AUSTRALIA: I have made it abundantly plain in my 474 review application to the Supreme Court that the issues are a continuation of the effort which I have mounted since my conviction on 27 July 1996.

The 474D adequately lists my issue.

What I am trying to express is that the appeal process has never properly considered my appeal issue, I had before the court of Criminal appeal (The CCA), argued that a number of procedural faults had occurred in my trial that caused a substantial miscarriage of justice. In short the trial judge erred in law when he directed the jury to act upon evidence that had not been established by the crown.

There is repeated authority on that issue: That the crown is obliged to establish the circumstances he relies upon as proof of guilt and to establish that proof to beyond a reasonable doubt.

The CCA instead of addressing the substance of my argument covered up the miscarriage of justice that occurred in my trial.

The CCA instead of addressing the legitimacy of the trial judges decision "in directing the jury to act upon evidence not established by the Crown." (which was the appeal ground I raised).

The CCA evaded the real issue I put before them by introducing factors that were only marginally connected with the appeal issue and the CCA harped on that issue rather than the real point I raised. Actually I am surprised that no one in the legal profession takes any exception to the ground of appeal I raised. I have repeatedly told legal professionals what occurred and I cannot elicit any comment.

Most people appear to think once I got arrested-charged with Belanglo that alone meant I was guilty. The producer of the ABC program 'Australian Story' was awarded a logie for that particular story. They contacted my friend before hand and he watched the show. They told me that award night the producer said on air, "There is still time Ivan to come clean about it ". Well actually I already had, before the program was aired-during its production.

I wrote a number of letters outlining my case and answers to the questions and in particular I outlined my appeal grounds and the cover up by the CCA and following that the subsequent cover up by the High Court.

In all the appeals I have made to the CCA and to the High Court on the issue I now still continue to pursue, the appeal courts do not refer to authority to address my ground.

The CCA at the hearing and in their judgement come up with a number of reasons to explain why the two crown witnesses Mr Onions ad Mrs Berry were mistaken about seeing the spare wheel.

The CCA came up with approximately six pages of reasons why the witness, Mr Onions and Mrs Berry must have been mistaken, (non of which was evidence at my trial).

But the CCA did not address my appeal ground, "that two witnesses Mr Onions and Mrs Barry gave their evidence in court on oath, that evidence confirmed in cross examination that the crown closed its case in chief and I replied to that crown case and only later after the close of evidence the crown says that witnesses must be mistaken. The trial Judge in turn, "they can correct me on the basis that the two witnesses were mistaken" or alternatively you can convict the accused on 'Possibility Two'.

The Jury were given two directions in law, on the evidence they could consider was proof of my guilt, The rule of law is that evidence has to be established by the crown. Of course the trial judge can express his opinions on the evidence but it still has to be established by the crown.

The Jury are entitled to accept/reject any part of a witnesses evidence (all those reasons the CCA raised to dismiss my ground - was not evidence the crown adduced in the course of the trial).

I was obliged to address the allegations the crown levelled at me in open court, I did that. The defence did not dispute the evidence of the vehicle given by the witnesses. The crown did, but only parts that did not establish my guilt. But that was not the evidence that the witness gave in court.

The crown did not re open its case in chief on this issue to call evidence, to rebut the evidence. It cannot be a case that the trial judge decides that this is the evidence of guilt yet that is what happened.

The CCA knew exactly what I was on about so Gleeson CJ and his Co Judges covered it up.

My appeal to the High Court was against the CCA decision the High Court ruled, "There is no doubting the correctness of the decision of the CCA".

The issue I raised in the 474D is indicative of my innocence. The issues in the 474 raises serious concerns at law. The appeal courts can deal with appeals from unrepresented prisoners affidavits.

I am having difficulty in getting assistance from the government though; I may add there is still no charges at all on issues I first raised when I came to the HRMU. [High Risk Management Unit Goulburn]

Ed. The Daily Terror should leave IVAN Milat's sister, Shirley Soire alone. Deliberately using Mr John Marsden solicitor to validate some wild claim - the notion that she helped hunt and execute seven young backpackers in the Belanglo State Forest south of Sydney between 1989 and 1992, is nonsense!

Shirley died two years ago and was cremated at Sydney's Rookwood crematorium, may she rest in peace, God love her.

Related:

Siblings say Milat innocent

Instead he was not only denied legal assistance but he was thwarted, isolated, and traumatised, by the government to prevent any form of appeal by him that would be able to reach the High Court. During that time Ivan was alleged to have committed other crimes, suffered hunger strikes, and self-harm just to prove his innocence.

More:  http://indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/liverpool/2004/11/300720.html

The Firm

Friends of Ivan Robert Milat

More:  http://users.tpg.com.au/brianrav/FIRM_top.htm

More:  http://users.tpg.com.au/brianrav/FIRM_Intro.htm

SIX YEARS IN HELL

The Sorry Saga of Ivan Robert Milat

This month, May 2003, Ivan Milat will have spent six years in segregation/isolation without any charge, enquiry, or breach of prison rules levelled against him.

He was placed in this situation and now at the High Risk Management Unit at Goulburn Correctional Centre by Bob Carr and his merry men by George Savvas, serving 34 years

More:  http://www.geocities.com/gregskables/archive3/2003a105

A corrupt way to treat the community?

NSW: CH/9 Sunday: "The suicide of one of NSW's most senior investigators in August has underlined a crisis gripping the state's police service"?

I seen the police bleeding on Nine's Sunday program arguing that promotion should depend on how many crimes police have solved and not how many brains they have and that was coming from police commissioner Ken Moroney and Police Minister John Watkins?

More:  http://www.geocities.com/nswac14/archive04/2004a88.html