The actions of Peter Garrison, the ACT’s Clayton’s Solicitor-General, has created in Angel Marina a kind of king not answerable to the law for his actions.
Facts:
1. On 9 May 2002, Angel Marina wrote to the then ACT Treasury Chief Executive, Mr Howard Ronaldson openly vilifying every Aboriginal person in this country and demanding that his Aboriginal superior be terminated, stating, “I request that Mr Mullins be dismissed from the ACT Public Service due to his unethical behaviour and the general disposition of Aborigines to lie and the criminal records of his family.” Mr Marina further stated that, “… Ms Tanya Taylor, Recruitment Consultant of Ernst & Young … has confirmed my assessment that Aborigines are compulsive liars and criminals and that Mr Mullins’ teaching qualifications made him unsuitable to work at either Ernst & Young or ACT Treasury.” Within the same letter, Mr Marina also wrote the following: “Ms Louise Fitzgerald, Manger Corporate Services [ACT Treasury and Chief Minister’s Department] has given me a copy of Mr Mullins’ application for his substantive position … “.
Mr Ronaldson has confirmed on multiple occasions to ACT Policing, to the ACT DPP and under cross examination in a related court case in the ACT Supreme Court in 2017 that he received that letter from Mr Marina whilst Chief Executive and on evendate.
On evendate, Mr Mullins emailed his immediate line manager Mrs Tu Pham complaining to her about the letter Marina sent to Mr Ronaldson. Mrs Pham signed the email to acknowledge receipt and returned it in hardcopy to Mr Mullins.
2. On 9 April 2003, Mr Michael Long of Bradley Allen Lawyers wrote Mr Doug Jarvis of the ACT Government Solicitor’s Office putting them on notice, “I am also instructed that our client has been racially vilified by two of his subordinate staff in respect to his Aboriginal descent. We are treating this as a separate issue, and are only putting your client on notice that this matter will be pursued in due course.”
3. On 27 June 2003, Mr Mullins wrote to the then ACT Chief Minister, Mr Jon Stanhope, lodging a public interest disclosure dealing with, among other things, Mr Angel Marina’s ongoing racism.
On 4 July 2003, Mr Mike Harris, then Chief Executive of ACT Treasury responded Mr Mullins on Mr Stanhope’s behalf. Mr Harris in his response to Mr Mullins stated, “Your allegations that Mr Marina has assaulted you and racially vilified you have been investigated. I am satisfied that these events did take place, and I have referred the matters to the Director Corporate Services for appropriate action.”
4. On 7 July 2003, Mr Marina wrote to two of Mr Mullins’ former employers seeking private and confidential information. In both of these letters, Mr Marina made the following point, “As part of my investigation, I have been reviewing documents stored on computers in Mr Mullins’ office and home … During this review I found documents suggesting that Mr Mullins had worked for …”. Further in both letters, Mr Marina stated, “I have formed the view that Mr Mullins would not have the ability to gain any qualifications and that his qualifications are fraudulent.” In his final paragraph on both letters, Mr Marina stated, “This information is needed urgently as it is likely that Mr Mullins … is consorting with known criminals at the Aboriginal Tent Embassy to the potential detriment of the ACT Government.”
5. On 3 October 2003, Mr Mullins wrote the Chief Executive ACT Department of Treasury concerning an unauthorised entry into his office by Mr Marina and that Ms Lousie Fitzgerald had provided Mr Marina for a second time with access to Mullins’ personnel file.
Meredith Whitten responded to Mullins on 13 October 2003 on behalf of Mike Harris, “The Chief Executive has authorised me to respond to these matters on his behalf. I have requested that both Mr Marina and Ms Fitzgerald provided [sic] me with written responses to your allegations by 27 October 2003.”
6. On 12 December 2003, Mullins wrote to Mrs Tu Pham, Acting Chief Executive ACT Treasury, asking her to explain how certain actions by Mr Marina and others were not racially motivated. In a meeting on 15 December 2003, Mrs Pham said she would not respond to that letter as minuted by Ms Meredith Whitten, and to this day has still not responded to that letter.
7. On 15 December 2003, Mullins phoned Whitten and had a lengthy telephone conversation with her which was minuted by Whitten and emailed to Tu Pham. Within the minutes of the conversation Meredith emailed to Pham she said, “There may be value in commencing a separate investigation into the racism issues (items 2 and 3(c) above).”
Point 2 stated, “Dr Mullins also sought advice from me about the Department is going to do about the racism issue. … Dr Mullins indicated that every time Mr Marina walked passed [sic] him, Mr Marina has stated, ‘I won, ha, ha, ha – I told you I would’.”
Point 3 within the same minute stated, “I also note that Dr Mullins provided you with a letter of complaint on 12 December 2003 … Dr Mullins also sought advice in relation to the motivation of the original complainants under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cw).” Ms Whitten in the same set of minutes advised Mrs Pham that she intended to seek legal advice from the Government-Solicitor.
8. On 17 December 2003, Mr Marina, after having received advice from the Government-Solicitor’s office started frantically contacting both the University of London and Ernst & Young Canberra. On 18 December, Mullins’ lawyers Bradley Allen, wrote to both Tu Pham and Tanya Taylor of Ernst & Young, advising them that Angel Marina was in the process attempting to fraudulently and illegally obtain information on Mr Mullins. Both Pham and Taylor were put on notice that should Marina obtain and information in relation to those requests, Mr Mullins would immediately launch legal action.
9. On 19 December, Mr Marina allegedly submitted a public interest disclosure (PID) against Mr Mullins containing information that if true, was fraudulently obtained from both Ernst & Young and the University of London. On advice from the ACT Government-Solicitor’s Office, Marina tried to hide his crimes behind the aforementioned PID. Mr Marina has testified on multiple occasions that he gave the completed PID to Meredith Whitten on 19 December 2003. Subsequent investigations have shown that this was not possible. Marina further testified on multiple occasions, that he did not receive help from anyone in the preparation of the aforementioned PID. On further analysis, it seems highly likely that Mr Marina received advice from the ACT Government-Solicitor’s Office on how to evade ACT laws in his pursuit of information which he ultimately fraudulently obtained from Ernst & Young and the University of London.9.
10. On 22 December, Bradley Allen lawyers wrote to Mike Harris, Chief Executive of ACT Chief Minister’s Department and Tu Pham’s immediate line manager, that Mr Mullins had instructed Bradley Allen to pursue Tu Pham through the Human Rights Commission over her refusal to address the racism issues relating to Angel Marina.
11. Rather than addressing the issues in the letter of 22 December, Pham appears to have conspired with Marina and the ACT Government-Solicitor’s Office to use Marina’s fraudulent PID as a basis to terminate Mullins employment and derail his application to the Human Rights Commission.
12. In 2013, Bakchos was preparing the pathway to put these matters before the UN Human Rights Commission. In order to progress matters, Bakchos made an application to the ACT Civil & Administrative Tribunal in the expectation that his matter would be struck out, which would open a pathway to internationalise the issues. The ACT took this opportunity to further debase the issue, manipulate documents and fit-up Bakchos with the intention of stymying intentional examination of the racism. Having faced the ACT Supreme Court and defeated the charges in their entirety 16-0 in March 2017, Bakchos continues to pursue justice for what the ACT Government has done to him and his family.
The ACT Government-Solicitor, now the ACT Solicitor-General, has wrongly used his position to manipulate the ACT legal process in efforts to ensure that Angel Marina and Tu Pham are never held accountable for their racism and corruption. This has been going on for two decades. In any jurisdiction it is clear who is sovereign by identifying who is above the law.
In the ACT, Peter Garrison, through his actions has effectively rendered Angel Marina and Tu Pham untouchable by the law. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that they are effectively sovereign.
Woe betide anyone who expects justice from the ACT Just-us System.
