On March 24, 2024, I reached out to Mr. Shane Rattenbury, the Attorney General for the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), to express my concerns regarding several serious issues, particularly the conduct of the ACT Solicitor General, Mr. Peter Garrison. As the second most senior law officer in the ACT, Mr. Garrison’s actions and decisions are of paramount importance to the integrity of our legal system and the trust the public places in our government.
In my correspondence, I outlined specific concerns that I believe warrant immediate attention and action. The role of the Attorney General is not merely a title; it is a position that carries significant responsibility in ensuring justice, upholding the rule of law, and maintaining public confidence in our legal institutions. It is, therefore, disheartening that as of today, Mr. Rattenbury has not responded to my initial letter, nor to my subsequent follow-up, which sought clarity and accountability regarding these pressing matters.
As a senior member of the Green Party and a representative in the ACT Legislative Assembly, Mr. Rattenbury holds a crucial position in our government. His silence on these issues raises questions about his commitment to transparency and accountability. It is essential for public officials to engage with the concerns of their constituents, especially when serious allegations and issues of public interest are at stake. The failure to respond not only undermines the trust that citizens place in their leaders but also reflects poorly on the governance of our territory.
As Mr. Rattenbury stands for re-election, it is imperative to consider whether he has adequately fulfilled his duties as Attorney General and a member of the Legislative Assembly. Leadership requires more than just holding a title; it demands action, responsiveness, and a genuine commitment to the well-being of the community. It is my belief that Mr. Rattenbury’s failure to address these concerns suggests a lack of accountability that does not align with the expectations we have for our elected officials.
I have attached a copy of my letter to Mr. Rattenbury, dated March 14, 2024, for your reference. It is my hope that by bringing these issues to light, we can foster a dialogue about the importance of accountability in leadership and the necessity for our representatives to engage meaningfully with the concerns of the public.
As citizens, we must hold our leaders accountable and demand transparency in their actions. The integrity of our legal system and the trust of the public are at stake. It is time for Mr. Rattenbury to step up, respond to the issues raised, and demonstrate the leadership that the people of the ACT deserve. Let us advocate for a government that listens, responds, and acts in the best interest of its constituents.
Following is the text of the letter to Mr Shane Rattenbury, ACT Attorney General and Member of the ACT Legislative Assembly.
14 March 2024
Mr. Shane Rattenbury
Attorney General for the ACT
GPO Box 1020
Canberra ACT 2601
Dear Mr. Rattenbury,
As you are no doubt aware, I stood trial in the ACT Supreme Court in March 2017 due to a referral to ACT Policing made by the ACT Solicitor-General, Mr. Peter Garrison. This referral was based on an affidavit I allegedly filed with the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT) in 2013. My application to the ACAT did not proceed to a hearing because the president lacked the authority to order the Treasury and Economic Development Directorate (CMTEDD) to produce a document that the Directorate denied possessing. This denial came despite the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s office having found that CMTEDD held the document in question. The matter would have rested there had it not been for Mr. Garrison, who took it upon himself to refer my alleged affidavit to ACT Policing. At the time of the referral, it is inconceivable that Mr. Garrison was unaware that the document he referred to the police was not the same affidavit filed with the ACAT by my solicitors in 2013.
The affidavit I filed in 2013 was prepared by a solicitor, reviewed by another solicitor, and settled by a barrister. The affidavit that Mr. Garrison referred to the police bore no resemblance to a document prepared and settled by three different lawyers. It was full of grammatical errors, factual inaccuracies, mistakes in content, and annexure errors. It is inconceivable that such a document would have passed through the hands of three qualified lawyers and been filed at a tribunal without these errors being discovered. Equally, it is inconceivable that Mr. Garrison, in referring this document to the police, was not aware it was not the document served on his office by my solicitors in 2013.
Ultimately, I stood trial in the ACT Supreme Court in 2017 on 16 counts stemming from allegations made by Mr. Garrison related to my alleged affidavit. I am sure you’re aware that I was acquitted of all charges, 16 to zero, and that I have raised concerns on numerous occasions about the conduct of Mr. Garrison, Ms. Tu Pham, and Mr. Angel Marina, all past and present ACT Government employees, both leading up to and during my trial.
Specifically, I note the following issues with both the evidence and conduct of the aforementioned ACT Government witnesses:
1. Ms. Pham gave evidence contradictory to what she presented to the Commonwealth Public Service Commission in 2003 and repeated verbatim in the ACT Magistrates Court in 2006. When my barrister challenged Ms. Pham about the inconsistencies, she stated her memory seemed better in 2017 than in 2003 about events from 2002.
2. Mr. Marina denied writing a letter that Mr. Howard Ronaldson, the former Chief Executive of ACT Treasury, confirmed under oath during my trial he received on 9 May 2002. Mr. Ronaldson confirmed the signature on the top of the letter was his, consistent with his document-handling practices. Mr. Marina claimed the document contained a copy of his signature later affixed. All related documents were available with original signatures, except the one Mr. Marina alleged his signature was copied from—a very convenient coincidence, wouldn’t you say?
3. The DPP attempted to tender as evidence the minutes of a meeting that did not occur.
4. The DPP also attempted to introduce as evidence a document allegedly from CMTEDD archives, containing an original signature, which included proven inaccuracies and information that was selectively informed.
5. A number of documents purportedly containing my original signature were produced by CMTEDD, even corroborated by AFP forensics as genuine. However, these signatures did not match any other signatures of mine found over multiple decades, including those on passport applications, driver’s licenses, and bank documents. The forensic analyst claimed I have a “poetic signature” and a “workday signature.” I am not aware of, nor do I employ, two distinct signatures. More significantly, my alleged “workday signature” appears exclusively on documents originating from the CMTEDD archives—again, very convenient and troubling.
6. About a year before my trial, a former colleague, Mr. Martin Deste, provided me with documents related to bullying and harassment claims against Mr. Angel Marina. I initially requested these documents through a freedom of information request to CMTEDD, receiving only a document schedule without the actual complaints. I instructed my legal team to apply to the ACT Supreme Court for the complete set of grievance materials lodged against Mr. Marina. The Directorate instructed Kathryn Law Jamison, a solicitor with the ACT Government Solicitor’s Office, to oppose this application. Ms. Law Jamison informed the court there were no documents to hand over, only a few scribbled handwritten notes that did not constitute official grievances. When my trial commenced, my legal team again applied for the documents, and a Directorate barrister presented the court with pages matching material Mr. Deste had provided a year earlier. It is clear Ms. Law Jamison lied to the ACT Supreme Court to hinder my defence.
7. I was informed by Mr. Deste that in the week leading up to my trial, the ACT Solicitor-General, Peter Garrison, was expressing pleasure and declaring that I would be sentenced to jail for a long time. This behaviour is inconsistent with the professional and impartial conduct expected from the second most senior law officer in the ACT.
8. Mr. Robert Lewis, also a former CMTEDD employee, provided false testimony. Mr. Lewis had previously claimed he aided his line manager in drafting a job application and gave a statement to ACT Policing asserting an exchange of emails between himself and his manager. Mr. Lewis provided the dates of these alleged emails to police for their inquiry. However, when the police requested these emails from InTACT’s server, none were found. The reason? The alleged email exchange simply did not occur. This raises the question of why Mr. Lewis would make such a statement knowing its untruthfulness, as proven when police could not locate any such emails.
Furthermore, it is my position that the police conducted a racially biased and targeted investigation intended to achieve only one outcome.
Yours,
