British migrants experience 37 years of prejudice and denial of legal rights, due to Australian Government's failure to enforce equality before the law and the rule of law.

Mr Stubberfield explains:

The Australian Government and its agencies are now stripping my family of our assets and savings accrued over a successful 47-year marriage partnership.

Orders were made by the courts even though:-

• The development was at all times barred by the Planning Act and Local Planing Scheme.
  
• The law, which I argued in the Planning Court - but was prevented from arguing on appeal - was correct and has since been followed in four decided cases, including those that went to appeal.
  
• The developer and his lawyers rely on the perverse refusal of the courts in 1993 to apply and enforce the law.

The present Howard Government seeks to wear the mantle of respectability by signing international treaties that give Australians fundamental human and legal rights
whilst in reality my case shows they have no intention of applying those rights - I got no such protection. Parliaments of the Commonwealth blatantly disregard legal and human rights in justice administration, fraudulently using the fallacious argument that the separation of powers doctrine prevents them intervening with whatever the courts and judges care to do.

I maintain that if Australia wishes to call itself a democracy then no doctrine should be used to subvert the power of Parliament to protect the basic human rights of its citizens, to enforce an equitable rule of law, and to take action to ensure that all obey this law, including the judiciary.

A Summary of his Case by John Stubberfield

1) Arriving from the UK we bought land in Brisbane in 1963. Here planning consent for business use of land is discretionary. We found that as migrants, and unlike long established Australians developing businesses in similar circumstances, we had to fight for such consent in court, but did obtain approval and a permit in 1964.

2) Four years later on applying for a small extension to our workshop the Court refused and also deprived us of the 1964 permit they had issues. Thus our livelihood from our joinery workshop business was taken away from us, while other business's were started up and operated with impunity around us on adjoining plots. We continued to use the plot as a place of residence which was allowed.

3) When in 1980 an adjoining sawmill business became un-viable the land was sold and developed by a purchaser for a different industrial purpose, two new buildings erected without consent, illegally. Amenity of our residence greatly being effected by this development we complained to the Local Authority, from 1981 to 1991 they refused to enforce planning law on the Australian developer next door.

4) In 1984-5 my wife becoming ill from stress, we moved to another property, obtaining building approval for a new residence. When this was almost completed in 1987, Redland Shire Council contradicted this approval by designating about 35% of our 7.5 ha plot of residential zoned land as required for Public Open Space (P.O.S.) purposes, including the part that had on it our almost complete new residence. Our neighbours, also migrants, had the total of their 5.5 ha land and their residence designated as required for Public Open Space. To overcome objections by the owner occupiers and to obtain gazettal of P.O.S. the designation, Council was required by the Minister to purchase land so designated during the life of the Planning Scheme.

5) But in 1991 our neighbour's land having then been sold to a developer illegal consent was then given by the Local Council to develop the land. The P.O.S. designation being simply ignored, even though the Planning Act requires a Local Authority to enforce it's Planning Scheme, and binds it by it's provisions by which development for other than P.O.S. was barred. Council advised the developer that they had no intention of purchasing the P.O.S. designated land.
The net result was that the State Minister had been deceived, the owners defrauded. Although this illegal development consent had been given to land immediately adjoining our residence, our land and home were still left designated as required for P.O.S. use and in 1997 it was designated as Koala habitat.

6) After having complained over eight years to all relevant Government agencies of illegality by two local authorities against our homes, and denied professional assistance to obtain relief I undertook my own research and education as to the law applicable. Thus after a series of court actions relating to both residences, both matters fell for determination by the Queensland Court of Appeal in June1993.

7) THE TWO JUDGMENTS OF THE QUEENSLAND COURT OF APPEAL No's 218/92 & 38/93 demonstrate and prove:-

• Public and justice administration in Australia is discriminatory and administered selectively. In such circumstance "truth" and law have little significance, with participants allowed to lie and commit perjury with impunity. In reality only the complainant is penalised.
• Privileged offenders can breech the law and obstruct enforcement of it with impunity aided by the judiciary, their conduct "whitewashed" by concocted falsity and omission in published judgments and reasons.
• The Queensland and Australian Federal Governments condone and acquiesce with such acts.

8) The High Court, whose duty it was to enforce the constitution and ensure the rule of law throughout the Commonwealth, manipulated it's own rules to preserve discriminatory, perverse judgments of the Queensland Court of Appeal which subverted statute and it's own binding judgments, to preserve and protect injustice discrimination, prejudice, and persecution.

9) In each case I was denied the benefit and protection of a judgment enforcing the law, to which I was entitled, and ordered to pay the offenders costs which had been incurred to pervert justice arguably via criminal conduct and obstruct my enforcement of the statute.

The Consequences Brisbane City Council's refusal to enforce the law and its consequences: 1) In 1991 I obtained opinion of senior counsel who recommended court action for relief as to our Brisbane land. Brisbane C.C. refusing to act, a private prosecution was commenced in the Magistrates Court. But Council intervened to strike out subpoenas to obtain it's files, thus again actively protecting the offenders. At trial my lawyers "threw my case away" by making erroneous concessions, and by failing to exhibit evidence and plead law vital to my cause. I thus lost an unlosable cause, and suffered a $4,000.00 order for costs against me. 2) On the solicitors advice the case proceeded in the Planning Court. Against his advice I also appealed personally the Magistrates Judgment, in so doing obtaining convictions on two counts of the complaint, the District Court judge holding himself constrained from deciding the remaining counts due to the concessions made on my behalf in courts below. I was deprived of relief, judgment and costs by misconduct of specialist lawyers employed. 3) In the Planning Court my complaints were upheld, the activities declared illegal and ordered to cease, but a declaration was also made, without notice or argument, that a Sawmill use persisted and was lawful, This contradicted the sworn testimony of the respondent, and contravened the Planning Act s.3.1(2)(c), and Planning Scheme cl. 28.1.2(a). 4) The single declaration effectively negated those made on my application, wasting about $30,000.00 of unrecoverable legal costs. Again judgement had demonstrated an intent to maintain the prejudice I had suffered. Both parties appealed to the Court of appeal, each appearing in person. 5) My appeal was dismissed though the Planning Court's declaration that I was appealing contravened both statute and common law. The offender was questioned as to what purpose he wished to use his land, and his wishes were satisfied by amendment of the Planning & Environment Court's declaration 'C', to illegally add non-conforming use rights of Timberyard and Car Shelter. 6) In Summary evidence proves: There was no lawfully existing use for the purpose of a "timberyard" on 01/12/78 bringing such a use within the "existing use" provisions of the Act or Planning Scheme, as determined by the Planning & Environment Court. The "use" was introduced illegally 14 months after 01/12/78 and breached statutory law. * Two Town Planning Certificates proved conclusively there was no entry for the land ( in the register kept under section 3.2(11) of the Act or Cl. 28.2.2 of the Town Plan.) 7) Admission on oath in the case by the offender is that since 1981 he had developed and used his land illegally, and had ignored warnings and requirements of Council inspectors over 10 years. 8) The Court of Appeal judgment reasons are a composed misrepresentation of law and fact, a perversion of a valid judgment of the Planning & Environment Court, (after a two day trial, hearing eight witnesses and three counsel), to prevent my enforcement of statute and common law. Doing so to maintain an indisputably illegal development and use of land, in the interests of the offender, and denial of my right to the benefit and protection of the law, after my family had been deprived of the right to operate our business. 9) Such conduct justifies an inference of common intent by Officers of Brisbane City Council and my lawyers in the Magistrates Court action, to frustrate my attempts to obtain relief and shows organised intent to prejudice and persecute my family. Redland Shire Council's perversion of the law and the consequences: 1) On Redland Shire Council resolving to consent to development of land adjoining our residence, designated Public Open Space in it's gazetted Town Plan I objected and sought declarations of invalidity. 2) My objection was denied in the Planning Court on the grounds that the Residential Zoning of part of the land overcame the P.O.S. designation. 3) At trial the President of the court twice stopped me arguing a key issue of my appeal, i.e. that the development was statute barred by the P.O.S. designation in the Gazetted Town Plan. 4) My Appeal was thus dismissed. 5) Four subsequent decisions endorsed my opinion, as to the law argued in the Planning Court, to have been correct, the Court of Appeal deciding in 1998 that a designation of land in a Development Control Plan was dominant over a zoning use. A Development Control Plan and text prohibited land use and rights otherwise available under the Table of Zones. A re-zoning cannot be approved if it is inconsistent with the Development Control Plan. Amendment of a Development Control Plan Map "is a condition precedent to success in a rezoning application". Only the Governor in Council can amend a planning scheme, Thomas JA. sets out the legislative requirements of a valid application. A Local Authority has no power to consent to development barred by the legislation. 6) Whilst the matter was in the courts the respondents officers conspired to sign, seal, and register plans of subdivision of the subject land, creating the circumstance that by the date of trial of the appeal, conclusive facts had been created. My appeal was thus arguably a legal nullity, the court deprived of jurisdiction, its Orders rendered useless by conspiracy of the respondents. The non-disclosure of transfer documents and plans in sworn affidavits of documents caused harm to me, were an act of perjury by the officers concerned, and an offence against the Act. 7) Abuse of the Bankruptcy process was then used to repress and persecute me as the complainant. I was denied legal and human rights and as the stole our savings and assets. 8) As a direct consequence of the denial by the President of my right to argue my case, rejection of my appeal No.38/93, and awarding of costs to the offender, his solicitors issued an incompetent bankruptcy notice and petitioned for the sequestration of my estate. I employed a solicitor to defend. But this solicitor immediately before trial sought to prejudice my case in the interests of the creditor. In the event I defended the action in person, the petition was dismissed, but I was harassed for costs claimed by the solicitor I had been forced to dismiss. 9) His initial cost claim was $1,500, (his estimate) by perverse means and sympathetic members of the judiciary he was enabled to build that claim to about $65.000. He joined forces with the solicitor involved in my initial loss in the Magistrates Court, and the developer of land adjoining ours at Redland Bay. 10) In late 1998, as a consequence of lawyer harassment and its effect on my wife's mental health, we moved interstate. In September 1999 our bank advised that a "block" had been placed on our joint savings account, we discovered that in my absence the solicitors had obtained Orders sequestrating my estate without my knowledge, doing so over court orders for costs that were bogus and fraudulent, amounting to about $110,000.00. An amount of $180,000.00 has been withdrawn from our joint savings account, and a further $70,000.00 "blocked" from our access. Caveats have been placed, by a court appointed agent of the solicitors, on our two Queensland properties owned jointly with my wife having a joint "paper " value of about $1.5m, both are unencumbered by mortgage. My wife and I have no bona-fide creditors. 11) I am not now nor have ever been insolvent, evidence shows the bankruptcy proceedings to be an abuse of process, to frustrate my ability to manage our affairs, a culmination and product of the determination of sections of public administration to prejudice us as migrants. 12) Again as a consequence of the Court President's denial of my right to argue my case in 1993, and refusal to apply and enforce the law, the developer offender has been enabled to prosecute an action against not only me, but also my wife, who played no part in the appeals. 13) He claims $330,000.00 damages suffered as a consequence of my appeals, relying on those appeals proceedings for which there is no precedent. 14) The Supreme Court is now supporting such proceedings, founded on it's own initial refusal to enforce the law, rewarding the offender with yet more costs orders against my family, in order to harass, prejudice, and further defraud us of our assets and savings, for the benefit of Australian offenders of the law. 15) We can have no expectation of obtaining a fair trial by a court that has consistently denied us justice, We ask for an independent open public enquiry into our complaints and evidence and the benefit and protection of the law to which we are entitled, in accord with the ICCPR Art. 2(3)(a) - (c); and N.G.A. solution 53/144 Art. 9(1) - (5).

View a tabulated listing of the violations of local statute law and international covenants this case has involved.

ONE VOICE - ONE PEOPLE is an independent, non-party-political, non-profit organisation committed to defend human rights and fundamental freedoms and to contribute to the promotion and advancement of democratic societies, institutions and processes

To OVOP cases

(C) One Voice One People. Last updated: April 2000