Page 1

Without prejudice
Coroner Sara Hinchey J 16-4-2017
Coroners Court of Victoria
5 65 Kavanagh Street, Southbank, VIC 3006
Phone: 1300 309 519 Calling from overseas: (+61 3) 8688 0700
Fax: 1300 546 989
General enquires (including submissions of all Forms): courtadmin@coronerscourt.vic.gov.au
Coronial Admissions and Enquires Office: cae@coronerscourt.vic.gov.au
10
Ref: 20170416-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Re SUBMISSION to Coroner Sara Hinchey J-Supllement 2

*** CONFIDENTIAL ***

15 Madam,
Further to my 13 February 2017 submission and Supplement 1 and Supplement 2 of 13-
4-2017, Supplement 3+COMPLAINT, I hold it appropriate to provide this Supplement
4+COMPLAINT
20 As I provided previously my submission and Supplements to
courtadmin@coronerscourt.vic.gov.au, and it might be argued that because of sending
it also to cae@coronerscourt.vic.gov.au this so to say triggered the automated respond
from Agents.DOJ@justice.vic.gov.au I therefore submitted my Supplement 3 +
COMPLAINT only to courtadmin@coronerscourt.vic.gov.au and as shown below
25 nevertheless I still had an automated response from Agents.DOJ@justice.vic.gov.au.
I view this is a very serious matter because beyond doubt so to say \the government is vetting
correspondence provided to the coroner and any CONFIDENTIALITY required by the
submitter (whistle-blower or otherwise) and may by this undermine the rights of a submitter
that the Government can conceal the submission from the coroner, to ensure perhaps the coroner
30 hands down a finding which may not be the same had the coroner been aware of material that
was concealed/withheld from the coroner. Also, the Government may use this information to
perhaps quickly pursue legislation as to undermine the ability of a person aggrieved to sue, etc.
One must not ignore the severity of this issue, this because people like the person involved in
driving the vehicle into Bourke Street and allegedly causing dead, etc, may very well have a
35 distrust of authorities. As I indicated I do not agree with the slaughter and otherwise harm to
innocent people but can UNDERSTAND why people are motivated doing so. And I view you
are now a perfect example of what can be so wrong but somehow you had so to say no qualms
about this and it is only that a person like myself exposes the wrongdoing.
I have marked this correspondence without prejudice and *** CONFIDENTIAL *** and
40 as such were the Agents.DOJ@justice.vic.gov.au to automatically respond this would
be a serious b reach of confidentiality. It is for the court to decide if the without prejudice may
or may not apply and also if *** CONFIDENTIAL *** could be accepted to apply where
after all I publish the same on the internet. But that is for the exercise of it all if without first
having a judicial decision the Government, so its agent, access this material without first having
45 obtained a ruling by the relevant judge (coroner) and so pre-empty any judicial decision and by

Page 1 16-4-2017 COMPLAINT G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax
0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail admin@inspector-rikati.com
 Page 2
this nullify the presiding judge judicial powers as well as the rights of the submitter to have a
proper judicial decision made.
It should be understood that a person accused may be requested/required by the coroner to
provide relevant information IN CONFIDENCE as to assist the coroner in his/her inquest to
5 be able to as much as possible have all relevant details before him/her. What you allow tio do, at
least in my view, is selling out the administration of justice to the benefit of the Government of
the Day and betray the rights of those making submissions. In my view this is unbecoming to a
judicial officer.
A submitter may IN CONFIDENCE provide perhaps details, names, etc, of possible suspects,
10 etc, and in the belief that other than the coroner and his/her legal team no one else would be privy
to such IN CONFIDENCE details unless the coroner overrules the IN CONFIDENCE
submission as to be deemed public information. But again it requires in my view a judicial
decision before any third person can be allowed to have access to any such submission submitted
to the coroner.
15 Lets say a child was sexual abused and murdered and a person who desires to remain
anonymous present to the coroner an IN CONFIDENCE submission outlining the name of a
possible suspect who might have committed the act. The submitter may in all good faith make
the submission but may have the wrong person in that regard named. Now, if the IN
CONFIDENCE IS NOW THWARTED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE DAY then an
20 innocent person named could be recorded as a possible suspect, and get this on his/her record
when the coroner might very well establish the true identity of the culprit. AN INNOCENT
PERSON UNBEKNOWN HAVING BEEN NAMED, and so without any knowledge of the
government of the Day perhaps recording this on his/her file then can suffer serious
consequences if this later were to become public. No use to claim this doesnt happen as the
25 government always claim secrecy when then it is discovered that they sent out thousands of
confidential files by error to people not to whom the files belong.
As the Framers of the Constitution stated:
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-

30 Of course; but Parliament must only be trusted when it is within the Constitution.

END QUOTE

The same is with the judiciary, it must only be trusted within the confines of legal provisions
(including foremost the constitution) and I for one like to find out when did the Coroner overrule
the 2 January 1901 Letters patent that the Governor can only create an impartial
35 administration of justice?
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. SYMON.-Very likely not. What I want to know is, if there is anybody who will come under the
40 operation of the law, so as to be a citizen of the Commonwealth, who would not also be entitled to be a
citizen of the state? There ought to be no opportunity for such discrimination as would allow a section of a
state to remain outside the pale of the Commonwealth, except with regard to legislation as to aliens. Dual
citizenship exists, but it is not dual citizenship of persons, it is dual citizenship in each person. There may
be two men-Jones and Smith-in one state, both of whom are citizens of the state, but one only is a
45 citizen of the Commonwealth. That would not be the dual citizenship meant. What is meant is a dual
citizenship in Mr. Trenwith and myself. That is to say, I am a citizen of the state and I am also a citizen
of the Commonwealth; that is the dual citizenship. That does not affect the operation of this clause at all.
But if we introduce this clause, it is open to the whole of the powerful criticism of Mr. O'Connor and those
who say that it is putting on the face of the Constitution an unnecessary provision, and one which we do not
50 expect will be exercised adversely or improperly, and, therefore, it is much better to be left out. Let us, in
dealing with this question, be as careful as we possibly, can that we do not qualify the citizenship of this
Page 2 16-4-2017 COMPLAINT G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax
0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail admin@inspector-rikati.com
 Page 3
Commonwealth in any way or exclude anybody [start page 1764] from it, and let us do that with precision
and clearness. As a citizen of a state I claim the right to be a citizen of the Commonwealth. I do not want
to place in the hands of the Commonwealth Parliament, however much I may be prepared to trust it,
the right of depriving me of citizenship.
5 QUOTE

Even so the constitution has not been amended by any successful referendum somehow the
Federal Government has turned it now into some Commonwealth legislative power and the
judiciary seems to pay homage to it regardless it in my view is committing TREASON doing so.
10 It appears to me t\hat now with the coroners court we have a similar situation.

I am well aware that at least to my understanding legal practitioners are so to say afraid to expose
the rot because it could backfire if they expose any rot. Having represented a barrister (for 22
years) who dared to speak out I understand also the harm inflicted upon a legal practitioner when
15 doing so.
https://www.google.com.au/?gws_rd=ssl#q=vetting+definition&spf=68
QUOTE
vet1
vt/ verb
20 gerund or present participle: vetting
1. make a careful and critical examination of (something).
"proposals for vetting large takeover bids"
screen, assess, evaluate, appraise, weigh up, examine, look
over, review, consider, scrutinize, study, inspect; More
investigate, censor, check, redact, check out, check up on;
synonyms:
probe, research, look into, delve into, dig into, search into;
informalgive something a/the once-over, size up
"they try to vet all the publications they sell"
o British
investigate (someone) thoroughly, especially in order to ensure that they are
25 suitable for a job requiring secrecy, loyalty, or trustworthiness.
"each applicant will be vetted by police"
END QUOTE

I will now quote the email that I did sent out and the automated response I received.
30
QUOTE 14-4-2017 EMAIL TO THE CORONERS COURT WITH ATTACHMENT 20170413-G. H. Schorel-
Hlavka O.W.B. Re SUBMISSION to Coroner Sara Hinchey J-Supplement 3+COMPLAINT
Now with attachment 20170414-G. H. Schorel-
Hlavka O.W.B. Re SUBMISSION to Coroner Sara
35 Hinchey J-Supplement 3+COMPLAINT
From Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
To courtadmin@coronerscourt.vic.gov.au
Cc Gerrit Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
Reply-To Gerrit Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
Date Fri 09:02

20170414-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Re SUBMISSION to Coroner Sara Hinchey J-

Supplement 3 COMPLAINT.pdf

Coroner Sara Hinchey J 14-4-2017

Page 3 16-4-2017 COMPLAINT G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax
0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail admin@inspector-rikati.com
 Page 4
Coroners Court of Victoria

65 Kavanagh Street, Southbank, VIC 3006

Phone: 1300 309 519 Calling from overseas: (+61 3) 8688 0700
Fax: 1300 546 989

5 General enquires (including submissions of all Forms): courtadmin@coronerscourt.vic.gov.au

Coronial Admissions and Enquires Office: cae@coronerscourt.vic.gov.au

Ref: 20170413-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Re SUBMISSION to Coroner Sara Hinchey J-Supllement 2

10 Madam,

Further to my 13 February 2017 submission and Supplement 1 and

Supplement 2 of 13-4-2017 I hold it appropriate to provide this Supplement
3+COMPLAINT.
See attachment 20170414-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Re SUBMISSION to Coroner Sara Hinchey J-
15 Supplement 3+COMPLAINT

If the government vetting the submissions to the coroners inquest and is this
acceptable?

The document can be downloaded from:

https://www.scribd.com/document/345134371/20170414-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-
20 B-Re-SUBMISSION-to-Coroner-Sara-Hinchey-J-Supplement-3-COMPLAINT

--

Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL
107 Graham Road
25 Viewbank 3084, Victoria, Australia

Author of INSPECTOR-RIKATI books on certain constitutional and other legal issues.

THE MORAL OF A SOCIETY CAN BE MEASURED BY HOW IT PROVIDES FOR THE DISABLED
30 END QUOTE 14-4-2017 EMAIL TO THE CORONERS COURT WITH ATTACHMENT 20170413-G. H.
Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Re SUBMISSION to Coroner Sara Hinchey J-Supplement 3+COMPLAINT

The automated response:

35 QUOTE

Page 4 16-4-2017 COMPLAINT G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax
0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail admin@inspector-rikati.com
 Page 5
Re: Now with attachment 20170414-G. H.
Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Re SUBMISSION to
Coroner Sara Hinchey J-Supplement
3+COMPLAINT
From Agents.DOJ@justice.vic.gov.au
To Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
Date Fri 09:02
Priority Normal

5
Thank you for your email.

Your email has been logged and we will attend to your request as soon as
possible.
10 Your patience is greatly appreciated.

PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL

The content of this e-mail and any attachments may be private and confidential,
15 intended only for use of the individual or entity named. If you are not the intended
recipient of this message you must not read, forward, print, copy, disclose, use or
store in any way the information this e-mail or any attachment contains.
If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete
or destroy all copies of this e-mail and any attachments.
20 Our organisation
END QUOTE

It may be argued that the Agents.DOJ@justice.vic.gov.au is merely providing automatic

reply and doesnt actually access the content of the submission, but to me that is a nonsense of an
25 argument. The Government of the Day should not even have access to the details of any person
making a submission to the coroner unless the coroner released the details.
What if some Minister were to be so to say a whistle-blower and were to give information that
the government wants to keep secret from the coroner? It cannot and must not be accepted that
anyone outside the Coroners Court itself has access to any submissions, nor the identity of the
30 submitter. What if some journalist decides to provide a CONFIDENTIAL submission about
having uncovered details that might be relevant to a coroners inquest but cannot publicly name
this and doing so might put the journalist employment on the line? Surely even Blind Freddy
would see that you must have a CONFICENCE in the Coroners Court that it will be a
sanctuary of confidential information and will not tolerate inappropriate disclosure to another
35 person.
In my view you are incompetent to protect the sanctity of the Coroners Court and cannot justify
this going on. Again, for how long has in fact this been going on where so to say the judiciary is
selling out the rights of submitters?
40
In case you were to wonder if my comments might be so to say CONTEMPT OF COURT then
you better consider also the following:
.
Ambard v Att Gen for Trinidad and Tabaco (1939) AC 322 at 335
45 QUOTE
The basic of the right to fair comment is the Right of Freedom of speech and the inalienable right of
everyone to comment fairly upon matters of public importance.
END QUOTE

50 No wrong committed in criticism of administration of justice:

LORD ATKIN in AMBARD v ATTORNEY-GENERAL for TRINIDAD and TABAGO (1936) A.C. 332, at 335
QUOTE

Page 5 16-4-2017 COMPLAINT G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax
0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail admin@inspector-rikati.com
 Page 6
But whether the authority and position or an individual judge, or the due administration of justice, is concerned,
no wrong is committed by any member of the public who exercises the ordinary right of criticising, in good
faith, in private or public, the public act done in the seat of justice. The path of criticism is a public way, the
wrong headed are permitted to err therein: provided that members of the public abstain from imputing improper
5 motives to those taking part in the administration of justice, and are genuinely exercising a right of criticism,
and not acting in malice or attempting to impair the administration of justice, they are immune. Justice is not a
cloistered virtue: she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, even though outspoken, comments of
ordinary man
END QUOTE
10 .
The right for the public to be informed about the judicial process being properly applied or acts:
THE COMMENTS OF SIR JAMES MARTIN C.J., IN THE MATTER THE EVENING
NEWS (1880) N.S.W. LR 211 AT 239.:
QUOTE
15 The right of the public to canvass fairly and honestly what takes place here cannot be disputed. Our practice of
sitting here with open doors and transacting our judicial functions as we do, always in the broad light of day,
would be shown of some of its value if the public opinion respecting our proceedings were at all times to be
rigidly suppressed. We claim no immunity from fair, even though it be mistaken criticism.
END QUOTE
20 .
As to value of criticism, keeping judge subject to rules and principles of honour and justice;
(a) R v FOSTER (1937) St. E Qd 368
(b) Re WASEMAN (1969) N.Z.L.R. 55, 58-59
(c) Re BOROVSKI (1971) 19 D.L.R. (34) 537
25 (d) SOLICITOR-GENERAL v RADIO AVON LTD (1978) 1 N.Z.L.R. 225, at 230-31

How absurd that this Agents.DOJ@justice.vic.gov.au are claiming confidentiality when

it violates the confidentiality of submitters!

30 QUOTE
PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
The content of this e-mail and any attachments may be private and confidential,
intended only for use of the individual or entity named. If you are not the
intended recipient of this message you must not read, forward, print, copy,
35 disclose, use or store in any way the information this e-mail or any attachment
contains.
If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and
delete or destroy all copies of this e-mail and any attachments.
Our organisation
40 END QUOTE
In my view it is judicial officers like yourself who by allowing to so to say prostitute the
administration of justice you are a cause why people contemplate suicide/murder/mass murder.
They simply have no trust in the legal processes.
45
I am not interested in if this was eventuating prior to you becoming the coroner, as what I am
interested in is that it is happening and continues to happen despite my 14 April 2017 complaint.

From The Age

50 http://www.theage.com.au/news/Opinion/The-corporatising-of-our-courts/2005/03/23/1111525218521.html

QUOTE

The corporatising of our courts

Retirement speech of John K. Phillips, Supreme Court of Victoria

Page 6 16-4-2017 COMPLAINT G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax
0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail admin@inspector-rikati.com
 Page 7
March 24, 2005

In his parting words from the Supreme Court bench, John D. Phillips warns of a dangerous erosion of
the court's independence.

For more than 14 years I have been sitting here, and it has been hard and unremitting, but exciting and
5 rewarding - emotionally, I hasten to add, before I am misunderstood. But for much of that time I have had
to bite my tongue.

I refer to policy matters rather than the debate within a particular case. For, during my time on the bench, and
especially as I grew more senior, I have watched with some concern a change emerge in the perception of this
court by others and some blurring of essential distinctions. I want to speak briefly of that now because I have
10 been unable to say much about it until now and when my resignation becomes effective, I fear that nobody
will listen.

As we all know, the independence of the judiciary is a cornerstone of our constitutional system,
particularly the independence of this court, which must, from time to time, tell the political arms what
they can and cannot do according to law. As a court we will rarely, if ever, be popular with politicians, but
15 while I have been sitting here, I have seen what appears to me to be some erosion of this court's
independence.

One of the most public examples recently was the refusal of the executive to accept the decision on
remuneration handed down by the tribunal established by the Parliament for the very purpose of freeing both
Parliament and the executive from the invidiousness of the decision-making process over judicial salaries and
20 so ensuring the independence of which I am speaking.

Less well known was the refusal of earlier governments to allow that the court's own chief executive officer
be appointed by the Governor-in-Council and its insistence that that officer be appointed by and be ultimately
answerable to the Department of Justice, which is what happened.

That appears now, if I may say so, to have been but part of a movement towards this court's becoming
25 absorbed into that department, and it is that to which I want to draw attention in particular; for such a
movement must be reversed if this court is to have, and to keep, its proper role under the constitution.

This court is not some part of the public service and it must never be seen as such. Established as a court
of plenary jurisdiction and with supervisory jurisdiction over all other courts and tribunals, this court is the
third arm of government, co-equal in concept with Parliament and the executive. Its role, inter alia, is to
30 control and to limit those other arms according to law and to that end to stand between those other arms and
the citizen. Hence the emphasis on the court's independence, especially from the executive.

Yet within the Department of Justice this court is now identified and dealt with - would you believe - as
"Business Unit 19" within a section labelled "courts and tribunals", a section which indiscriminately
includes all three tiers of the court structure and VCAT.

35 This court is subject to direction on the raising of taxes in the form of court fees - in that these are prescribed
by departmental regulation, even if a part of those fees is redirected to the court by the department at its
discretion. The other day the department used a regulation to prescribe a procedure in this court,
apparently in disregard, if not in defiance, of the convention that such matters are for rules of court.

And perhaps most troubling of all: the judges' computers, which were provided by and through the
40 department, are but part of the departmental network. I do not say that departmental officers ordinarily
avail themselves of the access that that affords; one hopes the department has some controls in place. But
access is possible, and that seems to me altogether inappropriate when the state, in one form or
another, is the major litigant in this court, and sometimes on matters of critical import to the wider
community.

45 Nobody is suggesting that the executive would ever seek to influence a judge's decision directly, otherwise
than by argument in open court, but what has been happening is more insidious. What is evolving is a

Page 7 16-4-2017 COMPLAINT G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax
0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail admin@inspector-rikati.com
 Page 8
perception of the court as some sort of unit or functionary within the Department of Justice, a perception
which is inconsistent with this court's fundamental role and underlying independence.

Indeed I think it is fair to say that the Supreme Court, despite its dominant role within the court structure and
its constitutional role vis-a-vis the other arms of government, is now seen by some in authority as no different
5 from a tribunal, nowadays the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal in particular. That is simply not
the case; yet the distinction between a court and a tribunal has been steadily undermined over the years, and it
must be restored if the proper constitutional position is not 2to be subverted.

The basic distinction is easy enough. A court exercises judicial power and must be, and be seen to be,
impartial and so must be independent of all else. Accordingly, its judges are appointed once and for all, and
10 ideally, without hope of additional gain or reward from anyone, including any other arm of government.
Hence Parliament's creation of the specialist remuneration tribunal. In contrast to a court, a tribunal, properly
so called, exercises administrative functions but not judicial power, and many things flow from that. Such a
tribunal may be an arm of the executive; its members may be appointed for fixed terms, with the possibility
of renewal at the discretion of the executive; and the need is not so great, to see that their remuneration is
15 fixed independently of the executive.

You will see, now, how far the distinction between court and tribunal has become blurred. While the
Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal is staffed by a few judges, it consists mainly of members
appointed for fixed terms, capable of renewal at the discretion of the executive - and hence my alarm when,
in addition to its administrative work, that tribunal was given some judicial power to exercise, for the latter is
20 altogether inconsistent with such a form of tenure.

There is talk now of acting judges for this court, and again, because this is a court which is exercising judicial
power, such would be anathema. It is one thing to tolerate the occasional acting appointment to this court for
a limited time or purpose; it is altogether different to institutionalise such temporary appointments at the
discretion of the executive. Judges of a court properly so called must have security of tenure or, in a relatively
25 small community like this in Victoria, the whole system is put at risk. Our courts have been remarkably free
from any taint of bias or corruption; let it remain that way. A judge must be, and be seen to be, impartial
and so must eschew all other interests which might one day give rise to conflict or the appearance of
bias.

In my book, the judge must forgo the current cult of the individual: to adapt Edmund Burke, "individuals pass
30 like shadows, but the (institution) is fixed and stable". The judge is sometimes accused of remoteness but in
one sense that is no more than the reverse side of the commitment, the total commitment, which is demanded
of the appointee.

John D. Phillips is retiring as a judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria. This is part of his farewell address to
the court.

35 END QUOTE
As the then His Honour Phillips J made clear the government had access to court computers and
all that I now am waiting for is some judge to make clear that his/her orders and reason of
judgment that was handed down was altered without his/her consent by persons unknown as the
40 actual orders and reason of judgment on his computer didnt present what the fraudulent orders
and judgments portray to be.
I once had that I received 5 different version of the one court hearing. From each week-end to
alternative alternative week-end. I confronted the court about this and was given the
understanding that after the trial judge signs the orders than various other persons within the
45 registry may amend the wording to make it better grammatical English. Hence they use signature
stamps as if the judge himself signed. Just that to me altering each week-end to each
alternative weekend has nothing to do with proper grammatical English but I so to say view it
that the lawyer might be sleeping with someone in the Registry and so get orders inappropriately
altered.
50

Page 8 16-4-2017 COMPLAINT G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax
0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail admin@inspector-rikati.com
 Page 9
I have spent decades trying to have people abort any contemplation of suicide./murder/mass
murder and return to the fold of the administration of justice and then so to say we got a joker as
a coroner who as I view it essentially undermine my decades of work by undermining the
sanctity and confidentiality of the court.
5 No excuse either that because of public holidays the automatic responses remain to be that of
Agents.DOJ@justice.vic.gov.au as it should never have eventuated in the first place.
In my view every court must operate independently from the Government of the Day. It must not
allow any Government employee or its contractors/agents to have access to court computers,
files, etc.
10 .
HANSARD 12-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. BARTON:
It is provided that instead of, as before, the Parliament having power to constitute a judiciary, there
15 shall be a Supreme Court, to be called the High Court of Australia, as a part of the Constitution-that I
believe to be an improvement-and other courts which the Parliament may from time to time create or
invest with federal jurisdiction.
END QUOTE

20 Again as a part of the Constitution this is different than being the 3rdarm/part of the government.
The judiciary must be impartial and separated from the Government of the Day as otherwise it is
implied bias. I am well aware about the nonsense of judges claiming that the courts are the third
arm of Government, but they are not constitutionally. The s101 Inter-State commission is in fact
independent from the Government and the Parliament and only on legal issues lies an appeal to
25 the High Court of Australia, as such the Inter-State commission is the fourth part of the
constitution.
Momcilovic v The Queen [2011] HCA 34 (8 September 2011)
QUOTE
30 1. Independence of the courts is integral to their institutional integrity. Judgments of this Court
confirm the importance of the perception of a judge's role in this regard. In connection with functions which
do not involve exercising judicial power, it was held in Wilson v Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Affairs that legislation which required a federal judge, appointed by the Minister, to report to the
Minister was invalid. Gaudron J there said that "impartiality and the appearance of impartiality are defining
35 features of judicial power."[848] Her Honour went on to observe that a court exercising judicial power must
"be and be seen to be completely independent" of the legislative and executive branches of
government[849]. The need for independence and impartiality, and the separation of the judiciary and the
other arms of government, also underlie the requirement of a "matter" in s 76 of the Constitution which
operates to limit the circumstances in which judicial power can be exercised[850]. Closer to the subject at
40 hand, and in connection with the application of Kable, Gummow J in Fardon v Attorney-General (Qld)
stated that it was preferable to view a perception which may undermine public confidence as an indicator,
but not the touchstone, of invalidity. The touchstone, his Honour said, is the institutional integrity of the
court[851].
1. In some cases it may be difficult to view the way a court is perceived as unconnected to its
45 integrity as an institution. Whilst the judgments in Totani confirmed that the practical operation of the
legislation there was to enlist a judge to effect executive and legislative policy, the legislation also, and
misleadingly, gave the appearance of the Magistrates Court participating in the pursuit of the objectives of
the Act in question, whilst giving effect to that executive and legislative policy[852]. Problems created by
the appearance of a want of independence were evident in Wainohu, where the statute denied the duty of a
50 judge to give reasons, but at the same time created an apparent connection between the non-judicial
function conferred and the exercise of jurisdiction by a Supreme Court judge. It was there said that[853]:
"The appearance of a judge making a declaration is thereby created while the giving of reasons, a
hallmark of that office, is denied. These features cannot but affect perceptions of the role of a judge of
the court".
55 1. The process by which the Court of Appeal here reached its conclusion of inconsistency cannot be
said to involve functions which are incompatible with, or antithetical to, judicial power. The process
involves an ordinary interpretive task. The content of the declaration cannot be a cause for concern. It
merely records a finding of inconsistency between s 5 of the Drugs Act and s 25(1) of the Charter. It does
not answer a question directed to the Court, as to the validity of legislation, as was the case in In re
Page 9 16-4-2017 COMPLAINT G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax
0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail admin@inspector-rikati.com
 Page 10
Judiciary and Navigation Acts. The Court does not purport to advise as to law reform. It is not unknown for
judges to incidentally pass comments upon conclusions they have reached about defects in legislation in the
course of their reasons[854]. Doing so in the course of a permissible exercise of judicial power is "a
function properly regarded as incidental to the exercise of the power."[855] However, that function is not a
5 function which, if it were undertaken independently of the exercise of "a principal judicial duty"[856],
might be said to "belong to an administrator."[857] The form of the process under s 36(2) does not alter that
analysis.
1. The argument for the invalidity of s 36 is about perceptions. The matters in this case which are
relevant to the appearance of the Supreme Court as independent of the executive and legislative branches of
10 the Victorian State Government are (a) that the non-judicial function of making a declaration is embellished
by being styled a "declaration" to give the appearance of an order of the Court; and (b) that the legislation
requires a copy of the declaration to be given to the Attorney-General.
1. The first-mentioned feature calls to mind what was said in Mistretta v United States[858], namely,
that the reputation of the judicial branch may not be borrowed by the legislative and executive branches "to
15 cloak their work in the neutral colors of judicial action."[859] But that statement was directed to a
legislative or executive function which was disguised by use of a court's processes. Here the declaration,
whilst not dispositive because it is made only incidentally with respect to a matter, does not implement any
policy or action of the executive or the legislature. Putting to one side the description given to it as a
"declaration", it is readily apparent that it is no more than a statement made by the Supreme Court as to an
20 apparent inconsistency. So far as it concerns the executive and the legislature, the statement serves only to
draw attention to that effect. The steps, if any, which are proposed by the relevant Minister to change the
law do not involve the Court.
1. The requirements of notification are the only mandatory aspects of the declaration process. Too
much should not be read into these obligations, given that it is the Court which decides, in the first place,
25 whether to make a declaration. In doing so it is not responsive to any legislative command. These
requirements and the declaration itself are largely innocuous so far as concerns the Supreme Court. Their
principal purpose is to set in train a process whereby the relevant Minister considers what should be done
by way of legislative change. No incompatibility with the institutional integrity of the Supreme Court is
disclosed by reference to these matters.
30 END QUOTE

The book "Law Made Simple" by Colin F. Padfield, LL.B.,D.P.A.(Lond.) on page 55:
QUOTE
"The Rule against Bias. A true judicial decision can be reached only if the judge himself is impartial. This is
35 an obvious requirement in a court of law or a tribunal. In R. v Rand (1866) it was held that a judge is
disqualified where (i) he has a direct pecuniary interest, however small, in the subject-matter in dispute; or (ii)
there is real likelihood that the judge would have a bias in favour of one of the parties.

For example, if a judge is related to, or is a friend of, one of the parties to a dispute there would be real
40 likelihood of bias. It is immaterial whether a judicial decision was in fact biased, for as was said by Lord
Chief Justice Heward in R. v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy (1924): 'Justice should not only be done, but
should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.'

As an example of pecuniary bias we may quote:

45
Dimes v. Grand Junction Canal (1852). Lord Chancellor Cottenham made decrees in a Chancery suit in
favour of a canal company. Lord Cottenham held several shares in the company. Held: (by the House of
Lords): that the decrees be set aside on the ground of pecurniary interest. No bias was proved in fact, nor
could it be shown that Lord Cottenham was in any way influenced by his shareholding.
50
As an example of likelihood of bias we may quote:

R. v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy (1924). A was summoned before magistrates for a motoring
offence. The acting clerk to the justices was a member of a firm of solicitors representing A in civil
55 proceedings arising out of the same accident. The acting clerk did not advise the magistrates, but he retired
with them to consider their decision. Held: that as the acting clerk was connected with the case in the civil
action he ought not to advise the magistrates in the criminal prosecution. Conviction accordingly quashed,
despite the fact that the acting clerk took no part in the decision to convict and had not been asked by the
justices to give his opinion or advice. "
60 END QUOTE

Page 10 16-4-2017 COMPLAINT G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax
0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail admin@inspector-rikati.com
 Page 11
R v. Lusink and another; Ex Parte Shaw (1980) 6 FLR 235 and 236
QUOTE
However in some cases the words or conduct of a judge may be suck as to lead the parties reasonably to think
that the judge has prejudged an important question in the case, and then prohibition may issue. Of course, the
5 court which is asked to grant prohibition will not lightly conclude that the judge may reasonably be suspected
of bias in this sense; it must be "firmly established" that such a suspicion may reasonably be engendered in
the minds of the parties or the public, as was made clear by the court in R v Commonwealth Conciliation and
arbitration Commission; Ex parte Angliss Group (1969) 122 CLR 546 at 553-4, in the passage cited in R v
Watson; Ex parte Armstrong (132 CLR at 262).
10
The critical question, however, is not whether a judge believes he or she has prejudged a question, but
whether that is what a party or the public might reasonably suspect has occurred (see per Lord Denning
MR in Metropolitan Properties Co. (FGC Ltd v Lannon (1969) 1 QB 577 at 599, a judgment cited with
approval by this court in R v Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission; Ex Parte Angliss
15 Group (1969) 122 CLR 546 at 553; In some circumstances repeated denials of prejudging might well convey
the impression of "protesting to much"...
END QUOTE

In my view the conduct to allow the Government and/or its agent to have access to court records
20 such as submissions made to the court is a serious violation against the submitter as well as
undermining the confidence in the legal processes and I view therefore the presiding judge
allowing for this as a coroner must disqualify herself.
From The Age
http://www.theage.com.au/news/Opinion/The-corporatising-of-our-courts/2005/03/23/1111525218521.html
25 The corporatising of our courts
Retirement speech of John K. Phillips, Supreme Court of Victoria
QUOTE

And perhaps most troubling of all: the judges' computers, which were provided by and through the
department, are but part of the departmental network. I do not say that departmental officers ordinarily
30 avail themselves of the access that that affords; one hopes the department has some controls in place. But
access is possible, and that seems to me altogether inappropriate when the state, in one form or
another, is the major litigant in this court, and sometimes on matters of critical import to the wider
community.

END QUOTE
35
Below a screenshot of my computer regarding the inbox of emails forwarded to the Coroners
Court (Where the copy forwarded to myself shows when it was received by me) and the
automatic responses received from Agents.DOJ@justice.vic.gov.au on each occasions.

40 (The image above had unrelated confidential details cut out.)

Page 11 16-4-2017 COMPLAINT G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax
0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail admin@inspector-rikati.com
 Page 12

I suspect the same will eventuate when I forward this supplement + COMPLAINT while the
coroner is perhaps enjoying festivities rather than to immediately without delay attending to the
5 underlying issues why people desperate of life and its obstacle course are contemplating
suicide/murder/mass murder where they have the view that the judiciary is so to say selling them
out. Do not forget I warned the various Governments about the likely hood of a mass murder at
Bourke Street Mall for years and so also on 15 July 2016 and again thereafter on various
occasions. My publications at www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati can be authenticated it was then
10 published. Not even the media then bothered to cover this issue, but now 6 death and many
others injured it suddenly became news by the ghoulish media and politicians alike.
SHAME ON ALL OF THEM!

15 In case this Supplement 4 +COMPLAINT is kept from you I will publish it also on the internet
as well as notify the media, to ensure it is not concealed from the public.
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)

20 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

(Our name is our motto!)

Page 12 16-4-2017 COMPLAINT G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax
0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail admin@inspector-rikati.com