boys’ school Hale and she attended a private girls school in Adelaide. Porter repeatedly denied the rape allegations during the media conference. The woman suicided last year in her home city of Adelaide. Porter is now on mental health leave but has said he will not step aside for an inquiry or resign. Morrison has also said Porter is ‘innocent’ and will continue as AG. The women first disclosed the alleged rape in 2013 to a counsellor, who also has not been named. Subsequently she told a number of friends, journalist Tory Shepherd, former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and his partner Lucy Turnbull and Labor Senator Penny Wong about the alleged rape. After meeting with her in February last year, NSW Police Sexual Assault officers prepared a witness statement which was supposed to be signed in March 2020. The NSW police have said that the statement was not signed due to COVID 19 travel restrictions but have not explained why they did not arrange for it to be signed in Adelaide. According to her friends, the woman’s mental health deteriorated over the ensuing months. In June, she told police she did not wish to continue with the complaint. This was not because she did not stand by her account of the alleged rape but because of personal and health reasons. She died by her own hand two days later. . As Milligan reported, the woman’s detailed statement was sent anonymously to the Prime Minister Scott Morrison, who instead of reading it himself sent it to the Federal police, who have no jurisdiction in this matter. After speaking with Porter, who denied the allegation, he confirmed his confidence in the Attorney-General and said he saw no need for him to take any further action. Labor Senator Penny Wong and Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young also received a copy of the statement, which they also referred to the police. The NSW police last week said that they had decided not to proceed with an investigation on the grounds that there was insufficient admissible evidence to support a criminal case against Porter. During the chaotic 20 minute media conference, Porter confirmed that he knew the woman and that he was in a national schools’ debating team with her. Asked whether he had been alone with the young woman, he said, “Look, I don’t think so. We did what normal teenagers would do. There were groups of people.” When told there is a photo of the two of them sitting together at a dinner, Porter said it did not surprise him. Having said he didn’t think they had been alone together, Porter was asked: Reporter: She’s more specific in her statement, she says that you and she and a group of others had been out for dinner. You’d then gone dancing at the Hard Rock Cafe, and then you walked her back to her room. Do you recall that and what’s your recollection? Mr Porter: That may well be the case. Reporter: You don’t remember that? Mr Porter: It is 33 years ago. I remember two evenings that week. One was a night with – at one of the colleges with bowls of prawns, which sticks in my mind. I do remember a formal dinner, and going out dancing sounds about right. Porter does remember the woman showing him and the other two male team members how to iron a shirt. He agreed that it was not impossible that she was correct in remembering that he had said that “she would make a wonderful wife one day” as a joke. In her statement she described him as saying that apart from being smart and pretty she could do the things that housewives do. Four Corners has not published much of the statement but it did quote these words: “I was drunk, and I trusted him, so I agreed. I had no real reason then not to. We went up to my room, and I let him inside … What did happen next was a total surprise to me.” Porter claims to remember little about the evening but says if the alleged rape had occurred, he would remember it. Porter first heard rumours that the woman had made an allegation against him last year. Did he make any inquiries then about how he could lay the rumours to rest, particularly in the light of all the other allegations about his sexist and in appropriate behaviour aired in the first Canberra Bubble program? He now claims not to be able to answer questions about specific details because he hasn’t read the woman’s detailed statement. He was not asked at the conference whether he had asked for the statement. On Tuesday, former Foreign Minister and Deputy Leader of the Liberal party, Julie Bishop, who is also a lawyer, said that she was surprised that Morrison and Porter had not read the statement. “I wonder why they haven’t,” Ms Bishop told 7.30. “I think in order to deny [an] allegation you would need to know the substance of the allegation, or at least the detail of the allegation,”she said. The Four Corners’ team were aware of the rape allegation before they went to air with the first Canberra Bubble story in November 2020. They were not able to report the allegation, perhaps because there were no friends prepared to go on the record at that stage. Their subsequent actions were triggered by the recent revelation by Brittany Higgins that she was raped by a then fellow Liberal staffer in the office of the Minister for Defence Linda Reynolds. Questions relevant to other allegations of inappropriate and sexist behaviour both in Perth and Canberra were put to Porter but were not answered. Porter has not explained why he did not answer questions. Porter also complained that ‘substantial’ questions had not been put to him before Milligan broke the recent alleged rape story . According to Media Watch, Milligan put questions to the Prime Minister and not to Porter because he was not being named. This practice is common. As Amanda Meade reported in The Guardian, Porter had not answered numerous questions put to him by a number of media outlets. His approach can be compared to ex-Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s preparedness in 2012 to wait until all questions had been asked at a media conference to respond to allegations that she had acted corruptly 17 years previously. Porter would understand that by providing a denial, he made it easier for Four Corners to continue to report on the rape allegations and other issues about his treatment of women. By providing ample space for his ‘strenuous’ denials. the ABC was able to broadcast the second episode of the Canberra Bubble story. As well as providing a forum for friends of the woman to describe their friend’s outstanding qualities, their sorrow at her death and some of the information that she passed onto them, Four Corners interviewed senior barrister and past President of the Law Council Arthur Moses. He explained he was opposed to an inquiry into the allegations because the criminal investigation had been closed. But he acknowledged that some of his respected “closest friends and colleagues” disagree with him. None of those senior lawyers, including the current President of the Law Council Pauline Wright who supports an Inquiry, were interviewed. If Porter was to sue, he would expose himself to even more scrutiny and questions about his past. The reports are clearly in the ‘public interest’ as they are relevant to whether he is ‘fit and proper’ to be the Attorney-General, which is not merely a political role but also one involving legal decisions to prosecute and responsibility for law reform including on matters of gender discrimination. Morrison and Porter mislead the public about the ‘rule of law’ There is no doubt that Porter, who is fighting for his political life, was under enormous pressure at the press conference. But in defending himself, he spread misunderstandings about the ‘rule of law’ which other LNP MPs are now parroting in their attempts to lay the matter to rest. Since the ‘rule of law’ is a fundamental legal concept this raises further questions about his fitness for office Mr Porter said it would be wrong for him to stand aside or quit his job. As he put it: If that happens, anyone in public life is able to be removed simply by the printing of an allegation,” he said. Every child we raise can have their lives destroyed by online reporting of accusations alone. “My guess is that if I were to resign, and that set a new standard, well, there wouldn’t be much need for an attorney-general anyway, because there would be no rule of law left to protect in this country. So I will not be part of letting that happen. In making this statement, he would have been very aware that those calling for an independent Inquiry would expect him to stand aside and not resign while the inquiry produced its findings. Others have already provided strong arguments that the AG was misleading the public about the rule of law. Former Editor and non-practising lawyer Jack Waterford wrote in the Canberra Times: “Morrison is talking self-serving nonsense in claiming that the fundamentals of the rule of law in Australia would collapse if action were taken to investigate allegations of sexual assault by the Attorney-General, Christian Porter, even though the alleged victim is now dead. So is Porter, who is using the claim for refusing to resign.” Adelaide barrister Clare O’Connor SC was interviewed on Radio National Breakfast and described the ‘rule of law’ allegation as a furphy aimed at avoiding an inquiry. She also posted on her facebook: There’s a serious allegation against the chief legal officer. It needs investigation. Inquiry? Inquest? Either. Both. Matters not. But an investigation. That press conference of Mr Porter would never be enough. Asking for an investigation of some sort is consistent with the rule of law. Just outcomes can be achieved. But she also warned those calling for an inquiry that Porter would have the right not to incriminate himself and that the victim would be vilified and that the easiest defence is to attack the credibility of the victim who suicided in 2020. ‘Rule of law’ as political spin I agree that the ‘rule of law’ argument is a deliberate ploy or debating trick by Porter. Two men, one the Australian PM and the other the AG or chief law officer didn’t bother reading the specific allegations before deciding that a ‘strenuous’ denial and political spin about the ‘rule of law’ were their best line of defence. The patriarchal symbolism of two men asserting that no inquiry is necessary and that we should accept that the Federal government needs to do nothing more than allow the Attorney-General to take a health break before resuming duties was not lost on many, especially during the week of International Women’s Day. The rule of law is a broad concept about which there is a lot of debate in the fields of political and legal thought. It’s a principle that is supposed to guarantee the protection of other values, including democracy and basic rights such as equality before the law. It is not simply about procedures, although it does include protection from arbitrary punishment and a right to a fair hearing. Some prefer a narrow, more procedural notion of ‘rule of law’ but even they acknowledge that the rule of law applies to all spheres of law and public decisions that have consequences for citizens. In fact, I can’t remember anyone suggesting as Morrison has done that it only applies to the criminal justice system. During the 20th century, human rights, anti-racism and feminist advocates critiqued narrow concepts of the rule of law and strengthened the notion that fairness in any legal system must depend on actual equal access to the law and just outcomes. Formal equality alone cannot deliver justice. Christian Porter is extremely familiar with these ideas. I’d be surprised if he didn’t debate them at school and at university. He would have been exposed to them in law school. In 1999, he was awarded a scholarship to the London School of Economics where he specialised in the history of political thought and theory in the 20th century, where debates about human rights and justice and the neo-liberal critiques of them would have been discussed in depth. Porter did well in the course so he understands that at the heart of feminist concerns about low levels of reporting of sexual assault and of convictions lie deeply ingrained gender biases in the legal system. A conservative in these debates, he disagrees with the substance of the arguments but he understands them. The same goes for the arguments that the high levels of incarceration of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people compared to other Australians can be seen as a failure in the rule of law. He also understand that freedom for journalism including investigative journalism and equal access to justice are considered by most lawyers, including Australian judges, to be part of the rule of law. By resorting to false warnings about threats to the rule of law, Porter knowingly debases the very principle he claims to defend. A independent inquiry into whether Christian Porter is fit for the position of first law officer Porter has said it is up to others whether there is an inquiry. That really means Morrison – who is adamant that there will be no Inquiry. He has rejected a suggestion that he seeks advice from the current Solicitor-General from Justin Gleeson SC, who previously served in that role. There is plenty of support for such an inquiry although some are arguing that an inquest conducted by the South Australian Coroner would be the best way forward. If conducted in a broad way, an inquest could caste light on the woman’s circumstances before her death but it is hard to see how it can deal with all the serious issues raised about Porter in the two Canberra Bubble episodes. It is in the context of a fact-finding inquiry into all the serious allegations about Porter’s behaviour towards women that the likelihood of his committing the rape, his denials and credibility can be fairly assessed. It is also possible that an inquiry might find that it is not possible to reach a finding on the balance of probabilities whether the rape and assault occurred or not but that in the light of evidence relevant to the totality of allegations, Porter is not fit and proper to be the first legal officer of Australia. In any fact finding inquiry, much depends on the terms of reference. At this point, it’s important to revisit the first Canberra Bubble program and the shocking allegations that it exposed. In this episode, Four Corners journalists reported that they had spoken to many who witnessed Porter’s sexist and misogynist behaviour over a number of years. The material falls into a range of categories. Barrister Katherine Foley was interviewed and provided an account of her experiences and observations of Porter’s behaviour from when she was 16 until when she was working as a solicitor during the period when Porter was a Crown Prosecutor in Western Australia. This period of more than a decade covers the years following the rape allegation incident. It provides an insight into the young Porter and how he might have behaved at 17. Porter later responded that he was “surprised” to hear Foley reflecting on his character so long after they knew each other. This was scarcely the issue. At the time, I was struck by the strength and clarity of Foley’s statements, knowing that as a barrister she would have fully understood the implications of making them Foley told Four Corners that “Christian’s persona, particularly at UWA … was the sidelining of women in any kind of forum in which they wanted to be involved,” Ms Foley said. “They were treated as a joke; they were objects of ridicule. The only point to women, as far as I could tell from Christian’s way of treating women, was for him to hit on them, or for women to be made fun of, particularly for the way that they looked.” She could be called to give evidence of what she saw and heard during those years. Four Corners reported that they had spoke to other former UWA students who described incidents of inappropriate behaviour. They included “sexualised comments about female students, and a gratuitous focus on violent and sexually graphic material in the legal cases he taught”. Some of these people might be available to give evidence before an inquiry. Porter also wrote for law student publications and described how he intended to ‘slut’ he way through Law school. He has said that he now regrets these statements but shouldn’t he be asked what they conveyed in terms of his actual practice during more than eight years as a student? Louise Milligan, Lucy Carter and Peter Cronau also reported that they had spoken to many who “volunteered an example of what they believe is inappropriate conduct by Mr Porter” since his election as a Federal MP in 2013. Presumably, some of these people would come forward if there was an inquiry. If not, Four Corners could provide more details about these allegations while protecting the identity of sources, who may be too nervous to come forward. An Inquiry could also arrange to interview witnesses confidentially as occurred with the Royal Commission into Institutional Child Abuse. There was also the allegation that Porter was seen in a public bar having an intimate drink with a young Liberal staffer and that a photo of this taken was deleted. There are witnesses to this incident. Porter later rejected that interpretation put on his behaviour. This incident would be further explored in an inquiry. Former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull told Four Corners that he had heard rumours about Porter’s behaviour in Canberra and warned him that this could be a security risk. Porter has said he has a different memory of what occurred. Turnbull has contemporaneous notes. A further exploration of this could have bearing on an assessment of Porter’s truthfulness and credibility. Sarah Hanson Young told Four Corners that she had spoken to a young Liberal staffer who was in a consensual relationship with Christian Porter but that she felt very uncomfortable. The staffer was distressed about what was going on in her office. After watching the Canberra Bubble Episode One, I expected that all of these allegations might lead to an inquiry into Porter’s conduct . That proved to be naive. There was considerable media and political push back against the program. The old arguments about allegations being too old, and the private lives of public figures not being of public interest were raised. I could not help wondering if the issue had been one of race discrimination would the response have been different? I certainly hope so. We need to question why the allegations in the first Canberra Bubble program could be so easily pushed aside. Did we collectively “move on”? So long as we accept that discrimination and harassment of women can be tolerated. appalling levels of domestic assaults of women and sexual assaults will continue. This lack of basic respect for the rights of women has always undermined the rule of law. Porter’s career in Western Australia, in particular his attitudes to women and the rule of law, warrant further attention. After returning from London, Porter did a stint as a staffer for a Federal Liberal Minister and worked at the corporate law firm Clayton Utz. While Porter was teaching part-time at the UWA law school, he joined the WA Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) office and became a part-time Crown prosecutor. He continued in these two roles until he was preselected to stand for the state seat of Murdoch in 2008. How DPP lawyer Porter advised against continuing with a sexual assault case. At the media conference Porter referred to his knowledge and care for victims of sexual assault during his time at the DPP. As a prosecutor Porter was required to exercise his discretion in many ways including whether sexual assault cases would go to trial or end up in the ‘too hard’ basket with many other rape prosecutions. This discretion had to be exercised fairly - or in other words according to the rule of law. In order to find out more about how his discretion was exercised, I did a Factiva news database search and came across the following case. In April 2005, The West Australian newspaper reported on a rape victim who was very upset that the man who allegedly raped her had been allowed to leave the country, rather than go to trial. Mary, a social work student who was 19 when she was attacked in her home at Rockingham. She told The West Australian that she was “devastated by the decision. “I don’t know how they can put a price on what he’s done,” she said. “For a long time I had to deal with the guilt of it, thinking I had brought it on myself. When the DPP won’t go after him it makes me wonder and brings it all back to me.” The 23-year-old man had pleaded not guilty to three counts of indecent assault and one count of sexual penetration and was due to appear in the District Court next month. But because his student visa expired, the Director of Public Prosecutions needed to seek a ‘criminal justice stay visa’ which would have meant that his costs of staying in Australia would need to be covered. The DPP lawyer was Christian Porter. He told that paper that a number of matters were considered including the prospects of conviction, seriousness of the case and the importance to the alleged victim. “In these circumstances the decision was made not to apply,” he said. “We advised her of the decision and she told our office and she told me that she was relieved with it.” The idea that the Mary was relieved seems to have been a case of miscommunication. Mary said she was “completely terrified” when the man attacked her. “I absolutely froze, I was scared for my life,” she said. She described how she has struggled to get her life back on track since, attempting suicide six months after the incident, and is undergoing counselling. “It’s destroyed me, so I want something done. I don’t want him to get off,” she said. “I want some form of justice. By him just being deported and going home, he’s not having to face up to his actions at all.” This is only one case. Perhaps there were many other successful prosecutions. But it highlights a potential problems when a lawyer who exercises discretion is a person with a long record of misogynist and sexist behaviour to women is an appropriate person to be communicating with woman like ‘Mary’ and deciding on the fate of her complaints of assault. Mary was certainly left feeling that in her case the ‘access to justice’ part of the ‘rule of law’ had been denied. This is why the independent inquiry needs to take on board all of the serious allegations against Porter to assess whether he is fit and proper for office. In Part Two, I will update developments and examine other matters that could be relevant to Porter’s fitness for office and his understanding of the rule of law while he was an MP in WA. I can be reached at wendybacon1@gmail.com. I am also on Twitter and Signal For a well-researched article about Porter’s breaches of the law since he became Attorney General , read Elizabeth Minter’s article, first published on John Menadue’s Pearls and Irritations. I highly recommend johnmenadue.com Small editing changes have been made since publication

Trans-Tasman spat erupts after Peter Dutton refers to immigration deportees as 'trash'

Lawyers call for Porter to be subjected to the same standard of accountability as others in the legal profession

MEAA, the union for Australian journalists, welcomes today’s decision by a British judge to prevent the extradition to the United States of our member Julian Assange and calls on the US government to now drop his prosecution. The court ruled against extradition on health grounds, accepting medical evidence that Assange would be at risk in US custody. However, journalists everywhere should be concerned at the hostile manner in which the court dismissed all defence arguments related to press freedom. “Today’s court ruling is a huge relief for Julian, his partner and family, his legal team and his supporters around the world,” said MEAA Media Federal President Marcus Strom. “Julian has suffered a 10-year ordeal for trying to bring information of public interest to the light of day, and it has had an immense impact on his mental and physical health. “But we are dismayed that the judge showed no concern for press freedom in any of her comments today, and effectively accepted the US arguments that journalists can be prosecuted for exposing war crimes and other government secrets, and for protecting their sources. “The stories for which he was being prosecuted were published by WikiLeaks a decade ago and revealed war crimes and other shameful actions by the United States government. They were clearly in the public interest. “The case against Assange has always been politically motivated with the intent of curtailing free speech, criminalising journalism and sending a clear message to future whistleblowers and publishers that they too will be punished if they step out of line.” MEAA now calls on the US government to drop all charges against Julian Assange and for the Australian government to expedite his safe passage to Australia if that is his wish.