Removal of the strict liability clause in Queensland State legislation.
This petition had 32 supporters
The Strict Liability clause in legislation means that the parliament has taken over the role of the judicature in making criminals of persons who have not committed any crime. Strict Liability means that you cannot plead ignorance as a claim of not guilty. It means you are guilty and convicted of a crime even although you have no idea of that or why you have committed a crime. It is totally wrong that Strict Liability means no matter that you do not have a guilty mind, known as mens rea (Latin - a guilty mind), you are guilty by way of the legislation and a magistrate or judge allegedly has no option but to find you guilty. However, if you kill somebody there is a difference between murder and manslaughter by virtue of the matter of mens rea wherein if you did not intend to kill that person and because of the absence of mens rea, the guilty mind, you can be charged and convicted of manslaughter only instead of murder. How "they" can enter you mind and decide you weren't intending to kill that person is beyond comprehension because it is up to a jury to decide based on probabilities which is the means of settling civil matters where beyond reasonable doubt is the measure in a criminal (killing) matter. Why there can be Strict Liability in a case of killing and not in a simple traffic matter where there was no road safety involved is just plain wrong.
It is an easy means of gathering revenue from the people and you can suffer greater penalties than just a fine as I did. The instance in my case resulted from the fact that I was allegedly randomly intercepted by Queensland police who found that my DRIVER LICENCE had been suspended by the State Penalties Enforcement Registry, The Registrar, (SPER). I was given a Notice to Appear at the magistrates court. I was never aware that the DRIVER LICENCE had been suspended or was to be suspended as they claim. There is no mention of Strict Liability in the Transport Operations and Road Use Management Act as there should be. The magistrate was not interested in hearing my evidence and claimed she had no option but to find me guilty and impose a $350 penalty and a one month disqualification with a 12 month probationary licence from the date the disqualification ended. There were greater penalties as my Heavy Vehicle Driver Trainer Authority was removed along with my Driver Authority to operate passenger carrying vehicles such as buses. This restricted my income for over 12 months. I was never advised by SPER that my DRIVER LICENCE was to be, or had been suspended, yet the police can receive an electronic signal on the side of the road to be advised of such a suspension. If the Registrar of SPER decides, or some other bureaucrat decides to suspend a DRIVER LICENCE, and they make no contact with the holder of that DRIVER LICENCE they can simply say that they sent a letter which was not returned as undelivered and that covers their backside. They do not have to contact you by registered letter requiring your signature for delivery nor even make a telephone call to you to advise of their decision. Al they have to do is then sign a statement to say they sent you a letter that was not returned as undelivered and they are in the clear. As we know police and bureaucrats cover each others backsides at all times. I took this matter through the District court of Queensland, and the Appeals Court of the Queensland Supreme Court and the High Court of Australia refused leave to appeal there. The consequence if this is that I am now a Queensland Criminal as all traffic matters are now treated as criminal matters as the governments push us farther and farther into the trap of having no rights whatsoever under their fascist planning. I now have to answer any question that asks if I have a criminal record that I do and thereafter runs a whole waste of time and effort and money explaining that I did not commit some heinous crime but rather suffered by the inactions of a bureaucrat. The sergeant police prosecutor on the day in the magistrates court said if I pleaded guilty he would ensure that I only received a fine and no disqualification. That was an offer of a bribe to make his conviction record look good because the magistrate later claimed she had no option according to the legislation but to apply the full penalty. One can only be penalised once according to all the rules but I received a minimum of 5 penalties. Neither the Crime and Corruption Commission nor the courts were no interested in the bribe offered by the prosecutor because it is apparently quite alright for the police to lie to you as much as they want but you cannot lie to them, they claim.
The removal of Strict Liability from legislation means that you can present you case with evidence to show that you did not know certain things that would show you to be not guilty. In my case the Registrar of SPER claimed that numerous letters had been sent to addresses used by me and none had been returned as not delivered. The courts were not interested in the common sense reasoning that if one letter had not been returned as undelivered it should mean that possibly it had been received. Therefore what was the point in sending more letters if that letter satisfied their criterion? It makes no sense. None were received by me.
It is clear that if this Strict Liability remains in legislation many more people will be made into criminals at the whims of bureaucrats who could not care less about the people.
Today: Edward is counting on you
Edward Evans needs your help with “The Queensland House of Assembly: Removal of the strict liability clause in Queensland State legislation.”. Join Edward and 31 supporters today.