CIA and MI6 Hackers removed all live videos 

from the www.inltv.co.uk website.

Work is being done to reload them all.

It may take some time

Important Message from  www.INLtv.co.uk 

ww.INLtv.co.uk 

Julian Assange extradition ruling labelled a ‘travesty of justice’

Reporters Without Borders condemned the decision,

which it said will prove historic ‘for all the wrong reasons’

Perth's Freemason Legal Elite, Christopher Stevenson who was the third senior partner at Freemason controlled legal firm Mallesons Stephen Jaques is appointed judge of District Court of Western Australia 

https://www.businessnews.com.au/article/Christopher-Stevenson-appointed-judge-of-District-Court?amp

Author of the series of books called "The Triumph of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?)
 
 The author of series of books called The Triumph of Truth, Stephen Carew-Reid
recalls in one of his volumes how he won a hearing against Perth Elite Barrister, Christopher Stevenson, when he was representing Mulson Holdings Pty Ltd as a non-lawyer director, at a special appointment for summary judgement in the Supreme Court of Western Australian being heard before the Honourable Chief Justice David Kingsley Malcolm, AC.
Perth Elite Barrister, Christopher Stevenson, who was the third senior partner at Freemason controlled legal firm Mallesons Stephen Jaques, unsuccessfully argued that under the Supreme Court Rules, that Stephen Carew-Reid could not represent Mulson Holdings Pty Ltd, because he was not a qualified solicitor, Stephen Carew-Reid set a world legal precedent which now allows a non-solicitor to represent a company or another person when it is needed in the interests of justice, even though the rules of the court indicated it can not be done.
Perth Elite Barrister, Christopher Stevenson, was certainly not happy with the Honourable Chief Justice David Kingsley Malcolm's ruling to allow Stephen Carew-Reid to argue the case being heard before him on behalf of Mulson Holdings Pty Ltd, after laughing at Mr Carew-Reid before the hearing started when Mr Carew-Reid placed his briefcase on the bar table where the defence barrister would normally stand to argue for the defendant/respondent while stating to Mr Carew-Reid in a very authoritative confident voice ..

"Mr Carew-Reid, I do not know why you are standing there at the bar table where the defence barrister should be to represent the defendant/respondent Mulson Holdings Pty Ltd to defend our clients' summary judgement application being heard at this special appointment by the Chief Justice today. Mr Carew-Reid, there is no possibility that the Chief Justice will allow you to speak in this court today on behalf of the Defendant/Respondent Mulson Holdings Pty Ltd, because under the Supreme Court Rules and Guidelines, only a qualified solicitor can be allowed to represent a corporate entity in the Supreme Court of Western Australia..."
Mr Carew-Reid respectfully replied...
" Well Mr Stevenson, thank you for informing me of this Supreme Court Rule. I think I will wait at the bar table and see what the Chief Justice has to say.... because it would be a severe miscarriage and travesty of justice if His Honour The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Western Australia, The Honourable Chief Justice David Kingsley Malcolm, AC, did not allow me as a director of Mulson Holdings Pty Ltd to speak for the company when the company has no solicitor or barrister to speak for the company. I think that the Chief Justice will agree with me, that in the interests of fairness and justice, I should be given leave by the Chief Justice to represent Mulson Holdings Pty Ltd as I am a director of this company because the company has no qualified solicitor or barrister today to represent it. It could never be fairness and justice for the court to deny a defendant/respondent to have someone speak for the company in the court, to defend a serious summary judgement where the plaintiff/respondent is asking the court to award it in excess of $1,000,000 (one million dollars) in damages from the defendant/respondent in summary judgement, thus bypassing having an open full trial where all the evidence and witnesses can be cross-examined."
Mr Carew-Reid argued among other things, that as the defence claims that fraud was committed against the defendants/respondents by the plaintiffs/applicants, the court can never grant a summary judgement order in favour of the plaintiff/respondent. The reason for this is that when fraud is claimed, then this is a serious matter, which would in the interests of justice and fairness, to require that all the evidence and witnesses will have to be all cross-examined in full open court.
Mr Carew-Reid claimed in the affidavit, as a qualified accountant, that the books of accounts presented by the plaintiffs/applicants to the defendants/respondents of the business sold to them for around $1,000,000 were fraudulent and misleading.
Mr Carew-Reid won his argument before the Chief Justice and had the plaintiffs/applicant's summary judgement application dismissed.
As a result, eventually, the parties settled out of court and the plaintiff withdrew its $1,000,000 claim against the defendants/respondents.

Stopping  Perth Elite Barrister, Christopher Stevenson, who was the third senior partner at Freemason controlled legal firm Mallesons Stephen Jaques, and now a District Court Judge, from helping his clients get away with a cirminal/civil fraud was one of Mr Carew-Reid's milestones in his legally unqualified career. 
 
His Honour Judge Christopher Peter Stevenson
Associate telephone: (08) 9425 2373
Facsimile: (08) 9425 2159
Email: associate.judge.stevenson@justice.wa.gov.au
 
Portrait(left to right)MallesonsStephenJaquesChiefExecutivePartnerRobertMilliner-King&WoodPRC-LawyersPartner-HandelLee&MallesonsStephenJaquesManagingPartnerStuartFuller15DEC2011
Portrait (left to right)
Mallesons Stephen Jaques Chief Executive Partner Robert Milliner
King & Wood PRC Lawyers
PartnerL Handel Lee &
Mallesons Stephen Jaques Managing Partner Stuart Fuller
15th December 2011
 
EricSMayne_MallesonsStephenJaquesSolicitors-5August1998Ph2
Eric S Mayne - Mallesons Stephen Jaques Solicitors
5th August 1998 
 
explains in his series of books that he spent many years suing the Public Trustee for Western Australia and their staff and solicitors to recover damages for a conspiracy to defraud himself and his family. After wearing out many sets of solicitors the  Public Trustee for Western Australia appointed Mallesons Stephen Jaques Solicitors, the world's  most powerful experienced Freemason controlled solicitors to finally nail Stephen Carew-Reid. 
 
Stephen Carew-Reid had previously issued a criminal contempt of court against Senior Barrister David Lancelot Jones, using a 1888 London Chancery Court Precedent Andrews V Moore, where a High Court Justice ordered that a barrister should be sent to prison for knowingly presenting false and misleading information to the court on behalf of his client. The barrister representing the barrister being charges with criminal contempt of court, argued that even if his client  knowingly presenting false and misleading information to the court on behalf of his client, the arm of the law was not long enough to convict him for such criminal contempt. The High Court Justice replied..... " ... I understand that the arm of the law is currently not long enough to convict your client, however, today I am going to stretch the arm of the law and order that your barrister client spend some time in prison for being guilty of a criminal contempt for  knowingly presenting false and misleading information to the court on behalf of his client.
Stephen Carew-Reid goes onto explain that when letters and affidavits prepared a senior partner of Mallesons Stephen Jaques Solicitors, that there was falsities and misrepresentations and that there could be no no doubt that the senior partner of Mallesons Stephen Jaques Solicitors well know that such information in his the letters and affidavit he prepared was false and misleading. 
Stephen Carew-Reid knew it would be best he forced Mallesons Stephen Jaques Solicitors to resign from representing  the Public Trustee for Western Australia and their staff and solicitors, because they were simply to powerful Freemasons to fight.
Thus Stephen Carew-Reid wrote to the  senior partner of Mallesons Stephen Jaques Solicitors. to inform him that unless his legal firm Mallesons Stephen Jaques Solicitors resigned from representing the Public Trustee for Western Australia and their staff and solicitors, Stephen Carew-Reid would have no choice to issue a criminal contempt of court against this senior partner of Mallesons Stephen Jaques Solicitors and Mallesons Stephen Jaques Solicitors.
Stephen Carew-Reid stated in his books, that at he last Supreme Court Hearing heard before Justice Anderson, besides that fact that Stephen Carew-Reid was at one end of the bar table representing himself, and senior barrister, Eric S Mayne of Mallesons Stephen Jaques Solicitors was at the other end of the bar table representing the Public Trustee for Western Australia and their staff and solicitors, it was clear in reality there was only two people involved in the case, Red Lodge Freemasons Justice Anderson and senior barrister, Eric S Mayne of Mallesons Stephen Jaques Solicitors.
A week later Mallesons Stephen Jaques Solicitors filed a notice with the Supreme Court of Western Australia withdrawing a solicitors representing the Public Trustee for Western Australia and their staff and solicitors.
As Stephen Carew-Reid explains in his books, his desired result as achieved.
 
 
 NewPartnersWith MallesonsStephen&Jaques(Solicitors)board-.JulieWard-Stephen Minns (Glasses)&Peter StockdalePartners roomJanuary04,1988.
 New Partners With Mallesons Stephen & Jaques (Solicitors) board
Julie Ward, Stephen Minns (Glasses) & Peter Stockdale
Partners room - January 04, 1988
 
 
 
PixSome)OfClassOf 87-LawGraduatesUniversitySydney.PicstakenInMartin Place.KateCato25+Sly&Weigall, MagdalenMalone,AllenAllen&HemsleyLouiseHowe24,AllenAndAllen
Some Pics Of Class Of 1987 - Law Graduates University Sydney.
Pics taken In Martin Place
#
Pix#cs taken of some of the class of 87. they were Law Graduates from the University of Sydney. Pics was taken in Martin Place. Kate Cato, 25, Sly and Weigall, Magdalen Malone, Allen Allen & Hemsley, Louise Howe 24, Allen and Allen & Hemsley, Anthony Anderson, 27, PK Simpson and Co, Jon North, 27, Allen Allen & Hemsley, Robert Rankin, 26, Blake Dawson Waldron, Glenn Dennett, 25, Blake Dawson Waldron, David Brewster, 26,Clayton Utz, Jane Lehmann, 28, Blake Dawson Waldron, Catharine Lumby, 28, Journalist, Herald, Michael Kerr, 24, Price Waterhouse, Arthur Aroney, 24, Price Waterhouse, Rob Mclnnes, 26, Mallesons Stephen Jaques, George Lucarelli, 24, Clayton Utz, Nigel Hill, 24, Clayton Utz. Duncan Miller, 25, Phillips Fox, Austin Sweeney, 34, Clayton Utz, Andrew Ogborne, 24, Blake Dawson Waldron, Kathryn Everett, 23, Freehill Hollingdale & Page, Anthony Willis, 27, Blake Dawson Waldron, Mary Field, 58, GIO, Nuala O'Leary, 26, Abbott Tout Russell Kennedy, Isabel Karpin, 25, Human Rights Commission, Fiona Cameron, 25, Westgarth Middletons, Kylie Nomchong, Turner Freeman, Maria Hunter, 25, Allen Allen & Hemsley, Jane Spring, 25, Australian Tax Office, John Azzi, 24, Deloitte Haskins & Sells. October 05, 1989.
 
The Honourable David Kingsley Malcolm A.C. Q.C of the Court of Western Australia,
and a former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Western Australia
 

The Law Lord 

A Must See Film About How Courts Are Run Behind The Scenes

To:

 “Associate to Chief Judge Julie Wager” <associate.judge.wager@justice.wa.gov.au>,

“Associate to Registrar Kingsley” <Associate.Registrar.Kingsley@justice.wa.gov.au>,

“Associate to Judge Michael Bowden” <associate.judge.bowden@justice.wa.gov.au>,

“Associate to Judge Carmel Barbagallo” <associate.judge.barbagallo@justice.wa.gov.au>, 

 The District Court of Western Australia 
 
New Chief Judge Julie Ann Wager appointed in year 2000
to head WA’s District Court
JulieAnnWager_DistrictCourtChiefJudgeFom 2020-Photo
 
Julie Ann Wager Appointed the Chief Judge of the District Court
of Western Australia in 2020
 
 
Loading video
If You Leave Me Now - Chicago
JulieAnnWager_DistrictCourtChiefJudgeFom 2020
 
new District Court Judge Julie Wager, speaking during the virtual farewell
New District Court Judge Julie Wager, speaking during the virtual farewell
 
Julie Ann Wager was admitted as a Western Australian legal practitioner in 1986. Julie Ann Wager became the first magistrate appointed to the Drug Court from 2001--2005 and subsequently became a judge of the District Court of Western Australia in 2005.
In May 2020, Ms Wager will become the second woman to be appointed Chief Judge of the District Court of Western Australia, and one of the 12 female District Court judges in the State of Western Australia..
Julie Ann Wager was president of the Criminal Lawyers Association of WA and president of the Children's Court of WA.
 
 
 
 
Video of Retiring District Court Chief Judge Kevin Sleight Gives
His Farewell Speech in 2020 In WA's First Virtual Ceremony
Due To The COVID-19 Pandemic
 
RetiringWADistrict CourtChiefJudgeKevinSleightGivesHisFarewellSpeechInWA'sFirstVirtualCeremonyDueToTheCovidPandemic
Retiring District Court Chief Judge Kevin Sleight Gives
His Farewell Speech in 2020 In WA's First Virtual Ceremony
Due To The COVID-19 Pandemic
 
The virtual sitting of the District Court to farewell chief Judge Kevin Sleight.
Virtual Farewell For Western Australian District Court Chief Justice
 
If you read my various volumes of the books "The Triumph of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?) one will soon realize and understand that there is a lot of truth behind what this film portrays in the way the courts have been run in Western Australia.
 
Every person who is involved in the legal, police and political systems or who is interested in how the legal, police, prosecution and political systems are run from behind the scenes, need to watch this important film.
 
When I watched this film I realized that I had shown actual evidence  in my books that shows what this film portrays.
 
Such as the appointment of Listings Coordinator Clerks in the Magistrates, District, Supreme, Courts in Perth Western Australia. The  Listings Coordinator Clerk has a very special job in the courts on behalf of the powerful elite that do their best to control the legal, court, prosecution and political systems in Western Australia.
 
 I sincerely apologize for my critical views in my books and writings of how the legal, police, prosecution and political systems have been run in Western Australia.
 
However, everything I have stated is in my series of books and other writings is all the truth.
 
Unless people running the legal, police, prosecution and political  systems are prepared to allow themselves to be investigated. as well as these systems to be looked into and investigated. in the way these systems are run, then these serious endemic problems and issues will never to corrected or resolved.
 
Signed
Author of the series of books called "The Triumph of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?)
 
 
https://www.news.com.au/news/new-district-court-judge/story-fna7dq6e-1111114820658?sv=ab422518de03515990b9124a5aa7fad6
 
Attorney General Jim McGinty today announced the appointment of Perth's Legal Elite Senior Red Lodge Freemaosn
Christopher Stevenson as as a judge  to the District Court.
 
It s rumored that  Senior Red Lodge Freemason
Christopher Stevenson is being groomed to become the next Chief Judge of the District Court of Western Australia 
 

New District Court judge

OCTOBER 20, 2009 7:29PM
State Government press release
A LAWYER with extensive experience in dispute resolution has been appointed as a judge of the District Court of Western Australia.

Attorney General Jim McGinty today announced the appointment of Christopher Stevenson to the District Court.

“Mr Stevenson has more than 25 years specialised knowledge and experience as a barrister and solicitor, focusing on dispute resolution in the areas of litigation, arbitration and mediation,” Mr McGinty said.

“He is an advanced accredited mediator and undertakes mediations and arbitrations at the request of legal practitioners, government departments and other organisations in complex commercial, private and public disputes.

“Mr Stevenson joined the law firm of Stone James, now Mallesons Stephen Jaques, becoming a partner and staying with the firm for 21 years before moving to the Independent Bar in 2003.”

Mr Stevenson graduated from the University of Western Australia with a Bachelor of Jurisprudence and a Bachelor of Laws in 1977-78. He also attained a Master of Laws degree from the University of London in 1982.

He has served on the executive of the Western Australian Bar Association 2005 - 07 and as deputy convenor of the Courts Committee of the Law Society 2004 - 07.

He is a legal member of the Building Disputes Tribunal and the Real Estate and Business Agents Supervisory Board, and recently completed a period as a Commissioner with the District Court.

He will take up his new position with the Court on December 3.

State Government press release

 
New Chief Judge Julie Ann Wager appointed to head WA’s District Court
 

The District Court of Western Australia was established on 1 April 1970.  While the prevailing judicial system of the Supreme Court, the Local Courts and Courts of Petty Sessions had been adequate, the rapid expansion of Western Australia’s population required the establishment of an intermediate system of courts. Another Court was also needed to relieve pressure and avoid a backlog of cases in the other courts, especially the Supreme Court.

The District Court of Western Australia was therefore established with both criminal and civil jurisdiction, to provide a flexible framework to accommodate the needs of Western Australia in the administration of justice.

In 1971 civil trials were temporarily held in the Public Trust building behind St George’s Cathedral. Criminal trials continued to be heard in the Supreme Court. From April 1982 the District Court was relocated to the Central Law Courts at 30 St George’s Terrace allowing both criminal and civil cases to be heard in the one building.

In 1999, due to continued growth in the Court’s caseload, the District Court took possession of four additional criminal courtrooms created in the May Holman Centre adjacent to the Central Law Courts.  The District Court was based in Central Law Courts and the May Holman Centre until June 2008 when it relocated to its current, purpose-built court house at 500 Hay Street, Perth.


 
The triumph of truth / by Stephen Carew-Reid - National Library of Australia
catalogue.nla.gov.au › Record
 
Western Australia -- Moral conditions. | Australian. Also Titled. Triumph of truth : who's watching the watchers? Triumph of the truth ...
The triumph of truth / by Stephen Carew-Reid
Bib ID 1388995
Format BookBook
Author
Carew-Reid, Stephen  
Edition 2nd ed. 
Description Perth : The Weekend News, 1996 
v. <1> : ill., ports., facsims. ; 30 cm. 
Notes

Typescript (Photocopy)

Subjects Carew-Reid, Stephen.  |  Political corruption -- Western Australia.  |  Misconduct in office -- Western Australia.  |  Corporations -- Corrupt practices -- Western Australia.  |  Police corruption -- Western Australia.  |  Western Australia -- Moral conditions.  |  Australian
Also Titled

Triumph of truth : who's watching the watchers?

Triumph of the truth

 
 
  • CHIEF JUDGE KEVIN HAMMOND - was admitted as a barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Western Australia in 1960. He was appointed a judge of the District Court of Western Australia in 1982 and in 1995 was appointed Chief Judge. Educated at Christian Brothers College and the University of Western Australia, graduating in law in 1957.
 
  • https://www.mediastatements.wa.gov.au/Pages/Gallop/2003/12/High-powered-team-for-new-corruption-watchdog.aspx#:~:text=CHIEF%20JUDGE%20KEVIN%20HAMMOND%20-%20was%20admitted%20as,of%20Western%20Australia%2C%20graduating%20in%20law%20in%201957.
  • High-powered team for new corruption watchdog

    Tuesday, 23 December 2003
     
    23/12/03

    Two of Western Australia’s most eminent and experienced criminal law experts will guide the establishment of the State’s powerful new corruption watchdog.

    Attorney General Jim McGinty today announced the appointments of:

    Chief Judge Kevin Hammond as Commissioner of the new Corruption and Crime Commission (CCC). Chief Judge Hammond - who has resigned his judicial commission effective from January 1, 2004 - will lead the fight against corruption, armed with all the powers of a Royal Commissioner.

    Criminal lawyer Malcolm McCusker QC as independent Parliamentary Inspector of the CCC. His role is to watch over the activities of the CCC and report to Parliament. He will have unlimited access to all CCC information, including operational matters.

    Both appointments are for a period of five years.

    Mr McGinty said the CCC would be the toughest anti-corruption agency in the nation - with substantial new powers to investigate alleged corruption by police and public officers, as well as organised crime.

    “It was absolutely essential that the people entrusted to lead the fight against corruption through the establishment of the CCC were of the highest possible calibre,” he said.

    “This has been achieved.

    “Chief Judge Hammond and Mr McCusker between them have more than 80 years’ experience in criminal law. They are a formidably high-powered team who will perform their functions with absolute diligence and integrity.”

    The appointments have strong support across the political spectrum with the parliamentary leaders of all of the State’s political parties consulted.

    In addition to its new powers to compel witnesses to give evidence, conduct integrity tests and controlled operations and use assumed identities to root out corruption, Mr McGinty said the CCC would have an unprecedented level of accountability.

    “Most importantly, it will have the power to hold public hearings - ending the secrecy of the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) which it will replace,” he said.

    “The veil of secrecy which has shrouded the work of the ACC prevented the public from knowing anything about its activities. There was no ability to even reassure the public that allegations of corruption were being investigated.

    “By comparison, the CCC will be open and accountable.

    “As well as conducting public hearings similar to those seen at the Police Royal Commission, the Commissioner will be able to confirm investigations publicly, disclose information and comment on outcomes where it is felt to be in the public interest.

    “He will also be able to reveal when a matter has been referred on to other authorities for prosecution or disciplinary action.

    “Importantly, all the CCC’s activities will be overseen by the independent inspector, who will report to Parliament.”

    Mr McGinty said a budget of $21million had been approved for the CCC, more than double that of the old Anti-Corruption Commission.

    The work of the CCC would also be assisted by hefty penalties for anyone seeking to hinder its operations - such as giving false testimony, bribery of witnesses, destroying evidence or victimisation of people assisting the commission.

    The CCC would formally commence on January 1. There would be a brief overlap with the ACC, the framework of which would be maintained for an interim period to enable the handover of any investigations, the resolution of staff redeployment, and to complete a smooth transition of Commonwealth telephone intercept powers.

    CHIEF JUDGE KEVIN HAMMOND - was admitted as a barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Western Australia in 1960. He was appointed a judge of the District Court of Western Australia in 1982 and in 1995 was appointed Chief Judge. Educated at Christian Brothers College and the University of Western Australia, graduating in law in 1957.

    MALCOLM JAMES McCUSKER QC - commenced practising law in 1962 and has extensive experience in both civil and criminal matters. In recognition of his role as a barrister, he was appointed Queen’s Counsel in 1982. He headed the special investigation into the Rothwells Bank collapse in 1989 and has been chairman of the Legal Aid Commission of WA since 1983. Educated at Perth Modern School and the University of Western Australia.

    Attorney General's office: 9220 5000
 
 
  "When the police officer arrived, Kevin showed him the body whereupon the police officer turned immediately to him and said “Kevin James Hammond I must caution you that you do not have to say anything but …”.  
 
  All were provided with extra facilities for legal practitioners and the court users. These complexes in the main, include facilities for remote and vulnerable witnesses and facilities for mediation and pre-trial conferences. The Government is now finalising the task of resolving the future accommodation of the Supreme Court. The need to expand the number of courtrooms and support infrastructure for the Supreme Court has long been recognised. The last expansion, the construction of an annex in 1987 next to the original 1903 building in Stirling Gardens, has run out of space. For many years, the court has extended its operations into a separate commercial tower on St Georges Terrace. The split of the accommodation across two sites is inefficient for listings and day-to-day operations of the court. A number of the courtrooms in the 1903 Supreme Court building have been retrofitted in unsuitable spaces to address a lack of courtroom facilities as they have arisen in the past. These courtrooms generally present poorly with  ad hoc finishes, fixtures and fittings. They lack the sense of order and dignity that is expected on entry to a courtroom. There are currently insufficient mediation suites to accommodate the current move towards settling matters prior to trial. I recognise the need to start planning to improve the lot of the Supreme Court. The task for now is to find a solution that will see the Supreme Court accommodated, preferably at a single site, for the next half century or more. Consultation has begun and a strong business case has already been provided to Treasury. The Government has provided more than $300,000 for more detailed planning for a solution. The quest for adequate and purpose-built facilities – and enough of them – is a  major ongoing investment for WA. The Government is on track to achieve them in the coming years. The legal fraternity can be assured that facilities for all parties are improving and continually under review. 
 
   Antoinette Kennedy - Chief Judge District Court of Western Australia
Retirement of Kevin James Hammond Kevin James Hammond
was born in 1936 and educated at Sacred Heart Convent and Christian Brothers High School, Highgate and then at the University of Western Australia. He was in the first intake of residents at St Thomas More College. Prior to that he had completed National Service as was the requirement at that time. He completed his articles with Howard Solomon at Morris Crawcour & Solomon in Perth, was employed for a period of time in Perth and then moved to practice in Northam, York and Central Districts. In June 1962 he became a partner at Mayberry Hammond & Co, Northam and remained there until June 1978. It was obvious that Kevin looked on his period of time in Northam with enormous affection. He often referred to himself as “just a country practitioner” and it was clear that while you could take the boy out of the country, you could not take the country out of the boy.
  During the time he was a member of this Court his one wish was to have the time off to go to the Northam Cup but he only managed it on one occasion as far as I can recall. During his time in Northam he had been firstly a Committee Member of the Northam Race Club and then President from 1976 to 1978. He subsequently became a joint Patron of the Race Club. Country practice was obviously fascinating even on the occasion when he was almost arrested for murder. He was contacted at his office and advised that there was regrettably a dead body at the farm of a client. He went to the property and sure enough, there was. He arranged for the clients to be legally represented and immediately contacted the police. When the police officer arrived, Kevin showed him the body whereupon the police officer turned immediately to him and said “Kevin James Hammond I must   caution you that you do not have to say anything but …”. The period in Northam was not only legally and personally satisfying for Kevin but he had articled clerks who went on either to be successful practitioners or to take up various positions on the Bench, including District Court Judge Peter Nisbet, Supreme Court Registrar Paul Johnson and Magistrate Brian Gluestein. In 1978 Kevin shifted to Perth and joined Lavan & Walsh where he remained until February 1982. Part of the motivation for the return to Perth was the education of the four daughters of himself and his wife, Derryn. Those four daughters are Kate, Sarah, Celia and Rosalind. Kate is a doctor, Sarah a teacher, Celia a lawyer and Rosalind an actress. Derryn, a gentle sophisticated woman, became the English Mistress at Saint Hilda’s. Derryn and Kevin met when they were both members of the University Dramatic Society and have a life-time interest in the arts and theatre. During this period he was a member of the Barristers’ Board, the first Chairman  of the Land Valuation Tribunal of WA and a member of the Committee of Inquiry into the Future Organisation of the Legal Profession in Western Australia. Kevin was appointed to the Bench of the District Court on 15 February 1982 and was appointed Chief Judge on 30 January 1995 and remained in that position until 31 December 2003. He was also President of the Crime Prevention Council of Western Australia from 1983 to 1984 and Chair of the Review Committee established in 1996 to review all aspects of remission and parole, which Committee was referred to as the “Hammond Committee”. It was the report of this Committee that led to very substantial amendments to the Sentencing Act. He was further a member of the Working Group on Criminal Trial Procedures established by the Standing Committee of Attorneys General, Melbourne and Sydney in 1999, a member of the Deliberative Forum on Criminal Trial Reform, Melbourne, 2000 and a member of the Advisory Board of the Crime Research Centre (UWA). He was an erudite and lively member of  the Court. Most new Judges during that time would attest to the fact that he had an uncanny knack of turning up just when you needed him. Just when a problem in a particular case became too difficult and there was nowhere to turn for assistance, Kevin would turn up with much commonsense and wise advice and was always willing to assist. Kevin has an enormously wide and varied range of friends in whom he takes great interest and about whom he gets great delight. He is also an inveterate attender of funerals, as only a good Irish Catholic of his generation can be. I often joke to him that he will have the biggest funeral in Western Australia not for anything he has achieved but because so many people will owe him an attendance at his funeral. On 1 January 2004 he capped a truly distinguished career of exemplary service to the community by becoming the Commissioner for Crime and Corruption and the results of that have been reported to all of you through the media in the last three years.
 
  The Hon Wayne Martin Chief Justice of Western Australia The State of Justice
The State of Justice 
The following is the inaugural Law Week address by the Chief Justice at a ceremonial sitting of the Supreme Court. Law Week provides a valuable opportunity for the legal profession and the courts to better inform the public about the services we provide and the role we play within the community. The legal profession and the courts are the means by which the community obtains access to justice and both have a continuing obligation to do whatever we can to improve that access. It is impossible to overstate the importance of this right to justice. But there remains room for improvement. Access to justice can be improved in many different ways. One important way is the demystification of the law and its processes. Although significant progress is being made  in this area, the technical complexity of the law and the stylised form of language which we use in the courts can be the source of confusion and misunderstanding which can in turn lead to a lack of trust and confidence. We lawyers must try harder to use language which is comprehensible to ordinary Western Australians. Even language which appears to us to be innocuous and simple may be confusing. Take, for example, the instance in which a witness was asked by counsel whether their appearance in court was as a result of a subpoena. The witness answered that she would have come to court dressed the way she was anyway. Even attempts to put witnesses at their ease can fall flat – take for example, the Barrister who asked the witness to speak slowly and clearly, and tell what happened to the Judge, to receive the response, “Why – what happened to the Judge?”
  Although these examples are lighthearted and mundane, they illustrate a more significant point, which is that continued use of language which reinforces the traditional mystique and aura of the legal profession and the courts can be a source of confusion and therefore unhelpful.  
 
  1. Trailblazer Antoinette Kennedy retires in WA

    By Damien Carrick on Law Report

  2. Meet Antoinette Kennedy, the retiring chief judge of the WA District Court. She has strong views on Western Australia's tough law and order approach to crime; deep concerns about mandatory sentencing, anti-hoon laws and new stop-and-search powers. Her critics maintain she's too soft on offenders. But she reckons the politicians need to lift their game and start thinking big picture.

    Duration: 28min 58sec
    Broadcast: Tue 20 Apr 2010, 8:30am
     
    Guests

    Transcript

    Damien Carrick: Antoinette Kennedy recently stepped down as the chief judge of the WA District Court. She was the state's longest serving judge, and she's also a trailblazer: Antoinette Kennedy was WA's first female judge.

    As you're about to hear, she has some strong views about how state governments in WA address crime and sentencing issues.

    Antoinette Kennedy: It's becoming an increasing problem. The community has become more frightened of disorder than of tyranny, and the history of the law, and the history of Australia, shows us that in reality there's no reason to be more frightened of disorder than tyranny, and when you frighten people so that they are more frightened of disorder than of tyranny, they're likely to give up the rights that have been fought for since the 13th century, and they're likely to let politicians do whatever they please. And the politicians simply don't realise what they're doing; they're not malicious, they simply do not understand how far they are diverging from the British justice system, and I think the 19th century social commentator Walter Bagehot is reputed to have said something to the effect that the British are famous for inventing wonderful institutions which they themselves don't understand. And we've inherited those institutions and our politicians don't seem to understand them any better than the general community, and they've shown a complete lack of leadership.

    Damien Carrick: In what way are they showing a lack of leadership?

    Antoinette Kennedy: Well if the media, or any interest group, kicks up a stink, they never try to explain anything, they simply agree, and we now have for example in Western Australia mandatory sentencing legislation where there is a six-month sentence for assault occasioning bodily harm on a police officer. Now you've got to understand that the complaint about that is not simply that it's a six-month mandatory sentence, but that assault occasioning bodily harm means any bodily injury of such a nature as to interfere with health or comfort. And so the example that we've had in Western Australia is if a rose seller hits a policeman on the hand with a rose and a thorn goes into their hand, that is assault occasioning bodily harm. Now under the present legislation you could get six months, or you must get six months jail for that. So it's not only that it's mandatory, it's that it covers very trivial things, and of course the problem with that is that even the Commissioner of Police knows that that's a problem because he's now announced that not everyone will be charged.

    Our Commissioner of Police is a very decent, intelligent man, but he's just a man, and we're supposed to have the rule of law, and the law is not supposed to depend upon you encountering a nice policeman, and so it should not be up to him to decide 'I will use this law this time; I won't use it on some other occasion'.

    Damien Carrick: Look, I've got to put it to you, I mean these mandatory sentencing laws, I think they were brought in as of September last year, and it's a mandatory six-month jail sentence if you hit a policeman causing bodily harm. I mean these laws came in, as I understand it, as a response to an increase in the number of assaults against people like police and ambos, and the AG has referred to instances of people not going to prison when these sorts of people sustained injuries, such as broken noses or chipped teeth.

    Antoinette Kennedy: You would need the particular case, and you would need to know about the particular case. It's very rare for someone to do a serious assault to a police officer in Western Australia and not go to prison. And you just can't look at an individual case without digging down into the actual details to find out why that is the case, and even if that were the case, then they should have made it for something a bit more serious than assault occasioning bodily harm, so that we now have a situation where even the Commissioner of Police knows he's got more power than he wanted, and is saying, 'I'll only use it in certain circumstances, so trust me, I'm a policeman, I'll only use it in certain circumstances', that's simply not acceptable, as decent as our Commissioner of Police is.

    Damien Carrick: Who do you fear will be affected by these laws?

    Antoinette Kennedy: We all know who'll be affected: Aboriginals and young people. Unless the Commissioner of Police goes on doing what he's doing and not use it.

    Damien Carrick: Because so far there have been no convictions.

    Antoinette Kennedy: There's been no convictions because they have not taken any action because they know that if the community realise how trivial it can be to get six months jail and cost the community $50,000 to keep someone in jail for six months, there will be an outcry about it. So they are waiting for the perfect case, and so they've being charged with assault, they're not being charged with assault occasioning bodily harm. And in fact in the early stages, a couple of people were charged with assault occasioning bodily harm and it turned out one of them was a person who'd escaped from a mental home, and they were the sort of things that people were going to end up with egg on their face, so they quickly dropped those charges to simple assault from assault occasioning bodily harm.

    Damien Carrick: You are also very worried about new stop and search laws in WA that are currently being considered. Now under these laws which have been proposed, what new powers would be given to police?

    Antoinette Kennedy: Well it means that they can stop and search anyone they like, anytime they like, without any suspicion or without the person having done anything suspicious. So that if your next-door neighbour's a policeman, if he doesn't like you, as you're going out your front gate he can stop and search you. Now they would say to me, 'Oh that's ridiculous, we wouldn't do that'. Well 'we' shouldn't have the power to do it. And that's all there is to it. Again the Commissioner of Police is saying, 'Look, we'll only use it in certain circumstances', and again, it is in that case since he's such a decent human being, why don't we just say the Commissioner of Police can do whatever he like because we know he's such a nice man, he won't do anything unreasonable.

    Damien Carrick: You also have very strong views on WA's anti-hoon laws, which recently entangled an affluent Perth doctor, a Dr Patrick Nugawela. Tell me what are those anti-hoon laws and what happened to Dr Nugawela?

    Antoinette Kennedy: I have to say that I haven't taken, until Dr Nugawela's case, I hadn't taken a lot of interest in the hoon laws because they're not dealt with by the District Court, they're dealt with by the Magistrate's Court, and I don't object to the police having the power to seize motor vehicles in certain circumstances. But again, it turned out that it was far too wide. Poor old Dr Nugawela, obviously is a very hard-working doctor and he bought himself a Lamborghini and he put it in to the mechanic for the mechanic to fix it up and according the police, the mechanic was clocked doing some incredible speed which took him well within...

    Damien Carrick: 160 ks per hour I think.

    Antoinette Kennedy: That's right, within the hoon laws, which entitle them to seize the car. Now the doctor said, 'Well I've done nothing wrong, I didn't know he was going to do that and I certainly didn't give him permission to do that.' The relevant Minister dealt with that very poorly, in my view, because what he tried to do was to play the politics of envy, to more or less say, well look, who cares what happens to somebody who can afford a Lamborghini. Well it turned out a lot of West Australians did, because even though we can't afford a Lamborghini, this was simply not fair. And again, it was a situation which a politician I think learned a lesson, and the lesson was that it is not in every case that people are more frightened of disorder than they are of tyranny, and that was a small example of tyranny against that doctor, and the police had no way of giving him his car back, and if the mechanic hadn't paid the $900 fee, the doctor would have had to pay the $900 fee to get his car back, and the car was impounded I think for 28 days.

    Antoinette Kennedy: So you're saying this is an example of laws which are simply draconian and they leave no room for applying a commonsense justice fair outcome?

    Antoinette Kennedy: That's right, and no room for looking at individual circumstances. And there always are, I should say, individual circumstances where you need to be able to look at those circumstances and say, 'Is this fair in this case?' It may be fair in 98% of cases, but what about the other 2%? And we are in the business of making sure that all our citizens have justice, and we don't operate on the basis of, 'Bad luck, you got caught, even though you're innocent.'

    Damien Carrick: When it comes to law and order issues more generally, and sentencing more generally, do you think that locking people up, does that deter crime? Is it a successful strategy?

    Antoinette Kennedy: It is a deterrent. But it's not everything, and that is the difficulty that judges have, that the community put all their eggs in one basket and they think that the prime problem can be solved by heavier and heavier sentences, and they are asking too much of the criminal justice system as an instrument controlling human behaviour. The criminal justice system has a role, but it's not every role, and the story is told of two men downriver, and a body comes down the river and they pull the body out, and then more bodies keep coming down the river and they keep pulling them out, and finally, one of them says to the other, 'You stay here and do what you can and I'll go upstream and see what's happening.' Now as far as judges are concerned we are downstream pulling the bodies out of the river; what in God's name are the rest of you doing upstream?' And the fact is, you're doing nothing, and you're to put all the blame and all the responsibility on to us and it's stupid, quite frankly, stupid.

    Damien Carrick: So you're saying that there need to be alternative strategies, strategies up-river, to stem crime. What strategies might they be?

    Antoinette Kennedy: The first thing I'd like to say is that I don't think it's a judge's job to start talking about what the other strategies are. What you are really doing is deflecting attention from yourself and what you should be doing. But I'll give you some suggestions. The first thing is I frequently have young lawyers say to me, 'It was inevitable that my client would end up in the criminal justice system.' And when you look at the life and the childhood of that person, you know that that's right, it was inevitable that they would end up in the criminal justice system. If we know it's inevitable, why aren't we doing more about it? In Australia, we simply do not spend enough money on early childhood intervention. You can see people coming, and yet we are doing nothing about that, or very little about it at all. Now to think that you do nothing about that, or very little about it and then that somehow some judge can put that right and stop crime, is well, as I've already said, it's stupid.

    Damien Carrick: So why do you think governments have tougher and tougher laws and don't just...

    Antoinette Kennedy: Because it's cheap, or it used to be cheaper, now of course the cost of keeping someone in prison is $100,000 a year and people seem to think that that means that they are living in luxury conditions. The Inspector of Custodial Services in Western Australia has got some brilliant photographs of prisons that would show anyone that it is not a holiday camp, it is not luxury. That money, most of it, goes in guarding people.

    Damien Carrick: I'm speaking to Antoinette Kennedy, the recently-retired Chief Judge of the WA District Court. Antoinette Kennedy, so far we've been talking about law and order culture and you've been offering your views, your analysis and your criticism of politicians. But presumably there must also be a place to scrutinise and analyse the decisions of judges. Do you believe that the media gives you and other judges a fair go?

    Antoinette Kennedy: Not overall. We had a very bad time in Western Australia for a period of time, which is now passed, with our major daily newspaper, and they were only interested in criticising judges and they weren't interested in making sure that the community understood what the situation was. And I understand the problems that the media have, the media obviously, they've got to do things that people are interested in, and it's very immediate, but no-one has ever asked what the community is doing about the crime problem, and there is this constant attempt to put all your eggs in one basket and to think that somehow, judges have the answer to the crime problem and we're flatly refusing to use it. Now I live in this community, I have family and property in this community, of course I care what happens to the community. Of course I care about the victims of crime, it's positively insulting and hurtful to suggest that I am a person who doesn't care about crime, and the victims of crime, and that if I'm not a paedophile myself, I'm a person who supports, encourages and promotes paedophilia, and it's arrant nonsense.

    Damien Carrick: Well look let's talk about—as much as you're comfortable—about some of the controversial decisions. I mean like many judges, some of your sentences have attracted huge criticism from the media, and even sometimes from the politicians, and I think it was back in 2006 there was a lot of media coverage of your decision to release a child sex offender back into the community on a two-year suspended sentence. This was the case of Kevin James Lilly. Can you tell me about that case and about your decision-making in that case?

    Antoinette Kennedy: Yes, certainly. The first thing I'd say about any case is that what you have to realise is that each side has a right of appeal, and no-one can stop them from that. Within 21 days, they can lodge an appeal and the whole matter can be looked at again by the Court of Appeal. The prosecution and the defence can each lodge an appeal and it will be looked at again by three people. So they make that decision and that, as an aside, is a reason why judges don't defend themselves, and that's the other thing that really irritates judges, and that's why it's so unusual for me to speak out now, because of course judges don't defend themselves, and the media know that, and particularly in Western Australia for a period of time The West Australian used it, that we are soft targets and by that I mean we don't answer criticism, at all, and so the community may well think that we're agreeing with the criticism, or that there is no answer. But that's not so, we simply don't answer because it interferes with people's rights of appeal, and the appeal has to be on the basis of what the judge has said in open court.

    Damien Carrick: Well Kevin James Lilly, who was he and why did you reach a decision to give him a two-year suspended sentence?

    Antoinette Kennedy: Because he was a person who hadn't been in any trouble before. He was a middle-aged man who'd had a number of life problems and had become an alcoholic, and he had a very nice wife and family, and he did not go out looking for anyone, he sat in his back shed every day and got drunk. And the little girls from down the street used to come to his back shed, and he was very, very drunk, and he used to entertain them, apparently, I mean as horrible as it is, to entertain them, display himself, and mainly there was very minor, very minor, touching. If there had been proper touching, he would have gone to jail, but it was minor touching and he was displaying himself and the little girls, one of them on one occasion said to him, 'You're very naughty', and he said in his drunken state, 'If you don't like it, this is my house, go home.' So he'd regressed, according to the psychologist, so he was like a six-year-old himself.

    And so the little girls came to his home, and they came back on a number of occasions. Now no-one's suggesting that this is not serious. That's a given. This is a very serious matter. By the time it came to sentence this man, who'd never been in any trouble before, as far as I can remember, you see I don't keep these things in my head, and so he must have had either a very clean record, or must not have been in trouble for many years, and my recollection is that he'd worked very hard and then given up work for some reason. By the time he came before me, he was stone cold sober and in counselling. Now the idea that we would pay $100,000 to put that man in jail, where at that stage there were no programs. When he was out, he was sober, he had his wife and family's support, and he was in a program ; it simply seemed to me to be inappropriate use of community funds. And I stress, that so far as him touching those children is concerned, it was very, very minor.

    Damien Carrick: At the time one of the newspapers, I think it was The Sunday Times in WA said, 'Isn't it time we stopped using alcohol as an excuse? In the case of Kevin James Lilly it's one of the worst excuses imaginable, but it was enough for District Court Judge Antoinette Kennedy.' And the journalist described this as 'the ridiculous justification', and a restraining order preventing Lilly from going within 100 metres of his victims as 'almost farcical'. And I think the Opposition leader at the time, or an Opposition politician at the time, labelled the sentence, 'woefully inadequate', and 'it highlights the enormous gulf between the soft sentences handed out by the court and the punishments demanded by the community for these types of offences.'

    Well what do you make of those comments?

    Antoinette Kennedy: Well I just think it's ridiculous. The community generally are not talking about offences where there is no touching, and they're not talking about offences where the offender is in his own back garden. He does not go out looking for anyone, he's just sitting there, drunk, that's all he's doing. He's sitting there drunk and the little girls come around so he displays himself to them. Now I gave him a suspended term of imprisonment. I didn't say to him, 'You're a wonderful human being, here's a gold medal,' I gave him a two-year suspended term. That meant that if he didn't do the program that I ordered him to do, he would serve the two years jail. It meant that if he got into any more trouble, he would not only be sentenced for what he did, but he would serve the two years. Now the community's interest was in having him rehabilitated, and not set backward as a term of imprisonment would, and as I say, there were very few programs in the prison. That's improved a bit now, but there were very few programs in the prison at that time.

    Now I think it's unrealistic in those circumstances, for the community to pay over $100,000 to warehouse that man for at least 12 months without probably any program in those circumstances. Now some people may disagree, and I know people say, 'We don't care what it costs', well that's OK. If you don't care what it costs, we'll shut down the primary school in your area, and we'll use that money for the jails. Because it's silly to say you don't care what it costs, of course you care what it costs, if it costs you schools and hospital beds, you do care.

    Damien Carrick: Standing in the shoes of, say, the family of the victims, or the survivors, I mean they might say, 'Well the touching may well be classed as somehow minor, but that might not mean that the effect on the young people, the children, was minor, and we need as a community to respond to those sorts of crimes, and that's what they are, with a very, very firm hand.'

    Antoinette Kennedy: Oh, in Western Australia paedophiles go to jail for very, very long periods of time. No-one should be under any illusion about that. But most of it is not reported, and it's not reported for the simple reason most of it is in the family, and therefore the media can't name and shame the offender.

    Damien Carrick: Because they would identify the survivor or the victim?

    Antoinette Kennedy: That's right. And so the community is unaware of the real paedophilia problem in the community, which is one of the greatest failings of the media of all time. I'm not asking them to publish every one of those, because I know that would be very boring if they said, 'Today a stepfather, today a father, today whatever, was sentenced to 6, 10, 12 years jail.' But it would be nice if they pointed out that 95% of paedophiles are heterosexual, adult males, who are not priests or schoolteachers. But there is another point I want to make to you about something you said, and about the demands of victims.

    The demands of victims are very important, but there is a view abroad that sentencing is simply between the victim and the offender. Now if that were so, all we would need to do is to identify the offender and then say to the victim, 'You can do whatever you like to the offender. As a judge, the offender has done nothing to me, so I'm not particularly angry with him, but he certainly is the offender and you can do whatever you like to him.' And that would be what we would do if sentencing were simply between the victim and the offender. But sentencing is not simply between the victim and the offender, sentencing is between the victim, the offender and the whole community. Now in the end, we must do what is in the interests of the whole community.

    Now it's understandable, and if I were a victim, I may want somebody smeared with jam and tied to an ant-heap. I may want them killed, but that is not in the interests of the whole community and I'm not decrying what victims want and how emotional they are and how it's affected their lives, but the reality is the world goes on, and the community goes on and sentencing has to take into account not just the rights of the victim, but the rights of the whole community and the fact that life goes on and you must do what is in the interests of the whole community, and it is rarely in the interests of the whole community that the offender be destroyed, and there are many victims who would want the offender destroyed, and as I say, I understand it, but it just cannot be.

    Damien Carrick: The sometimes intense controversy that surrounded some of your sentences, and those of your fellow-judges, prompted the Chief Justice of WA, Wayne Martin, I think it was in December 2006, to give a very direct, a very in-your-face speech where he attacked the media as giving 'a demonstrably false impression that judges are lenient when it comes to sentencing'. But he also gave some statistics around the rate of imprisonment in WA What are the rates of imprisonment in WA?

    Antoinette Kennedy: Western Australia has the highest rate of imprisonment of any state in the country. The highest rate of imprisonment. But nothing pleases some people who want to make law and order the issue, and so it cannot possibly be the case that we're not locking up enough people. Per 100,000 of population, we are locking up more people than any other state in the country.

    Damien Carrick: Now changing focus, there are now many women at the top of the profession, but that certainly wasn't the case when you started out. I think in your final year of law school you were interviewed, and in an article you said, 'Oh no, there's no discrimination; women are as good as men', but that that really wasn't the case when you said that.

    Antoinette Kennedy: It was rubbish. I've been reminded of that on a number of occasions. It was absolute rubbish, but you see I had completed my law degree, and no-one had been rude to me, so I thought in my naiveté, well that must mean there's no discrimination. I mean there were no Supreme Court or District Court judges, no magistrates, no registrars, no masters, no prosecutors, no partners in big firms who were women, and there was a tendency to either pat women on the head or regard them as eccentrics. There have been huge improvements, obviously. But there were huge difficulties.

    Damien Carrick: What was your experience like in your early years of practice?

    Antoinette Kennedy: No-one's rude to you. You see if they're rude to you, it would be a lot easier to deal with. They're not rude to you, they just don't take any notice of anything you say. And I can remember when I first realised this, I'd been out for about three or four years, and I was appearing before a magistrate, and I said something which to me was perfectly sensible, and my opposition, who was a male, said something that I thought was really stupid, and the magistrate hung on every word he said, and I'm thinking to myself, 'Listen sport, he was a dork at law school, he's still a dork. Why are you listening to him and not me? Why am I being patted on the head?' and it was slowly that I realised that the law has a very male way of thinking, and if you don't think in that way, then you must be wrong, not different, wrong, and that is the problem that women still have, although it's lessening as time goes on. And of course I was the first woman judge in Western Australia and that was not necessarily the most popular thing to be.

    Damien Carrick: What was the reaction from other judges and from members of the profession?

    Antoinette Kennedy: Well on my own court they weren't too bad actually. When I say—I don't like to go into the details, it's all such a long time ago—the only thing I like to say is really, the judges on my own court were not my major problem, and it came as a bit of a surprise to discover that I was not a male clone, I think, and they really expected that I would just behave like a male in drag. Now unfortunately, women don't behave like men in drag, women are different. It's not that we're better, and as I said I think recently, Chairman Mao said women hold up half the sky. We're not better, but we do have different approach and you need the balance of both men and women. You don't want just men or just women, you need the balance of both.

    Damien Carrick: You're stepping down with a sense of accomplishment and a sense of having contributed, but what about— are there things that you wish you could have achieved? What still remains to be done?

    Antoinette Kennedy: It's this attitude to sentencing. You know, I do live in this community, I have people that I love in this community, I do want this community to be more crime-free, and I do know that we're going in the wrong direction, and that I thought might improve over the 25 years, but it hasn't improved over the 25 years. And this is not just a matter of my ego, you know, 'judges don't like to be criticised'. This is a matter of really caring about what happens in my community, and really seeing that we're doing the wrong thing, and this is not the answer to the crime problem, just locking people up for longer and longer periods of time. It's got nothing to do with being sympathetic to offenders, or not sympathetic to victims. My concern is for the whole community and that's the thing where we really appear to have gone backward.

    Damien Carrick: Chief Judge Antoinette Kennedy, a great pleasure talking to you. It's been a fascinating conversation.

    Antoinette Kennedy: Thank you very much.

    Damien Carrick: That's the Law Report for this week. Thanks to producer Erica Vowles.

    Credits

    minus
 
 
THE SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA FAREWELL TO THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE PETER DONALD BLAXELL  
 
 
  TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS AT PERTH ON THURSDAY, 24 FEBRUARY 2011, 
AT 4.31 PM
  24/2/11 1 (s&c)
     MARTIN CJ: The Court sits today to farewell the Honourable Justice Peter Blaxell, who will officially retire from office tomorrow. I would like to particularly welcome today members of his Honour's family, including his wife Stella; his father and stepmother, Donald and Shirley Blaxell; his sons Tim, Sam and John Blaxell; their partners Louise, Rebecca and Elizabeth; his grandson Hamish; and also his Honour's brother Tom Blaxell and his wife Naima. I would also like to welcome Justice Michael Barker of the Federal Court of Australia; Justice Stephen Thackray, Chief Judge of the Family Court of Western Australia; his Honour Judge Peter Martino, Chief Judge of the District Court of Western Australia; Chief Magistrate Steven Heath; Ms Cheryl Gwilliam, Director-General of the Department of the Attorney-General; and many other distinguished guests too numerous to name, including former members of this and other Courts. I would also like to welcome those who will address the Court this afternoon, being the Solicitor-General, Mr Robert Meadows QC, representing the Honourable Christian Porter MLA, Attorney-General of Western Australia, who is unable to join us this afternoon; Dr Christopher Kendall, representing Mr Hylton Quail, President of the Law Society of Western Australia; and Mr Grant Donaldson SC, President of the West Australian Bar Association. Prior to my appointment to the Court, I occasionally heard mutterings from my lawyer colleagues to the effect that ceremonial sittings of the Court for the purpose of welcoming or farewelling a Judge were pleasantly predictable occasions devoted to the utterance of sycophantic platitudes.
  As a member of the Court I would obviously brand any such suggestion as heresy, but in case there are any heretics present this afternoon let me assure you that there is nothing sycophantic about the observations I will be making this afternoon on behalf of all of the members of the Court. That is because we are united in the firm view that Justice Peter Blaxell has made an outstanding contribution to the work and to the life of the Court and he will be very sorely missed. My own association with his Honour goes back almost 40 years to 1971, when I was engaged as a clerk during the university vacations by the firm which then practised under the name Lavan and Walsh. His Honour was then a junior solicitor in the firm and Barry Rowland was the senior litigation partner. On one occasion I was asked to assist in the relocation of the firm from its premises in Howard Street, which were about to be demolished, up to new premises at 524 Hay Street. I was tasked particularly with the     responsibility of packing up all the books in the firm's library and then unpacking them and re-shelving them in the new library in Hay Street. In the course of that exercise I was able to ascertain the veracity of one of the apocryphal stories which then abounded through the firm which was to the effect that his Honour had written in large print on a wall of the library, obscured by bookshelves, that, and I quote, "Rowland is a fink." The fact that his Honour chose the word "fink" in preference to some more other obvious Anglo-Saxon alternatives was not a prescient reference to a motorcycle gang yet to be formed but a reflection of the gentile side of his Honour's character. Of course my first and abiding impression of his Honour was heavily influenced by his extraordinary laugh, which can be heard across several city blocks and which is utterly irrepressible. After graduation I served my articles at Lavan and Walsh and worked in sufficiently close proximity to his Honour, who was by then a partner in the firm, that earmuffs were occasionally required. It is very pleasing to me, and I'm sure to his Honour, that a number of members of the firm from those days are able to join us this afternoon, including Barry and Jenny Rowland, Ray and Ann Lynch, and Peter and Marlene Michelides. There are many stories which could be told of his Honour's exploits during those halcyon days but unfortunately decorum precludes all of them. His Honour was appointed to the District Court in 1991 and to this Court on 2 February 2005. I was amongst those at the bar table at the ceremonial sitting to mark his Honour's welcome. I have always thought his Honour's observations on that occasion to be probably the most amusing I have ever heard on an occasion such as this. His Honour's correspondence with Chief Judge Kennedy on the subject of the Women Lawyer's Association was highly amusing, although of course ideologically unsound. I was soon to learn how accurate his Honour's description of the former Chief Judge as the Queen Boadicea of the Court was, given his Honour's enthusiasm for battle. I am sure there are high expectations for the levity of the remarks that we will hear from his Honour in a few minutes. One observation his Honour made that morning was, I thought, a particularly telling observation of his approach to the law and to judicial duties when he observed that although he treated his work seriously, he never took himself too seriously. That approach has stood his Honour in good stead, as it would I think any Judge.
  I have already mentioned his Honour's outstanding contribution to the work of the Court. That contribution has been perhaps most evident in his work as Judge in charge of the criminal list since 2007, when he replaced Justice Geoffrey Miller in that role. The Court had by then adopted a suggestion made by Justice Miller that we introduce a form of mediation to criminal proceedings which we have styled voluntary criminal case conferencing. Justice Blaxell has enthusiastically embraced and refined that process, which has been a great success. His Honour's capacity for devising new solutions to old problems is perhaps most evident in the creation of the Stirling Gardens Magistrates Court, which was entirely his Honour's idea. Since the appointment of a number of Registrars of this Court as Magistrates, we have been able to manage criminal cases falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of this Court from soon after their inception until trial or other resolution. This has enabled us to provide what we hope is seamless case management before and after committal in which the Magistrates managing the case prior to committal liaise closely with the Judge in charge of the criminal list with a view to identifying the earliest possible dates for case conferencing or trial in the event that the matter is to go to trial. Like voluntary criminal case conferencing, this procedure has been a great success. It has significantly reduced time to trial in our criminal cases, although our ambition is to further reduce that time. Those ambitions are limited by the fact that there are some aspects of pre-trial preparation in the criminal jurisdiction which are beyond our control, such as ensuring the adequacy of prosecutorial disclosure in a timely fashion and the production of forensic expert reports in a timely fashion.
  Notwithstanding those constraints, however, under Justice Blaxell's active leadership we have made and are continuing to make significant progress in reducing the time between the laying of a criminal charge and its ultimate disposition. His Honour has also participated actively on the work of a number of the committees of the Court, including the Executive Management Committee, the Criminal Practice Committee, the Indigenous Justice Task Force when it was in operation, and more recently the Strategic Criminal Justice Forum. Each of these committees has benefited enormously from the depth of his Honour's experience and wisdom and will miss his contribution. I also mentioned earlier his Honour's enormous contribution to the life of the Court. His sense of humour is as indefatigable as his laugh and he has made an enormous contribution to the camaraderie and collegiate life of the Court. He and his wife Stella will be missed from many of our social activities, although characteristically they have generously offered to continue to host the Court's annual picnic at their delightfully bucolic orchard in the foothills of Perth. I am sure that one of the attractions of retirement has been the opportunity for his Honour to spend more time in that beautiful environment, and also to resume his Honour's seafaring ways. It only remains for me to again express on behalf of all members of the Court our sincere gratitude for his Honour's outstanding contribution to the life and to the work of the Court, and to wish him good health and happiness in a long and enjoyable retirement. Mr Solicitor? MEADOWS, MR: May it please the court. It's my privilege to appear today on behalf of the Attorney-General, representing the government and the people of the State at this special sitting to mark the retirement of your Honour Justice Peter Blaxell as a member of the Supreme Court. The Attorney-General extends his apologies for his absence today and has asked that I convey to your Honour his personal best wishes for a long and happy retirement. As we have heard, your Honour has spent all of 20 years in judicial office, 14 of those as a Judge of the District Court and six as a member of this Court and now, at a relatively youthful age, you are taking a well-earned retirement. By the way, your Honour, if you get bored or become restless just let me know and I am sure we can find something useful for you to do.
    The Chief Justice has traversed your Honour's life and illustrious career on the Bench and I do not propose to go over the same ground, except to say that I adopt what the Chief Justice has had to say on that score, at least the good bits. I had the pleasure of appearing at your Honour's welcome as well and I recall recounting how delighted the former Chief Judge of the District Court, Kevin Hammond, was at your appointment to this Court. He said that you could turn your hand to anything, whether it be in civil or crime, and be relied upon to deal expeditiously and efficiently with whatever you were presented. Another of your Honour's former colleagues at the District Court observed that we were getting a proven package, namely, an experienced trial Judge who was a tried and proved performer and that we could have every confidence that your Honour would continue to discharge your judicial duties with the same skill, diligence and application you had already demonstrated. Both of these observations have been well and truly borne out during your time on this Court, and we are extremely grateful for that. Your Honour's enthusiasm for hard work and willingness to take on whatever was on offer, especially in the criminal area, has made you a significant contributor to the work of the Court. On top of that, the quality of your judicial work has left nothing to be desired. You always ran a good Court and were universally regarded as a pleasure to appear before. While on occasions you could be seen to be a little demanding, and so you should have been, you have remained courteous and polite to counsel at all times and your legendary sense of humour has lightened proceedings whenever required. Your down-to-earth, practical approach to the judicial task is perhaps best exemplified by the way in which you handle the sequel following the High Court decision in the Gypsy Jokers case. In the judgment that you handed down in (2008) WASC 166, you outlined how you had sifted through the redacted material, classified as criminal intelligence by the Commissioner of Police, to determine whether its disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice criminal investigations or to enable the discovery of the existence or identity of a confidential source. It was a delicate and difficult task, but the way in which you went about it has been proven to be well justified for it has been specifically approved by the High Court in K-Generation v Liquor Licensing Court by all members of the Court in that case and if anyone wishes to have that borne out, I suggest you read Justice Kirby's remarks at page 84 of that judgment.
  Your Honour is now heading to a well-earned retirement which will no doubt involve you going down to the sea in boats. Your Honour's love of boats is well-known. Back in the good old days you very kindly took our keynote speaker for the law summer school for a sail aboard your yacht, which I think was called the Pegasus. Dyson Hayden QC, now Hayden J of the High Court, was the keynote speaker in one year and he joined us, along with his wife, Pamela, one Saturday following the summer school to head out to sea on the good ship Pegasus. As it happened, Mrs Hayden, who had been shopping the previous day, turned up sporting a very smart and rather expensive jacket, aqua in colour and somewhat nautical in style. However, as we headed out from the Fremantle Sailing Club into Gage Roads the Fremantle doctor kicked in and disaster struck. Overboard went the jacket. As anyone who knows anything about boats knows boats, and sailing boats in particular, are not that easy to turn around and return to the exact spot where an incident has occurred. Unfortunately, when we returned to what we thought was the spot, our search proved fruitless and the jacket disappeared. Why do I mention this? I sat next to Mrs Hayden at a dinner just the other day and I have to tell you, your Honour, she has not forgotten. I told her that you were about to retire. She expressed the hope, tongue in cheek, I might say, that you might continue your search for the missing jacket when you go down to the sea. At your welcome I expressed confidence that you would make the transition from the District Court to the Supreme Court with ease and that you would make your mark as a judge of the Supreme Court in the years to come. My confidence was not misplaced. Your Honour, the time has now come for me to formally thank you on behalf of the government and the people of Western Australia for your many years of dedicated service to the state, first as a judge of the District Court and ultimately as a judge of this Court. We wish you all the best for your retirement, which we hope will be an enjoyable and fulfilling one. May it please the court. MARTIN CJ: Thank you, Mr Solicitor. Dr Kendall? KENDALL, DR: May it please the court. It is my very great pleasure today to extend the best wishes and sincere thanks of the Law Society of Western Australia for all that has been done by your Honour Peter Blaxell throughout a much-admired legal career. There are few in this room today who can boast of 41 years' service to the legal profession. Of those, 20 constitute dedicated service to both the Supreme and District Courts of this state. This    is an impressive track record and one I dare say will not be soon forgotten. Your Honour, you have long been a dedicated supporter of the Law Society of Western Australia, and for that we are extremely grateful. Notably, your Honour worked as the coordinator for the legal assistance scheme from 1974 to 1975. You also played a pivotal and much-appreciated role in implementing two quite important programs for the society, the DV counsel scheme in the Courts of Petty Sessions and, significantly, the client legal service, a service that ensured much-needed access to legal services and, I might say, justice to those living in the north west of our state. I have not personally had the pleasure of appearing before your Honour. I am well advised, however, that the use of the word "pleasure" in this context is indeed appropriate. In the words of one of my more junior colleagues at the bar, to appear before your Honour was to know that you would be treated with courtesy, respect and degree of kindness that did much to reduce the stresses and anxieties associated with any litigation practice. The atmosphere of civility your Honour created allowed us to focus on what is important, our clients, the articulation of their needs and the role of the law in giving those needs full expression, and we thank you for that. Your Honour, you are described by those who know you as having an infectious laugh, a sense of humour and perspective and a unique ability to put those who appear before you at ease. For those who do so appear, the result has always been a more welcoming forum with which to present those wanting justice and a fair hearing. I'm told that with your Honour at the helm, those appearing before you were better able to focus on simply getting to the point rather than stressing sometimes on the peripheries about issues which, dare I say, are largely irrelevant to those seeking our counsel and those charged with interpreting what we have to say. Again, for that we thank you. Your Honour, I used the word "justice" above. Of course the core of what we do as lawyers is the idea that justice and equality do indeed matter.
 
The Law Society notes your Honour has long held a commitment to the provision of legal aid to those socially less privileged than many of us here today. Your Honour's early commitment to the Aboriginal Legal Service and the establishment of the Kununurra office of the service is particularly noted; indeed, quite significant. Your Honour, you retire today leaving a rich legacy in your judgments. Your commitment to legal principle, your impartiality, your independence, your vast experience   and your wit are all attributes that will be deeply missed. Combine these with our genuine desire to simply do the right to all manor of people, consistent with your judicial oath, and it is fair to say you will indeed be deeply missed. In 2006 the Honourable Justice Margaret McMurdo, president of the Court of Appeal in Queensland, noted in a farewell address to a retiring colleague that the gospel according to Matthew advises those who judge to take care. It reads: For with the judgment you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. There is much truth in this, your Honour. That being so, I want to wish you and Mrs Blaxell all the best, and might I say that you can indeed look forward to your just measure, a long and happy retirement. On behalf of the Law Society of Western Australia I wish you and Mrs Blaxell all the very best in the years that lie ahead. May it please the court.
 
  MARTIN CJ: Thank you, Dr Kendall. Mr Donaldson?
 
 DONALDSON SC, MR:
May it please the court. It is my sombre duty to appear on behalf of the Bar at this special sitting of the Court. This sombreness derives from the fact that this will be the last occasion upon which a member of the Bar will address your Honour Justice Blaxell; that is, unless you slipped something in tomorrow, your Honour. It is well to record as a matter of pride for the Bar that your Honour was a member of the Bar for some years. In that time your Honour appeared in all jurisdictions, but you had a large and prominent practice in crime and in mining law matters. I regret that I can't regale with recollections of your Honour as an advocate but in any event, any forlorn reflection upon your Honour's early career would simply divert proper attention from your Honour's greatest contribution to the community in the form of service on this Court and on the District Court. That said, I will, if I might, so as to exemplify your Honour's capacity both as a Judge and as a practitioner, recount a recent appearance of mine before your Honour. Opposing me was Dharmananda K. I of course was for an innocent victim; Dharmananda was representing some shameful claim jumper in a dispute involving some mining tenements of some value. The matter involved consideration of a number of state agreements which in terms incorporated provisions of the Mining Act 1904, which was of course repealed over time by the Mining Act 1978. Not since the mid-1980s have practitioners had to consider in detail the provisions of the Mining Act 1904. With what appeared to be no preparation, your Honour not only exhibited a complete mastery of the difficult provisions of the Mining Act 1904 but also the course of relevant amendments to that act over time and the purpose of each amendment. More memorable was your Honour's account of the practice that was followed at the times relevant to the dispute by the mining wardens, and in particular your recounting of the particular relevant practices from the 1960s of the mining warden of the particular mineral field relevant to the dispute. This lesson was delivered in your Honour's un-presupposing manner, without the slightest hint of superiority but with the simple, unadorned purpose of assisting and illuminating. I was mesmerised by this tour de force and embarrassed by the incompleteness of my understanding. Dharmananda, conversely, was offended by your Honour's impertinence.
 
    It is likely that only Justice Wickham has brought to this Court a comparable depth and intensity of understanding of the mining law regime and practice in this state, but your Honour retained this knowledge over a long period of service on the District Court, where application of this knowledge in the discharge of your duties day to day was not foremost, exemplified a unique completeness and thoroughness of understanding and a mind of clarity and organisation. Your Honour, I had understood, was appointed to this Court on 1 February 2005, although the Chief Justice has reminded us that it must have been the 2nd, and your Honour's appointment followed a well-trod path in this jurisdiction of appointments from the District Court. It is instructive to recall that in being so appointed, your Honour in this respect followed Justices Pigeon, Heenan, Jones and White and that your Honour has been followed by Justices Jenkins, Mazza, Chaney and Pritchard.
 
To those who harbour some doubts about the practice of so-called judicial promotion, this catalogue ought, with respect, assuage concern. I know that your Honour looks back to your service on the District Court with fondness and, I trust, with great pride. The burden borne by the Judges of that Court is unrelenting.
 
The strain upon Judges presiding over a seemingly endless parade of criminal trials, many back to back, many of difficulty and complexity, is hard to imagine and largely unappreciated by the community, yet this burden was borne by your Honour for all of your years on the District Court uncomplainingly. As a Judge of the District Court and as a Judge of the trial division of this Court, your Honour went about your task unobtrusively and cheerfully. I suspect that all who have appeared before your Honour have been graced with that famous and much-envied smile; if it could be bottled and sold, your Honour would be a trillionaire. And it can be said that every accused person, every litigant, every witness and every counsel who came to your Honour's Court was treated with fairness, with politeness, with understanding and with dignity and respect.
 
That this can be stated assuredly and without the possibility of contradiction after your Honour's long years of judicial service is, with respect, an extraordinary achievement.
 
  To this judicial service in the hearing and determination of cases must of course be added your Honour's great contribution in this Court in the role of what has come to be known in the profession as the High Sheriff of Stirling Gardens, a role which of course your Honour commenced. The Stirling Gardens model has been a stunning success and is a model of management of criminal trials that has attracted wide interest. Though no doubt a deal of its success and prominence derives from its system and from the involvement of senior members of the profession such as the Honourable Kevin Hammond, the Honourable Hal Jackson and the great Ron Cannon, those who seek to replicate the Stirling Gardens experiment will learn that its success in this jurisdiction has been due in significant part to the role in that system which your Honour has played. Acknowledgment of your Honour's role as the High Sheriff of Stirling Gardens brings to mind that in the United Kingdom it has been the practice from time immemorial that High Sheriffdoms take effect in the month of March after a process of appointment the details of which extend back to the reign of Elizabeth the First.
 
This process involves the Monarch's assent to appointment being signified by a prick from a silver bodkin to the parchment of the instrument of appointment rather than by simple signature. This practice has attracted the nomenclature of pricking or skewering. Although it may be that in some respects your Honour as High Sheriff of Stirling Gardens is irreplaceable, no doubt your successor is looking forward to being skewered in due course. At one point I had thought that your Honour's retirement to take effect in late February had been planned having regard to the skewering of your Honour's successor to take effect in March. I noticed recently, however, that your Honour was appointed as a Judge of the District Court in February 1991, a Judge of this Court in February 2005, and of course your Honour retires in February 2011.
 
I have no idea what it is that your Honour gets up to over the Christmas vacation but obviously it's something. Yet these recounted dates are more notable than the simple coincidence of the month of February. These dates attest that your Honour has served as a Judge in Western Australia for over 20 years. Indeed, the period is 20 years and 13 days including today. Of the Judges who have sat on the District or Supreme Courts of this State, this is a period of service exceeded by only seven Judges, and of the Judges currently serving in Western Australia this period of judicial service is exceeded only by Justice Murray, and then by less than a year.
 
  In modern terms it is an extraordinary judicial service and a period of service that we are unlikely often to see again in this country. For that service the profession is, and the community ought to be, grateful and thankful. Although those of us in the practising profession are not supposed to know such things, we all know that your Honour has been a most popular colleague amongst the Judges of this Court and of the District Court - no doubt again the smile and the laugh - though in one respect your Honour will not, I have been told, be missed. Your Honour's reputation for unreliability as an aquatic chauffeur to the annual Judges' Christmas function has extended beyond the Court. It is rumoured that the Honourable Nigel Clarke, dressed no doubt as Kamahl, is still waiting from 1995 to be collected by your Honour from the Barrack Street Jetty. It is further rumoured that the voyage navigated by your Honour from the Barrack Street Jetty to Fremantle for the 1997 Judges' Christmas function concluded some hours after the putative and abandoned lunch was to have finished. That these blemishes were minor, however, simply confirms that the length and the distinction of your Honour's judicial service brings with it the undoubted right to what the Bar hopes will be the unburdening that will accompany retirement from this Court and more time for your Honour and your Honour's scaly crew to sail, or perhaps to learn to sail.
 
  Please be assured that your Honour goes into judicial retirement with the Bar's admiration and gratitude and with our sense of pride that one of our former members has served the community as a Judge for so long with such distinction and with such generosity of spirit. May it please the court. 
 
MARTIN CJ: Thank you, Mr Donaldson. Justice Blaxell?
 
  BLAXELL J: Chief Justice, Mr Meadows, Dr Kendall, Mr Donaldson, thank you so much for your very kind and gracious remarks. I came along armed with a pad and a pen thinking I would have to make a lot of notes of things I would have to refute, but there is not a single one. I have only made one note, and that is that it really took me by surprise that there ever was an occasion when Mr Donaldson was embarrassed.
    Unless there is a conga line of Mareva injunction applicants outside the Court when it opens its doors tomorrow, this is the last time that I will be sitting as a Judge. Although I still have some sentencing to do over the next few months, I am only deemed to be a Judge for that purpose and I will be doing it without pay. I could have remained in my present position for another five years but I decided 18 months ago that I should retire upon reaching the milestone of my 20th anniversary as a Judge, when I would also be 65 years of age. The reason for that decision is that there are other things in life that my wife and I want to do which are inconsistent with me remaining on the Bench. At our age there can be no guarantee that in five years' time we will be of good health and we wish to pursue those other things while we are still physically capable of doing so. When I think back over my time in the law I have a kaleidoscope of memories which all seem to merge together.
 
There have been many thousands of interactions with colleagues, counsel, clients, litigants and witnesses, most of which I have forgotten, but I do experience an overwhelming feeling that it has been all thoroughly worthwhile. I am so glad that in my final months of secondary schooling I made a last-minute decision to change my choice of university studies from engineering to law. When I entered university in 1963 I was a relatively callow youth, only 17 years of age, with little experience in life. Consequently my time at university played a big part in shaping the person that I am today. The friends I made then turned out to be lifelong friends and I am very pleased that so many of them are here today.
 
I went on to spend six years with the firm of Lavan and Walsh, including two years as an articled clerk, earning an average of $15 per week. It was $10 per week the first year and $20 per week the second year. My principal was John Lavan, who was later to become Sir John and a Senior Puisne Judge of this Court. I was always very grateful to him and to the other members of the firm who became my mentors and gave me a solid start in the law. Two of those mentors were Barry Rowland and Ray Lynch, who not only taught me legal skills but also taught me some boating skills, including how to clean the barnacles off the bottoms of their yachts.
 
I am sure that there were many times when they got their $15 worth out of me. While at Lavan and Walsh I became actively involved with the Legal Aid Committee of the Law Society and, as Dr Kendall has mentioned, for a short period I also worked full-time for the Law Society implementing a duty counsel   scheme in the Magistrates Courts as well as a flying legal service to the North-West.
 
There were four other staff working for Legal Aid at that time and it's interesting to reflect that that was the organisation which looked after everything that the Legal Aid Commission does today, and there were only four staff who did that. One of those staff, Loris Wood, has since passed away, but I was surprised and gratified to learn recently that the other three staff members from 35 years ago wanted to be here today and I thank Anne, Suzanne and Mary for coming along. Also here today are many of my friends and former colleagues from my times at the Bar and then the District Court. As most people know, time is a precious commodity for any barrister or Judge and I was always grateful that so many of my former colleagues were willing to make themselves available for wise counsel and sound advice. The people who assisted me in this way are far too numerous to mention but they did include some former colleagues who are no longer with us.
 
In this regard I particularly acknowledge John ('Pincher') Martin, Terry Franklyn, Brian Singleton, Henry Wallwork and Paul Healy. I am so pleased that Nano Healy is able to be here today. Paul was an exceptional man who was always totally rock solid and reliable. He was also the centre of gravity of the District Court and he is very much missed.
 
I often turned to him for advice and he would typically urge me to be staunch in whatever it was that I proposed to do. I greatly enjoyed my 14 years at the District Court. It was a very collegiate Court and Chief Judge Kevin Hammond liked to boast that he was the managing partner of the best firm in town. What is not so well known is that the Judges of that Court occasionally made awards amongst themselves in recognition of outstanding achievements. During my time at the District Court I managed to accumulate three such awards and as today is my last day as a Judge I thought it was about time I brought my awards out of the cupboard and put them on public display.
 
So I would ask my associate to produce these awards. The first one - and you can see it's a very handsome trophy that went with the award, but this was the Chief Judge's Special Award and the engraved plaque on it states, "P.D. Blaxell, still leading the field." I can't remember in what respect I was leading the field but I was very grateful to Chief Judge Kevin Hammond for the presentation of that trophy.
 
  MARTIN CJ: I will mark that as exhibit A.
    
  BLAXELL J: The next one perhaps is not so prestigious because it was the H.J. Wisbey Hospital Handpass Award. The previous winner in 1996 was Judge Muller and in 1997 I was the winner. I can't quite recall why I won it but I think it was something to do with a very big, complex file which I had the management of and I was to be the trial Judge but for some reason I had to recuse myself at the last moment. I don't know why. MARTIN CJ: Exhibit B. BLAXELL J: The next award is the most treasured one. Former Chief Justice David Malcolm had a hand in this because it was the Chief Justice's Gender Awareness Award and in 1997 I was presented with that for "impeccable awareness". I have a feeling that Gail Archer SC also had a hand in that because she used to say my directions to the jury were always impeccable. In any event, I was well credentialed in that area and I was ahead of the field, as you would all realise, so much so that a few years later Chief Judge Kennedy, who was very concerned about the recalcitrant attitudes of a particular senior Judge of the District Court, appointed me to mentor him in matters of gender awareness.
 
I did put a big effort in and we did make some progress, but I think former Chief Judge Kennedy would agree that in the end the results were somewhat mixed. I see her nodding her head. There were not many of these awards conferred but I do recall a particular one given to his Honour John Barlow which I am sure still has pride of place on his mantelpiece. It was to mark his transfer from the District Court to the Family Court and he was presented with the Judas Iscariot award in recognition of his loyalty to his colleagues.
 
    While reflecting on these awards that I received so long ago, it occurred to me that it would be most beneficial if this court was to adopt a similar system. Chief Justice, in the coming months I expect to have some spare time and I am quite prepared to volunteer my services in order to implement such a system. I have already given some thought as to who would be worthy recipients of the awards. Starting with your Honour the Chief Justice, it seems to me that you deserve the Regalia Craft Award for the preservation of the longstanding traditions of the judiciary.
 
The Honourable Justice McLure, the President of the Court of Appeal, I think should be awarded the Mahatma Gandhi Award for tolerance and patience with counsel. To the Honourable Justice Heenan, I think he should receive the Sir Isaac Pitman shorthand award for judgment writing; to the Honourable Justice Hall, I think the Gucci Handbags Award for leading the fashion in judicial accoutrements. My final suggestion is Mr Justice Ken Martin. I think he should receive the John Worsfold Award for championing lost causes.
 
The reason for that is that he insists on displaying in his chambers a framed Eagles football jumper in a very prominent position, and he did so throughout the last football season. I think in the end it became quite embarrassing for him. Chief Justice, I know that you also have a framed Eagles football jumper, but you have had the discretion to place yours in a dark corner of an inside corridor which is little used, where it's not really seen by anybody, so you have obviously shown a lot more sense than your namesake.
 
When I came to this Bench six years ago there had been few District Court judges who previously had made that transition. It was a fairly rare event and I thought that I should provide at least one of my District Court colleagues with a suitable memento of the occasion. Accordingly, I sent off one of my freshly-printed compliment slips to him, and it was a very handsome compliment slip embossed with the words, "With compliments of the Hon Justice Blaxell" and I endorsed the following note on it: Dear Wis, I am conferring on you the great honour of being the first to receive one of my new compliments slips. Signed, Peter Blaxell.
  I thought he would frame that and put it on his shelf in his chambers; alternatively, put it on his desk, where it would have made a very appropriate conversation piece. However, I received it back very promptly the same day with a very rude note on the back, which I am not going to read out - it would be inappropriate - but it said, "Dear Hon Blaxell," and it went on to suggest other uses the paper in my compliments slips could be put to. It also suggested that there was more need for such use of paper in that way by members of the Supreme Court and it ended up saying because of misuse of Ministry property, I was the subject of a complaint to the Commissioner for Corruption and Crime. I have greatly enjoyed my six years on the Supreme Court Bench.
 
It has been a very pleasant and satisfying experience with a wide variety of work, which at times has had an unexpected quality about it. For five of those six years I was Judge in Charge of the criminal list, and during that time the Court implemented some significant procedural changes. Those changes would not have occurred without the enthusiastic collaboration of the Chief Justice, and the hard work of many others, including Principal Registrar Keith Chapman and his fellow Magistrates, the DPP team in the Stirling Gardens Magistrates Court and, notably, Sandy De Maio and Joanne Andretich, as well as the staff of this court, including Sam Truglio and my associate, David Watson. Furthermore, the changes required the input and cooperation of the Legal Aid agencies as well as the profession generally.
 
Accordingly, there are many people who can collectively claim ownership of the improvements and efficiencies that have been achieved. It has also been very pleasing to see the growth in the system of voluntary case conferencing initiated by my predecessor, Justice Geoffrey Miller. Criminal mediation has significantly reduced the numbers and lengths of criminal trials and the good work of our mediators Ron Cannon, Kevin Hammond and Hal Jackson has been critical to achieving that success. In my opinion, with appropriate legislative changes there is no reason why there cannot be further significant improvements to the process of criminal litigation. The Stirling Gardens Magistrates Court has worked very well, but it is really only a compromise for what could be the best working model. Historically, there were good reasons why indictable charges had to progress from a Magistrates Court to a superior court. However, those reasons no longer apply and the time has surely come when all indictable charges should commence in the jurisdiction where they are ultimately dealt with.
 
  During my time on the bench it has been my privilege to work under five different Chief Judicial Officers. The first of them, Chief Judge Desmond Heenan, is no longer with us. However, three of the other four, Chief Judges Kevin Hammond, Antoinette Kennedy and our present Chief Justice are all here today. Unfortunately, David Malcolm was a last-minute apology. Having been a first-hand witness to the ways in which each of them ran their courts, I can vouch for the fact that the citizens of this state have been very fortunate to have had such people at the upper levels of the judiciary. Despite those Chief Judicial Officers having their differing styles of Court governance, they each succeeded in implementing necessary changes and in guiding bodies of individuals who were not always prone to think as one.
 
    In this regard a Court as an institution has a very unique structure because a Chief Judge or a Chief Justice is merely the first among equals. The members of the Court are independent of each other and they have no say in who their future fellow members will be. Most of them are former barristers and it is no secret that barristers are not always lacking in ego and that they sometimes have personal idiosyncrasies. It is inevitable that any Bench will have a wide variety of personalities and points of view and on some issues it is no easy task to get a consensus. More than one Chief Judge or Chief Justice has been heard to say that the task of getting Judges to agree is very much like herding cats, yet each of the Chief Judicial Officers I served under successfully accomplished that task.
 
The present Chief Justice in particular has had to deal with a number of controversial issues but they were all dealt with fairly and in a way which has ensured that we remain a very happy Court. This is in no small part due to his Honour's outstanding leadership abilities and his implementation of a very open and transparent system of court governance. It is the best system of court governance that I have ever seen and it is the main reason why we have no still currents running deep in this Court. We have also been fortunate to have some particularly good appointments to this Bench in recent times and I predict that this Court will continue to grow from strength to strength over the coming years. That is perhaps especially so now that I am leaving. Before I conclude I need to thank a number of people for the support they have given me. Firstly, I thank all of my colleagues on this Bench for their wise counsel, good advice and camaraderie over the past six years.
 
They will be glad to know that I am retaining their direct phone numbers and I trust that they will not mind the occasional call to take advantage of their better knowledge on some matters. In that regard I expect there will be times when on my boat at Rottnest when I will need good advice on which bottle of wine I should select to drink with my fresh-caught lobster. I may well canvass a number of views on that subject each time.
 
I also thank all of the staff of the Court who work very hard behind the scenes to keep the wheels of justice turning. They are led by Robert Christie, who in my humble opinion, having seen him operate in both the District and Supreme Courts, is undoubtedly the best court administrator in the state. We are also very fortunate to have the state's best listings manager, Sam Truglio.
 
  All of the staff are very obliging and willing to go that extra little distance to get a job done properly. We have a remarkable number of dedicated and diligent people on our staff. I also thank all of my personal staff who have worked for me over the past 20 years. I have had three long-term associates during that period, namely, Don Reece, Geoffrey Escott and David Watson. They and my other associates, and particularly those who have worked under me for shorter periods in recent months, have all rendered excellent service. I also thank David Watson for his very proactive assistance in my management of the criminal list. I have been fortunate to have had some excellent orderlies, and I particularly thank John Foster for his services. Furthermore, I have been lucky to have some very obliging secretaries, including June Page, who has been my mainstay in this regard over the past year. Turning now to the members of my family,
 
I thank my parents for a loving upbringing and for the opportunities that they provided to me when I was young. Regrettably, my mother died 12 years ago, but my father is now 92 years of age and he is still going strong. However, the person to whom I owe the most is my wife. We decided to marry two weeks and two days after we first met and I consider that I was a very lucky man on the day I met Stella. When the invitations went out, most of my friends and relatives had not even met her. Considering those circumstances, our marriage has been a remarkably successful partnership and I have no doubt it will endure to the end. Throughout our nearly 40 years together we have been willing to make sacrifices for each other, but I freely acknowledge that most of those sacrifices have been made by her. In that regard it was very soon after we married that we produced three marvellous sons all in the space of 30 months, so we had three babies in nappies. Someone had to stay home to change the nappies and we faced a difficult decision because Stella was at the start of her career as a medical practitioner and I was a newly-fledged barrister. In the end it was Stella who stayed home while I became the sole breadwinner. I cannot now recall how it was that we reached that decision but I am absolutely sure that at the time I had at the forefront of my mind the need for gender equity and equal opportunity. But no matter how the decision was made, I am hugely indebted to Stella for the sacrifices that she made to her career in order that I could pursue my own.
 
    I am, of course, very proud of my three sons, their partners, as well as my four grandchildren. One of the great benefits of my retirement is that I will now be able to spend much more time with my grandchildren, including a fifth one who is soon to arrive. So, Hamish, you may find from time to time that I am waiting at the school gate at the end of the day. I am also blessed with the make-up of my extended family and I thank all of them for their support over the years. Finally, I thank each and every one of you who have come along today to honour me with your presence. After we have adjourned I hope that you will all be able to spare some time and come to the foyer to have a drink or two with me. Thank you. 
 
MARTIN CJ: Thank you, Justice Blaxell. The Court will now adjourn. 
 
AT 5.19 PM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED ACCORDINGLY
 
New Chief Judge Julie Ann Wager appointed to head WA’s District Court
 

The District Court of Western Australia was established on 1 April 1970.  While the prevailing judicial system of the Supreme Court, the Local Courts and Courts of Petty Sessions had been adequate, the rapid expansion of Western Australia’s population required the establishment of an intermediate system of courts. Another Court was also needed to relieve pressure and avoid a backlog of cases in the other courts, especially the Supreme Court.

The District Court of Western Australia was therefore established with both criminal and civil jurisdiction, to provide a flexible framework to accommodate the needs of Western Australia in the administration of justice.

In 1971 civil trials were temporarily held in the Public Trust building behind St George’s Cathedral. Criminal trials continued to be heard in the Supreme Court. From April 1982 the District Court was relocated to the Central Law Courts at 30 St George’s Terrace allowing both criminal and civil cases to be heard in the one building.

In 1999, due to continued growth in the Court’s caseload, the District Court took possession of four additional criminal courtrooms created in the May Holman Centre adjacent to the Central Law Courts.  The District Court was based in Central Law Courts and the May Holman Centre until June 2008 when it relocated to its current, purpose-built court house at 500 Hay Street, Perth.

https://www.wa.gov.au/government/announcements/50-years-of-justice-the-district-court-of-western-australia

Doing Right to All - 50 years of justice at the District Court of Western Australia

New Chief Judge appointed to head WA’s District Court

 
 
 
Hon John Quigley LLB JP MLA

Attorney General; Minister for Electoral Affairs

 
\Friday, 28 February 2020
 
 
 
  • Her Honour Judge Julie Wager appointed new Chief Judge of WA District Court
  • Judge Wager will replace Chief Judge Kevin Sleight who retires on May 1
  • District Court Judge Hylton Quail appointed new President of the Children's Court of Western Australia, replacing Judge Wager 

Attorney General John Quigley is pleased to announce the appointment of Her Honour Judge Julie Wager as the new Chief Judge of the District Court of Western Australia.

 

Her Honour - a past president of the Criminal Lawyers Association of WA - replaces Chief Judge Kevin Sleight who retires on May 1. Mr Quigley paid tribute to Chief Judge Sleight's longstanding and exemplary service to the Court.

 

Mr Quigley said Judge Wager's extensive experience as a judicial officer, coupled with her renowned compassion and empathy, made her an excellent choice for the role.

Judge Wager was a criminal lawyer for 14 years before being appointed as the inaugural Magistrate of the WA Drug Court in 2000. She was appointed to the District Court in 2005 and has been President of the Children's Court since March 2018.

Her Honour becomes the second woman to be appointed Chief Judge of the WA District Court and is one of 12 female District Court judges in the State.

Mr Quigley said Judge Wager is highly respected within Western Australia's legal circles and has a reputation for fairness.

He is also pleased to announce the appointment of District Court Judge, His Honour Hylton Quail, as the new President of the Children's Court of Western Australia.

Comments attributed to Attorney General John Quigley:

"I am delighted to announce the appointment of Judge Wager to the role of WA's Chief Judge of the District Court. Her Honour was a formidable advocate at law and has been an outstanding Magistrate, Judge and President of the Children's Court.

"Judge Wager is a respected member of the WA legal profession and brings to her new role 15 years' experience on the bench, coupled with a wealth of knowledge, empathy and compassion from her years as a criminal lawyer.

"Judge Wager's outstanding legal skills are complemented by her empathy and compassion.

"I would like to extend my appreciation to retiring Chief Judge Kevin Sleight and to acknowledge his significant contribution to the administration of justice in WA since his appointment to the bench in 2005.

"His Honour oversaw the updating of a number of practice directions for the Court and held a number of educative roles, particularly in the area of making proceedings less challenging for child witnesses. I thank His Honour, on behalf of the WA Government.

 

"Judge Quail brings nearly 30 years of experience to the Children's Court and a demonstrated commitment to the administration of criminal law in Western Australia.

"His Honour has presided over the Children's Court in the past as the Acting President when the President has been on leave and has a good knowledge of the jurisdiction, practices and procedures of the Court. His Honour will take up his new position on March 15, 2020 for a term of two years."

Attorney General's office - 6552 6800

 

50 years of justice at the District Court of Western Australia

 
 
The legal community marked 50 years of the District Court of Western Australia on Saturday night with a gala dinner organised by the Law Society of WA.

 

https://www.wa.gov.au/government/announcements/50-years-of-justice-the-district-court-of-western-australia

 

The legal community has recognised the eminent role of the District Court of Western Australia with a celebration of its 50th anniversary.

A gala dinner hosted by the Law Society of Western Australia to mark the milestone had been postponed for a year because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

District Court Chief Judge Julie Wager spoke on behalf of the Court at the February 27 event, also attended by her immediate predecessor, Judge Kevin Sleight.

Since its founding in 1970 with four judges in response to a growing population, the District Court has played a crucial role in the State's justice system.

Now with 32 judges, the court conducts hundreds of trials each year across the breadth of Western Australia.

"It's occupied that middle range section of the criminal world, shall we say, between the Supreme Court and the Magistrates' Court and that has been growing like nothing else," former Chief Judge Kevin Hammond says in a video commemorating the anniversary.

"It's where the majority of work lies – and the District Court has concentrated on that area," he says.

Another former Chief Judge, Antoinette Kennedy, became the State's first woman judge when she joined the District Court in 1985.

"It was seven years before another woman was appointed, and then more women were appointed, and it simply changes the atmosphere," Her Honour says.

It was during her term as Chief Judge that the District Court building was planned and constructed, opening in 2008.

"The struggle to get the building, then to get it called the District Court was a substantial struggle."

Judges interviewed agreed that one constant in the Court's history has been the quality of the personnel.

"The Court is a very collegiate one and I'm very fortunate that so many very wise and experienced judges have been so willing to assist and listen and share their knowledge," Judge Kate Glancy says.

Her Honour Judge Kennedy says: "It wasn't our job to be popular, it was our job to do justice according to law. And I believe the calibre of people we attracted did that."

Page reviewed 30 March 2021

 

 

https://lawalmanac.justice.wa.gov.au/D/district_court_of_western_australia_print.aspx

 

Judges In The District Court of Western Australia 

 

Associate Contact Details

Chief Judge

Date of appointment

Her Honour Judge Julie Anne Wager

28 January 2005

Appointed Chief Judge

02 May 2020

Judges

Date of appointment

His Honour Judge Andrew Steven Stavrianou

10 April 2006

Her Honour Judge Troy Denise Sweeney SC

03 July 2006

His Honour Judge Michael John Bowden

06 March 2007

His Honour Judge Christopher Peter Stevenson

03 December 2007

His Honour Judge John Gerard Staude

08 March 2010

His Honour Judge Timothy Sharp

02 August 2010

His Honour Judge David Ronald Parry

20 June 2011

His Honour Judge Mark Edward Herron

01 July 2013

Her Honour Judge Vicki Laura Stewart

28 October 2014

His Honour Judge Laurence Mark Levy SC

08 December 2014

Her Honour Judge Linda Petrusa SC

02 June 2015

His Honour Judge Michael John Gething

12 February 2016

His Honour Judge Alan Laurence Troy

23 March 2016

Her Honour Judge Belinda Jane Lonsdale

09 October 2017

Her Honour Judge Fiona Vernon

09 January 2018

His Honour Judge Hylton Colin Quail

09 January 2018

Her Honour Judge Kathleen Helen Glancy

09 January 2018

Her Honour Judge Wendy Gillan

12 February 2018

His Honour Judge John Brian Prior

06 March 2018

Her Honour Judge Amanda Jayne Burrows SC

15 March 2018

His Honour Judge Stephen John Lemonis

01 February 2019

His Honour Judge David William MacLean 

14 January 2020

Her Honour Judge Charlotte Jayne Wallace

14 January 2020

Her Honour Judge Mara Rita Barone SC

06 May 2020

His Honour Judge Martin Michael Flynn

03 August 2020

His Honour Judge Gary William Massey

03 August 2020

Her Honour Judge Karen Ann Shepherd

03 August 2020

His Honour Auxiliary Judge Bruce James Hamilton Goetze

04 November 2020

Her Honour Judge Sarah Elizabeth Russell

01 December 2020

Her Honour Judge Carmel Barbagallo SC

01 February 2021

Her Honour Judge Lisa Rosemary Tovey

09 June 2021

Her Honour Judge Natalie Michelle Whitby

09 June 2021

District Court of Western Australia

Chief Judge

Her Honour Judge Julie Ann Wager

Chief Judge's Executive Assistant 
Telephone: (08) 9425 2360

Manager of Associates and Ushers
Telephone: (08) 9425 2479

Senior Associate
Telephone: (08) 9425 2411
Facsimile: (08) 9425 2164
Email: associate.chief.judge.This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Judges

His Honour Judge Christopher Peter Stevenson
Associate telephone: (08) 9425 2373
Facsimile: (08) 9425 2159
Email: associate.judge.stevenson@justice.wa.gov.au

His Honour Judge Andrew Steven Stavrianou
Associate telephone: (08) 9425 2411
Facsimile: (08) 9425 4405
Email: associate.judge.This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Her Honour Judge Troy Denise Sweeney SC
Associate telephone: (08) 9425 2406
Facsimile: (08) 9425 4405
Email: associate.judge.This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

His Honour Judge Michael John Bowden
Associate telephone: (08) 9425 2403
Facsimile: (08) 9425 4405
Email: associate.judge.bowden@justice.wa.gov.au

His Honour Judge Christopher Peter Stevenson
Associate telephone: (08) 9425 2373
Facsimile: (08) 9425 2159
Email: associate.judge.This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

His Honour Judge John Gerard Staude
Associate telephone: (08) 9425 2407
Facsimile: (08) 9425 4405
Email: associate.judge.staude@justice.wa.gov.au

His Honour Judge Timothy Sharp
Associate telephone: (08) 9425 2893
Facsimile: (08) 9425 2159
Email: associate.judge.sharp@justice.wa.gov.au

His Honour Judge David Ronald Parry
Associate: See State Administrative Tribunal

His Honour Judge Mark Edward Herron
Associate telephone: (08) 9425 4328
Facsimile: (08) 9425 4405
Email: associate.judge.herron@justice.wa.gov.au

Her Honour Judge Vicki Laura Stewart
Associate telephone: (08) 9425 4319
Facsimile: (08) 9425 4405
Email: associate.judge.This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

His Honour Judge Laurence Levy
Associate telephone: (08) 9425 2160
Facsimile: (08) 9425 4405
Email: associate.judge.levy@justice.wa.gov.au

Her Honour Judge Linda Petrusa
Associate telephone: (08) 9425 2366
Facsimile: (08) 9425 4405
Email: associate.judge.This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

His Honour Judge Michael Gething
Associate telephone: (08) 9425 2245
Facsimile: (08) 9425 2159
Email: associate.judge.This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

His Honour Judge Alan Laurence Troy
Associate telephone: (08) 9425 2173
Facsimile: (08) 9425 2159
Email: associate.judge.troy@justice.wa.gov.au

Her Honour Judge Belinda Jane Lonsdale
Associate telephone: (08) 9425 2405
Facsimile: (08) 9425 2164
Email: associate.judge.This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Her Honour Judge Fiona Vernon
Associate telephone: (08) 9426 4377
Facsimile: (08) 9425 4405
Email: associate.judge.Vernon@justice.wa.gov.au  

His Honour Judge Hylton Colin Quail
See Children's Court

Her Honour Judge Kathleen Helen Glancy
Associate: See State Administrative Tribunal

Her Honour Judge Wendy Florence Gillan
Associate telephone: (08) 9426 2158
Facsimile: (08) 9425 2159
Email: associate.judge.gillan@justice.wa.gov.au  

His Honour Judge John Brian Prior
Associate telephone: (08) 9426 2397
Facsimile: (08) 9425 2164
Email: associate.judge.prior@justice.wa.gov.au

Her Honour Judge Amanda Jane Burrows
Associate telephone: (08) 9426 4326
Facsimile: (08) 9425 2159
Email: associate.judge.This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

His Honour Judge Stephen John Lemonis
Associate telephone: (08) 9426 2277
Facsimile: (08) 9425 2159
Email: associate.judge.This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

His Honour Judge David William MacLean
Associate telephone: (08) 9425 4370 
Facsimile: (08) 9425 2159
Email: associate.judge.This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Her Honour Judge Charlotte Jayne Wallace
Associate telephone: (08) 9425 4380
Facsimile: (08) 9425 2159
Email: associate.judge.This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Her Honour Judge Mara Rita Barone SC
Associate telephone: (08) 9425 2411
Facsimile: (08) 9425 4405
Email: associate.judge.barone@justice.wa.gov.au

His Honour Judge Martin Michael Flynn
Associate telephone: (08) 9425 7982
Facsimile: (08) 9425 4405
Email: associate.judge.flynn@justice.wa.gov.au

His Honour Judge Gary William Massey
Associate telephone: (08) 9425 7912
Facsimile: (08) 9425 4405
Email: associate.judge.massey@justice.wa.gov.au

Her Honour Judge Karen Ann Shepherd
Associate telephone: (08) 9425 7980
Facsimile: (08) 9425 2159
Email: associate.judge.This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Her Honour Judge Sarah Russell
Associate telephone: (08) 9425 2408
Facsimile: (08) 9425 2159
Email: associate.judge.This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Her Honour Judge Carmel Barbagallo SC
Associate telephone: (08) 9425 2174
Facsimile: (08) 9425 2164
Email: associate.judge.This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

His Honour Auxiliary Judge Bruce James Hamilton Goetze
Associate telephone: (08) 9425 2292
Facsimile: (08) 9425 2159
Email: associate.judge.goetze@justice.wa.gov.au

Location of the District Court Registrars

Level 1, District Court Building
500 Hay Street, PERTH WA 6000
Telephone: (08) 9425 2793
Facsimile: (08) 9425 2268

Secretary

Telephone: (08) 9425 2793
Facsimile: (08) 9425 2268

Principal Registrar

Shane Melville BA LLB

Registrars

George Augustus Kingsley LLM
Jacqui Kubacz

Deputy Registrars

Simon Peter Harman LLB
Richard Hewitt BCom BJuris LLB

Associates

Telephone: (08) 9425 2350 or (08) 9425 2315
Facsimile: (08) 9425 2268

District Court Registry

Ground Floor, District Court Building
500 Hay Street
PERTH WA 6000
Telephone: (08) 9425 2128
Facsimile: (08) 9425 2268

Executive Manager

Telephone: (08) 9425 2414

Manager Court Services

Telephone: (08) 9425 2151

Manager Criminal

Telephone: (08) 9425 2170

Manager Civil

Telephone: (08) 9425 2875

Enquiries

Telephone: (08) 9425 2128

Civil Enquiries Telephone: (08) 9425 2178

Criminal Enquiries - Non trial matters for Perth Telephone: (08) 9425 2150

Criminal Enquiries - Trial matters for Perth Telephone: (08) 9425 2230

Criminal Enquiries - Circuit matters Telephone: (08) 9425 2539

Office Hours of District Court

Monday to Friday 9.00 am to 4.00 pm

Deputy Registrars and Locations

Albany - Nichola Rennie
Broome - Shirley Wignall 
Bunbury - Richard Stevenson
Busselton - Andrew Cousins
Carnarvon - Kim Ormesher
Derby - Peta Smallshaw
Esperance - Louisa Woods
Geraldton - Steve Ford
Kalgoorlie - Lisa Delaney
Karratha - Vicki Lubrig
Kununurra - Owen Starling
South Hedland - Veronica Fuller

 

https://www.wa.gov.au/government/announcements/50-years-of-justice-the-district-court-of-western-australia

https://www.districtcourt.wa.gov.au/P/past_district_court_judges.aspx

Her Honour Judge Julie Ann Wager

Appointed a District Court Judge 28 January 2005

Appointed the District Court Chief Judge  2nd May 2010

Chief Judge's Executive Assistant 

Telephone: (08) 9425 2360

Past District Court Judges

His Honour Kevin James Hammond
Appointed a District Cort Judge
15 February 1982
Appointed 


Appointed Chief Judge 30 January 1995
Resigned 01 January 2004

Her Honour Antoinette Kennedy AO
Appointed a District Court Judge on 15 March 1985
Appointed Chief Judge 01 January 2004
Retired 01 July 2010
 
His Honour Kevin Frederick Sleight 
Appointed District Court Judge
10 January 2005 
Appointed District Court Chief Judge 2015
Retired 01 May 2020
 
His Honour Peter Dominic Martino
Appointed District Court Judge
9 November 2000
Appointed District Court Chief Judge 01 July 2010
Appointed Supreme Court 20 April 2015
Retired 27 April 2018
 
 
 

Name of Judge

 Date of Appointment

 

His Honour Sydney Howard Good

01 April 1970

Retired 1977

His Honour William Page Pidgeon

01 April 1970

Appointed Supreme Court 16 August 1982

His Honour Desmond Charles Heenan

March 1970

Appointed Supreme Court 30 January 1995

His Honour Robert Edmond Jones

01 April 1970

Appointed Supreme Court 01 October 1973

His Honour Arthur Kay

08 March 1972

Retired May 1978

His Honour Frank Ackland

01 October 1973

Retired 31 May 1986

His Honour Victor James Alexander O'Connor

18 February 1974

Retired 22 December 1987

His Honour Ivan Russell Gunning

11 February 1977

Retired 31 December 1998

His Honour Brian Thomas O'Dea

28 May 1978

Retired 22 February 1996

His Honour Francis Joseph Whelan

16 November 1981

Retired 29 July 1993

His Honour Kevin James Hammond

15 February 1982

Chief Judge 30 January 1995
Resigned 01 January 2004

His Honour George Travers Sadleir

30 August 1982

Retired 30 April 1999

His Honour John Samuel

14 February 1983

Deceased 28 March 1986

His Honour Nigel Henry Clarke

02 April 1984

Retired 31 March 1998

Her Honour Antoinette Kennedy AO

15 March 1985

Chief Judge 01 January 2004
Retired 01 July 2010

His Honour Paul James Healy

18 March 1985

Deceased 22 August 2008

His Honour Henry Hall Jackson

21 April 1986

Appointed President Children's Court October 1989 to 1993
Retired 04 August 2006

His Honour Robert Denis Keall

28 May 1986

Retired 31 May 1994

His Honour Kerry White

05 June 1987

Appointed Supreme Court 17 May 1988

His Honour Robert John Viol

11 January 1988

Retired 05 March 2004

His Honour John Gerard Barlow

08 February 1988

Appointed Family Court 09 February 1998
Retired Family Court 11 February 2005

His Honour Peter John Williams

17 May 1988

Retired 16 February 2007

His Honour David Dennison Charters

11 July 1988

Chairman Worker's Compensation Board
Retired 11 August 2001

His Honour Peter Donald Blaxell

11 February 1991

Appointed Supreme Court 01 February 2005
Retired 25 November 2011

His Honour Lawrence Alton Jackson

13 July 1992

Retired 06 February 2004

His Honour Michael Gerald Muller

28 July 1993

President Children's Court 1994
Retired 23 November 2007

Her Honour Mary Ann Yeats AM

28 July 1993

President Children's Court 1995
Retired 05 August 2011

His Honour Michael Denis Finbar O'Sullivan QC

01 June 1994

Retired 09 April 2009

Her Honour Valerie Jean French

16 November 1994

Retired 23 February 2009

His Honour Roger Anthony Macknay QC

16 November 1994

President Children's Court 1999 - 2001
Retired 23 February 2009

His Honour Allan David Fenbury

 30 January 1995

President Children's Court 1996-1998
Retired 12 February 2016

His Honour Henry John Wisbey

18 March 1996

Retired 31 May 2013

Her Honour Shauna Marie Deane QC

13 February 1998

Retired 14 February 2014

His Honour Peter Maurice Nisbet QC

08 June 1998

Retired 20 June 2008

His Honour William George Groves

11 January 1999

Retired 11 January 2011

Her Honour Catherine Joan O'Brien

03 May 1999

Appointed President Children's Court
1 January 2002 to 12 March 2004
Retired 21 May 2010

His Honour Peter Dominic Martino

9 November 2000

Chief Judge 01 July 2010
Appointed Supreme Court 20 April 2015
Retired 27 April 2018

Her Honour Carolyn Frances Jenkins

03 September 2001

Appointed Supreme Court 03 February 2004

His Honour Denis John Reynolds

09 February 2004

Appointed President Children's Court 15 March 2004
Retired 15 March 2018

His Honour Philip Richard Eaton

09 February 2004

Retired 11 February 2018

Her Honour Jane Crisford SC

09 February 2004

Appointed Family Court 24 October 2006
Retired 6 March 2016

His Honour Robert Anthony Mazza

9 February 2004

Appointed Supreme Court 08 March 2010

His Honour John Anthony Chaney SC

23 April 2004

Appointed Supreme Court & President of SAT 23 February 2009

Her Honour Judith Elsa Eckert

01 January 2005

Retired 03 May 2011

His Honour Kevin Frederick Sleight 

10 January 2005 

Appointed Chief Judge 2015
Retired 01 May 2020

His Honour Philip Pierre McCann

28 January 2005

Retired 31 December 2018

His Honour Judge Bruce James Hamilton Goetze

17 July 2006

Retired 29 October 2020

His Honour Richard Ellis Keen

05 February 2007

Retired 23 March 2016

Her Honour Anette Margret Schoombee

26 November 2007

Retired 31 December 2017

His Honour Stephen George Scott

01 July 2008

Retired 31 December 2019

Her Honour Judge Felicity Clare Earls Davis

16 February 2009

Retired 18 September 2020

His Honour Patrick Brian O'Neal

20 April 2009 

Retired 31 January 2020 

His Honour Judge Simon Elliot Stone

04 May 2009

Retired 27 November 2020

Her Honour Janine Pritchard

18 June 2009

Appointed Supreme Court 15 June 2010

His Honour Anthony Samuel Derrick SC

01 June 2010

Appointed Supreme Court 06 March 2018

His Honour Judge Ronald Edward Birmingham QC

23 June 2010

Retired 05 March 2021

Her Honour Judge Audrey Gillian Braddock SC

11 January 2011

Retired 11 January 2021

His Honour Jeremy Clive Curthoys

08 August 2011

Appointed Supreme Court & President of SAT 10 February 2014

His Honour Robert Enos Cock QC

26 March 2012

Retired 25 March 2018

His Honour Judge Simon Dieter Freitag SC

15 December 2020

Resigned 05 March 2021

 
John Paul II demonstrated his conciliatory position with Freemasonry
Karol Wojtyla Beatified?
... Karol Wojtyla Beatified? never!
The Apostolate of Our Lady of Good Success
1288 Summit Ave Suite 107 - Oconomowoc,
WI. 53066 -
phone 262-567-0920-
www.ourladyofgoodsuccess.com
 
John Paul II demonstrated his conciliatory position with Freemasonry when, in 1983, he announced the “New Code of Canon Law”. The old Code of
Canon 2335 states:
«Those who give their name or associate with a Masonic sect or other associations of the same nature, who conspire against the Church or against legitimate authority, incur ipso facto excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.»
This was amended with the new Canon 1374 that states: «He who gives his name to an association that conspires against the Church, must be punished with a just penalty: the promoter or leader of such an association shall be punished by interdict.» As one can see, the “New Canon” 1374 no longer mentions Freemasonry. One is no longer prohibited to collaborate at Masonic lodges, nor is it necessary to preserve the “ipso facto” excommunication, because today, the Freemasons are seen solely as public sinners. Moreover, John Paul II gave permission to be able to give the sacraments to Masons, without them first doing the abjuration.
For example: the former Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of France, Richard Dupuy, received the religious funeral rites. The former Grand Master of the Grand
 
Orient of France had the religious burial rites in the parish of St. Francis de Sales, in Paris. In Soweto, at the Episcopal Conference of South Africa, in 1996, John Paul II even permitted Bill Clinton to receive Communion! Unfortunately, Bill Clinton comes from the Masonic elitist society “The Order” of Oxford where the Illuminati train members to reach high political positions. These “facts” clearly show that the position of the Church of Rome, against Freemasonry, has changed, and that John Paul II has distanced himself from his predecessors (with the exception of Paul VI). But then, what is the point of condemning abortion, euthanasia, and contraception, if one “dialogues” with the same Freemasonry that is forcing these practices into society around the world? This is a “dialogue” which alludes to a false human dignity and which is based on the breakdown of principles! One is permitted, however, to ask some questions about John Paul II: How can one explain his intellectual formation and his persistent adherence to Masonic ideas? In what manner was the occultist and Masonic thinking drilled into the young Wojtyla at the Rhapsodic Theater of Krakow?
Another indication of John Paul II’s membership to Masonry stems from the fact that he contributed to the imple“Chiesa viva” *** September 2010Vatican, April 18, 1983. John Paul II received, in audience, representatives of the Trilateral Commission, one of the key institutions
of the Order of the Illuminati of Bavaria, for the World Government and the implementation of the Antichrist.
mentation of Freemasonry with his meetings, documents and writings. One of these was his defense of the secular state, so dear to Masonry.
Indeed, while St. Pius X, on February 11, 1906 wrote: «To separate the State from the Church is an absolutely
false thesis, a pernicious error.» John Paul II, on February 11, 2005, said: «The principle of secularism, if properly understood, belongs to the social doctrine of the Church. It highlights the necessity of a proper separa-
tion of powers.»
On April 18, 1983, John Paul II gave an audience to the Trilateral Commission and was photographed surrounded by its members (knowing that this commission was openly preparing for the World Government that would become the kingdom of the Antichrist and Satan!)
Vatican, March 22, 1984. John Paul II receives, in audience, the Top Representatives of the High Jewish Masonry of B’nai B’rith.“Strong with hope.” The altar of Zamosciu, during John Paul II’s visit to Poland June 22, 1999. We dare say that the architectural form
of a pyramid, with the “all-seeing eye” at the summit, is Masonically inspired. The pyramid is indeed the symbol of the Bavarian Illuminati, who are at the top of all the Masonic Lodges of the world which have as their supreme aim of deviating the Catholic Religion to demolish it and make it enter in the Masonic universal religion to implement the Masonic World Government. Their plan was to have their
own Pope in order to make the Revolution in the Catholic Church from the top down.
 
The Trilateral Commission was headed by Zbigniew Brzezinski and David Rockefeller. At the hearing, there was criticism for any slowness with which one favored the move towards the “New World Order.”
 
Many books, that document the institutions that govern the occult world, reported that the Trilateral Commission is a very important institution of the Order of the Illuminati of Bavaria. This Order represents the top of Freemasonry
worldwide.
On March 22, 1984, John Paul II held an audience for a Delegation of B’nai B’rith (the Masonic sect of the Jewish Talmud) which depicts Christ as a devil and works to destroy the Catholic Church and the Christian religion!
It is a known fact that John Paul II and the Masons of High Jewish Masonry of B’nai B’rith had routine and
consistent contact.
This is not surprising when you consider that, before him, Paul VI gained his election as Pope thanks to two members of the Masonry of B’nai B’rith, who were present
 
The pyramid on the back of the note of $ 1, with the “all-seeing eye” of Lucifer, at the summit.
Below: some symbols that represent the “all-seeing eye” of Freemasonry, or rather, the Eye of Lucifer. The pyramid and all the symbolism surrounding the $ 1 bill symbolizes the Order of the Illuminati of Bavaria founded by Adam Weishaupt, showing clearly the pater-
nity of monetary control exercised over the U.S. currency.
 
The levels of the pyramid are 13 (symbol of Lucifer), while the bricks shown in the 13 levels are 72 (number symbolizing the 72 names of
the Kabalistic god, Lucifer). in the Vatican Halls. After hearing of the election of Card. Giusepe Siri to the Papacy, they threatened the persecution of Catholics worldwide.
 
On November 21, 1982, during John Paul II’s trip to Palermo, the “Giornale di Sicilia” reported that «JohnPaul II was welcomed by members of the Masonic Commission of “Piazza del Gesu”, among them was the Mason, Joseph Manfalarinella, the Sovereign Grand Master and Great Commentator. The white papal car was driven by Angelo Siin, of Cosa Nostra.»
 
The book “The Merchants of the Vatican,” at bottom of page 70, in relation to the trip of Pope John Paul II in Sicily, states: «treated as if he were a “brother,” the Masons of Trinacria had welcomed the pontiff with the “triple embrace” of that Masonic organization.»
Certainly, noting the evident principles that have profoundly marked his ministry, from the time he was bishop and archbishop in Krakow, one can say that John Paul II
was a Mason. These principles are religious freedom, ec-“Chiesa viva” *** September 2010umenism and collegiality, which echo those of the Ma-
sonic trilogy propaganda of the French Revolution: “Freedom, Equality, and Brotherhood.” He always hoped that
the Catholic Church would recognize these three principles. After his election to the Papacy, his ideals were realized, point by point, knowing well of the affinity that existed between his ideal and the Masonic motto: “Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité.” His thinking was always imbued with that philosophy. Evidence of this is seen in his “Discussions on Man,” delivered on the speaker’s platform of the UN and UNESCO. For example, he stated:
 
«You, together, are a great power: the power of minds and consciences... Make up your mind to give proof to a
most noble solidarity with humanity, one that is founded on the Dignity of the “human person.” Build peace
starting at the base: the respect for all human rights, those related to both the material and economic nature,
and, as well as those related to the inner and spiritual na ture of man’s existence in this world. May this inspire wisdom.»
On the occasion of the beatification of the Martyrs of Avril, [April] John Paul II, as always, supported and de-
fended the principles of the French Revolution, stating that «this historical movement (the French Revolution)
was inspired by religious sentiments (freedom, equali ty, brotherhood) and from a desire for necessary reforms ...»
 
 
We can’t believe that John Paul II did not know that «the French Revolution claimed more than 300,000 victims, 3,000 of which were noble,» and that its «Terror was preceded by a fever of Satanism: alchemists everywhere, magnetizing, necromancers. The nobles had become corrupt initiating the rituals which evoked Satan, and villages, as well as cities were abandoned to all the practices of the occult sciences. There is no doubt there was a relationship between cause and effect of this invasion of Satanism and the nameless horrors that
were the culmination. The revolutionary character of cruelty proved that one can’t give any other explanation than the action of Satan, the murderer, as Our Lord called him.»
 
Moreover, having seen him preaching constantly on “human rights,” some have noted his significant reticence on
the inescapable “rights of God” - which should have been preached, concurrently and with greater force!
At this point, it should be noted that the satanic Order of the Illuminati of Bavaria was the workshop and the dri-
ving force of the French Revolution.
The three words:
 
“Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood,”
 
in their meaning of Freedom of Conscience, Collegiality and Ecumenism,
are nothing more than the three key ideas and the three levels of the “Masonic priesthood,” established as the second set of 11 degrees of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry.
But it was precisely these Masonic principles that allowed John Paul II to open the doors to the “godless” and to the
declared enemies of our Lord, treating them all with the utmost respect.
We wonder if John Paul II knew that the Masonic slogan “liberty, equality, fraternity” was the trio with which the Satanic Order of the Illuminati had planned to disrupt the world.
Didn’t the Pope know the spectacle the French Revolution showed tothe world: «One Hundred and thirty eight bishops and archbishops, sixty-four thousand Priests and Vicars, were sentenced to abandon their homes, their parishes, or take the oath of perjury and apostasy. All the clergy, all religious of both sexes, the private wealth of the Church evicted from their properties. The temples of the Lord were turned into large prisons for His ministers. Three hundred of His priests were massacred in one day, in one city. All other pastors, faithful to their God, were killed or driven away from their homeland, forced to wander through many dangers, some taking refuge in for-
eign nations?»
 
“Chiesa viva” *** September 2010
 
It is enough to recall some incidents, the inter-religious meeting in Assisi in 1986. John Paul II did not allow the statue of Our Lady of Fatima to enter the Basilica of Assisi, and he did this to avoid “offending” the guests of that first inter-religious Conference, but then he agreed to put a statue of Buddha on the altar above the Tabernacle where the Blessed Sacrament was present!
This was an opening, in Assisi, which he then extended to all these false founders of human religions: Jews (de-
clared enemies of our Lord), Muslims (first anti-Trinitari an heresy), Buddhists, Bahai, Hindus, Zoroasti, Sikhs, Shiva, the Animists, Indians, Voodoo, etc... It was, there- fore, an opening that was in full accordance with the Masonic principles to unite all religions under the Masonic direction, subsequently putting our Holy Religion on the same level with all other false religions.
 
For these incorrect principles, John Paul II even argued that the Holy Spirit is “somehow” present in each of
those false religions, forgetting that the Holy Spirit is one of the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity. For this, he con-
fused, deliberately (?), the “natural religious feeling” of man with the divine presence of the Holy Spirit in the
souls of the baptized found in the Christian religion.
 
Again, among his incorrect principles, John Paul IImaintained that there are “three monotheistic religions,” although this assumption is a hoax (See Don Villa: “Christians, Muslims and Jews have the same God? No!” Editrice Civiltà , Brescia - Via G. Galilei, 121).
 
These principles and ideals promoted by John Paul II, were acknowledged by the Freemasons.
 
In 1986, the Masonic Grand Lodge of France, enthusiastically hailed John Paul II, at the “prayer meeting in Assisi” with this textual statement: «The Masons of the French National Grand Lodge wholeheartedly wishes to join the ecumenical prayer on October 27th in Assisi that will unite all the leaders of all religions in favor of world peace.»
The Grand Master of the Masonic Grand Orient of Italy awarded the national “Masonic Prize,” the “Galileo Galilei,” to John Paul II, (who obviously rejected it, but this doesn’t alter the significant value of the event), claiming that the ideals promoted by that Pope and those of Freemasonry were the same.
 
At the death of the Lebanese President, John Paul II said:
«Jerusalem, City of God, could also become the city of men.» The term “City of Man” is almost mandatory for
the Illuminati, when they speak of “world government” and “global dictatorship.”
Jan van Helsing’s book: “The Secret Oganizations and Their Power in the Twentieth Century,” published in
1995, in Germany, on page 70 states:
«Pope John Paul II, otherwise known as Karol Wojtyla Katz, is an “Illuminati,” a member of the Rotary Clan.
He, during World War II, collaborated with Germany, with I.G. Farben, in the production of gas for the gas cham-
bers. At the end of the war, for fear of being called to account for his cooperation in war crimes in Poland, he took
refuge under the protection of the Catholic Church. He remained there, and later had an evolution comparable to
that of Eisenhower.
Later, he became the head of the “Opus Dei Secret Lodge”, and he was Governor of the Rochefeller Clan.
John Paul II, of Jewish blood, is pseudo-ruler of the “New World Church ...”
His mission was to:
Assisi, October 1986. John Paul II with all the representatives of false religions, at an inter-religious prayer meeting.
It was on this occasion that the Pope would not allow the statue of Our Lady of Fatima to entered the Basilica of Assisi, so as not “to offend” the guests, but instead agree to put a statue of Buddha on the altar, above the tabernacle in which the Blessed Sacrament was present!
 
“Chiesa viva” *** September 2010
– Subjugate the Catholic Church to the Jewish religion;
– Recognize the “secular guilt” of Catholicism toward the Jewish people;
– Recognize the participation of the Christian Religion to the Holocaust;
– Weaken the Orthodox Church by proposing “the union of Christian beliefs” to the Orthodox.»
Pierre Mariel, in his book: “The Occult Power That Dominates the World,” on page 7, writes that the Rotary
Club was founded on February 23, 1905, in Chicago, by a high-ranking Mason, the Attorney Paul Harris and also
three other Masons like him. It is the best known and oldest of the clubs that serve as a provision for the initiated.
Omero Ranelletti, in the “Rotary and the Catholic Church,” reports that in 1981 John Paul II received the insignia of “Paul Harris Fellow” from the hands of the International President of the Rotary Club and is now among the Italian Rotarians that also include 5 cardinals, 10 archbishops, 19 bishops and many prelates.
On November 4, 1986, at the ceremony to celebrate the 40th anniversary of UNESCO, there was a giant photo of
Pope John Paul II, situated in a place of honor, next to the author of “Integral Humanism,” Jacques Maritain
and the Socialist Mason and President of Senegal, Leopold Sedar Senghor.
 
It is worth remembering that in the UNESCO booklet, on it’s aims and philosophy, it is written: «UNESCO will
have to eliminate any beliefs exclusively or primarily based on the hereafter, and must be founded on “a glob-
al humanism” that must be scientific. To this end it is es- sential for UNESCO to adopt an evolutionary ap-
proach.»
In Henryk Pajak’s book, “Nowotwory Watykanu,” in the chapter: “You’ve Elected Me,” the author writes that
in the last days of 2002 and early 2003, Canadian TV broadcasted a documentary series on Pope John Paul II.
On one tape, there were two sequences, which detailed the bewildering papal election of Cardinal Karol Wojtyla.
In the first sequence, the camera cuts to General Woichiech Jaruzelski who said in Polish: «Brezhnev
told me: “That’s your Brzezinski!.. It was your Brzenzinski who chose Wojtyla as Pope!”»
Then, in the second sequence, Zbigniew Brzezinski appears on the screen, and speaks of the Pope as a world po-
litical authority. Then, suddenly, he adds: «The Pope told me: “You’ve elected (chosen) me, then you must come
to see me.”» Now if this statement is true, it does not need any further comments!
 
Again, it should be noted that Zbigniew Brzezinski, of Polish origin, was the theoretician and architect of the Tri-
lateral Commission, whose members went en masse into the Carter administration. Brzezinski was the “guru”
and the educator of Carter and whose authority preserved the Foreign Affairs and National Security.
Brzezinski was also a member of the CFR, the Bilderberg Group, the Atlantic Institute, the Aspen Institute,
Zbigniew Brzezinski, an ideologue of the Trilateral Commission and belonged to different global Institutions. According to statements made by W. Jaruzelski and by the same Brzezinski, he would be the man who chose Karol Wojtyla’s as the new Pope. the IISS of London, etc ... and, for these prestigious positions, he was one of the leading men to develop the plan of the “World Government” of the Illuminati of Bavaria.
 
In the book by David A. Yallop, “Habemus Papam,” on the election of John Paul II, on page. 36, we read: «... Oc-
tober 15, 1978, a long and very bitter struggle began between the supporters of Benelli and the faction of Siri.
At the end of the first day, after four consultations, no agreement had been reached. The next day ... Giovanni
Benelli ... had just nine votes from the majority but did not get any more. At lunch on the second day, thanks to strong
pressure by Franz König and John Krol, Karol Wojtyla was presented as a compromise candidate. At the eighth
vote, the Church elected the first non-Italian Pope after  450 years.»
 
It is important to remember that Karol Wojtyla, when he visited Italy, usually stopped in Vienna at Card. Franz
König’s. Card. König, Archbishop of Vienna, was a Mason and “had two civil cases in which his member-
ship in Freemasonry was acknowledged.” The official historian of Freemasonry, Prof. Aldo Mola indicated that
König belonged to Freemasonry, based on information obtained at the highest level.
 
JOHN PAUL II (ANTI) “COMMUNIST”?
 
After 1945, while persecution raged in Poland, Karol Wojtyla was among the Jews and Communists of high rank. Why? Perhaps because he was of Jewish descent? (His mother, in fact, was of Jewish origin). Or perhaps, because he was a priest that was considered Progressive, close to the Znak and Pax
movements, crypto-communists, and disciple of the existentialists, Max Scheler and Hussert, admirer of the pantheistic Mason and apostate Teilhard de Chardin and anthropologist Rudolf Steiner?
 
The writer David A. Yallop, in his book: “Habemus Papam”, in his first chapter, describes in great detail the omissions and silences of Karol Wojtyla against Communism.
 
Yallop writes: «In 1941, Yad-wiga Lewaj, the woman who for nearly two years gave French lessons to Karol Wojtyla, became his trusted friend. Aware of his need to find a job, she put in a good word for him with Henryk Kulakowski, a member of the cultural circle that she frequented. In addition to his love for the arts, he was President of the Polish division of the Solvay Empire and could give a job to Wojtyla … Paul VI with Card. Wojtyla, in 1974.
 
Paul VI, in 1954, was driven from Rome by Pius XII because of the secretly dealings with the secret services of the USSR unbeknownst to the Pope. Paul VI became the pope who opened to the Communist world, starting with what became known as the Ostpolitik of the Vatican.
Working at Solvay involved a number of advantages. In some ways, the factory was like a village unto itself, with residential buildings, with an ever-present medical doctor, a canteen, a shop and a gym. In addition to the pay and fringe benefit of good vodka, employees were always assured that they would survive the war unscathed.»
«It was during these war years at Solvay, that the idea of a vocation manifested itself for the first time, in Karol Wojtyla.
Eventually, the Archbishop of Krakow, Archbishop Sapieha created a secret seminary and moved Wojtyla and many other young people to safety at his residence.»
On November 1, 1946, Arch- bishop Sapieha ordained Wojtyla to the Priesthood. In 1951, Archbishop Sapieha died, and Archbishop Eugeniusz Baziaktook his place and looked after Wojtyla.
«At that time, the repression of the Catholic Church by the Communists was very strict everywhere. The Communists
tried to introduce into many diocese vicars, who in reality were members of the secret police. Any bishop who did
not obtain their consent was forcibly removed or arrested and jailed.
“Chiesa viva” *** September 2010munist government of Poland. The confidentiality of the confessional was violated regularly, with a shocking betrayal of trust.
The informant who was most appreciated by the secret police was Father Wladyslaw Kulcycki ... The Polish secret
police discovered that he was involved in a passionate love affair and blackmailed him - forcing him to become a
spy. He was one of several priests who not only regularly drew up reports on Karol Wojtyla, but also on many
other members of the clergy.»
Archbishop of Krakow, Card. Adam Stefan Sapieha, consecrated priest Karol Wojtyla. Indeed, Wojtyla was a very progressive Prelate and favorable to the coexistence with communism.
Why did Cardinal Sapieha send Wojtyla to France to spend time as a “worker priest?”
The young Karol interrupted his holidays on the lakes, where he enjoyed fishing in a canoe with students, to receive the appointment of auxiliary bishop from Archbishop Baziak, in 1958.
In November 1952, Archbishop Baziak was arrested with his Auxiliary Bishop Stanislaw. This arrest was an ac-
tion that deeply shook the Catholic community of Krakow. Karol Wojtyla made no statement, either privately or in public. Two days after the arrests, he went on a skiing vacation in the mountains.»
Two weeks later, Archbishop Wyszynski was made Cardinal. After denouncing the arrest of Archbishop Baziak
from the pulpit, the archbishop was refused an exit visa, preventing him to go abroad.
«Wojtyla never became involved at all in the struggle for survival and for fundamental freedoms of the Church. The arrests and detentions did not incite a protest in him.»
«In the ‘50s, in the face of Communism, Karol Wojtyla, was again withdrawn. He remained silent even when his
professor and longtime friend, Father Kurowski, was arrested. In his writings and his sermons, Karol Wojtyla  never openly attacked Communism; he did not think he had to.»
«At the age of 38 years (1958) Wojtyla was nominated auxiliary bishop. (But this provoked) attack within the Polish Catholic hierarchy can be seen in the reports of Sluze Bezpieczenstwa-SB - the secret police. The regime
was kept well informed. There were more than 1,000 priests who served as spies and informers for the Com-
“Chiesa viva” *** September 2010
«Archbishop Baziak died on June 15, 1962, but his suc- cessor was not announced until January 9, 1964. This de-
lay was due to the intransigence of two individuals: the Primate of Poland, Cardinal Wyszynski, and Number
two in the Communist regime, Zenon Kliszko, President of the Polish Parliament and the main ideologue of the
Communist Party. Card. Wyszynski did not want to further promote Wojtyla, since he viewed him as little
more than an overly ambitious man who was very busy establishing relationships and informal contacts. In particular, the Primate was worried about the overbearing attitude that Wojtyla, as auxiliary bishop, had toward other members of the Archdiocese of Krakow. Wyszynski and his opponent Kliszko, however, agreed on one aspect of Wojtyla’s character and personality: politically, he did not exist.»
Now, as the election of a Bishop in Poland must have the approval of Zenon Kliszko, the Primate was to submit to
Rome a series of names for approval of the Pope, and later these names were then submitted to the Polish Communist
government.
Card. Wyszynski delivered the first list of names that had to be passed by Rome, then, passed by, Kliszko. After two
months, the three names were rejected. A second attempt had the same result.
 
Then, Zenon Kliszko had a meeting with the representative of a small Catholic party of opposition, Prof. Stanislaw Stomma, to whom he asked who, in his opinion, would be the best candidate for Bishop of Krakow. Stomma replied: “Wojtyla is the best, indeed the only choice.” And Kliszko, beaming, replied: “So far I have vetoed seven names. I’m waiting for Wojtyla and will continue to veto until I will have him.” «Why Wojtyla? Kliszko judged him a man willing to compromise. It was largely based on the series of reviews - information received from the best spy of the regime, worming into the beating heart of the Archdiocese of Cracow.»
It was early 1964 and it was the pontificate of Pope Paul VI. «Kliszko’s channel of dialogue worked wonderfully: he received an additional list of candidates that included the name of Wojtyla. On March 8, 1964, Karol Wojtyla was installed in the Archdiocese of Cracow.»
In May 1967, Paul VI announced the Consistory and Karol Wojtyla was among the names chosen. The news was greeted with surprise in Poland. It was the first time that Poland had two Cardinals. Why?
The two radically anti-communist Cardinals of Eastern Europe, Mindszenti and Sljpij, were punished by Paul VI for not wanting to open the door to Communism, but was it possible to treat Card. Wyszynski in the same way, when he was so loved by all Polish people? Wasn’t it better to create another Cardinal a bit more sensitive to his Ostpolitik, and gradually isolate the other irreducible anti Communist? Two months later, Card. Casaroli delivered another very positive report on Wojtyla to Paul VI. Paul VI received Wojtyla in private audience. Later, from 1973 to 1975, Pope Paul VI received Wojtyla 11 times in private audience. This had never happened to any foreign Cardinal!
«Card. Wojtyla was in the good graces of the Communists, in fact, very much so, due to the following topics: – He was advanced in the church hierarchy with no anti Communist history;
– Wojtyla was a character who so far had never engaged in any openly hostile activity against the State;
– Wojtyla had a cautious attitude toward anything heroic;
– Previously, he highly praised the virtues of peaceful coexistence with Communism, sympathizing with the efforts of Paul VI on Ostpolitik, that is, good relations with the Communist bloc.
Then, the Communists favored Wojtyla and recommended that he receive all necessary support and was treated with extreme kindness.» Whilst Card. Wyszynski couldn’t leave his diocese, as he could not get authorization from the Polish Communist government, Card. Wojtyla was free to travel to any country without any difficulty.
 
A beaming Brzezinski, accompanied by the Canadian Senator, Stanislaw Haidasz, leaves the diplomatic reception at the Vatican with the new Pope John Paul II.
David A. Yallop in his book “Habemus Papam” devotes in the appendix, a chapter to “Polish Revolution” of 1980-81 and shows how, in this tragic moment for Poland,
 
When Wojtyla would become Pope with the name John Paul II, what would become of the Vatican Ostpolitik policy?
In one of his first speeches, John Paul II said: «I accept with gratitude the special congratulations and best wishes, full of warmth and kindness, sent to me by the highest authorities of the People’s Republic of Poland. On this occasion of selecting a son of Poland to the throne of St. Peter, I identify with all my heart with my beloved Poland, the homeland of all Poles. I sincerely hope that Poland will continue to grow spiritually and materially, in peace, justice and respect for mankind.»
 
Ostpolitik, therefore, would continue at a good pace!
 
Chiesaviva
MENSILE DI FORMAZIONE E CULTURA DIRETTORE responsabile: sac. dott. Luigi Villa Direzione - Redazione - Amministrazione:
Operaie di Maria Immacolata e Editrice Civiltà Via G. Galilei, 121 25123 Brescia - Tel. e fax (030) 3700003 www.chiesaviva.com
Autor. Trib. Brescia n. 58/1990 - 16-11-1990 Fotocomposizione in proprio - Stampa: Com & Print (BS) contiene I. R.
www.chiesaviva.com e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
«TRUTH WILL MAKE YOU FREE» (Jo. 8, 32)
YEAR XL - N° 430 SEPTEMBER 2010
Poste Italiane S.p.a. - Spedizione in Abbonamento Postale - D.L. 353/2003 (conv. L. 27/02/2004 n° 46) art. 1, comma 2, DCB Brescia. Abbonamento annuo:
ordinario Euro 40, sostenitore Euro 65 una copia Euro 3,5, arretrata Euro 4 (inviare francobolli). Per l’estero Euro 65 + sovrattassa postale Le richieste devono essere inviate a: Operaie di Maria Immacolata e Editrice Civiltà
25123 Brescia, Via G. Galilei, 121 - C.C.P. n. 11193257
I manoscritti, anche se non pubblicati, non vengono restituiti Ogni Autore scrive sotto la sua personale responsabilità
Karol Wojtyla Beatified? ...
never! The Apostolate of Our Lady of Good Success 1288 Summit Ave Suite 107 - Oconomowoc, WI. 53066 - phone 262-567-0920- www.ourladyofgoodsuccess.comIntroduction
Fr. Luigi Villa Ph. T
Who is Karol Wojtyla, or Pope John Paul II? I believe one could say he was the ultimate “headliner” of the century, breaking all records of popularity.
 
It was this trait that was certainly the most evident during his papacy. With a huge crowd at every step, he was showered with hosannas and hallelujahs.
These exaggerations seem to me to be a misuse of adoration, as if he were a superstar, supergod, Ayatollah, etc. ...
Thus, he couldn’t do anything but evoke wonder as a Pope, in whatever situation he was in, be it as he spoke or observed, laid his hand on someone, greeted the people as a leader, wore his cassock, skied skill-crowds from every continent, and exchanging the usual religious solitude of old with his personal participation in the everyday life of man.
Of course, this is only one aspect of his papacy. However, as written by Gianni Baget Bozzo, «This mass spectacle does
not benefit anyone or anything. The constant travels, the multiplicity of speeches, seem to cover a substantial
stagnation, and the Pope is increasingly seen as the author of a gradual restoration with a human face.»
John Paul II, newly elected Pope.
 
So you might say he was a “seducer,” but certainly not in the same meaning as was Christ!
Many only praised Wojtyla.
 
However many others disfully down mountains, indeed, one could even say on slippery slopes; wearing his mountaineering hat while climbing mountains and singing profane songs. He was a complex and poetic Pope, said to have had a melodramatic style and theatrical tendencies. However, he was always swimming against the current with his unrelenting aversion to conform to the traditionally accepted behavior of a man of the cloth. It was with this behavior that he destroyed the magnificence of Papal general audiences, withhis singing and dancing, even in public,  mingling with tanced themselves from his actions, that were veiled in shadows, so as to leave one perplexed, such as his inabili ty to distinguish between what is a Dogma of Faith and what is, instead, a historical contingency. He is a Pope whose beatification was challenged; a Pope who, according to Hans Küng, is the most contradictory of the twentieth century, a Pope whose inter-faith “Dialogue” permit ted him to enter a mosque and persuaded him to open the door to other religions, a Pope who brought together Jews and Catholics and even went to witness the prayer of for- “Chiesa viva” *** September 2010giveness at the “Wailing Wall,”
etc. ...
Because of this, many saw him as a “reformer,” a “restorer,” not seeing that, instead, Wojtyla, little by little, was betraying the Catholic tradition, following the advice of heathen collaborators trade-marked as modernists and progressives.
And here he excommunicated the Traditional Archbishop Lefebvre, heedless of what Saint Paul said: «If even an Angel impose another Gospel other than that which He preached, it should not be obeyed.» However, why weren’t the more shameless and unscrupulous ecclesiastical rebels against Christ who wrote and approved heretical Catechisms ever
punished or excommunicated?
Why did he leave the Chairs of Catholic universities and seminaries, to theologians who denied the Divinity of Christ,
who muddled Holy Scripture, who denied the virginity of The Blessed Virgin Mary and who taught many other heresies?
Why did he sign Concordats that no longer protect the Church, the Catholic religion, Christian values? - Concordats
that put all religions on an equal footing so as to allow countries to be called “atheist” states?
And what of his “heresy of Assisi,” that “community prayer,” represented by all false religions, thus removing the Primacy of the Catholic Church, the Apostolic, Roman, Mother and Teacher of all souls and endangering the missionaries in their evangelization of the people, who today cannot, for all intents and purposes, defend the Catholic religion because it was put on the same level with the other religions that were recog nized as having the same values
of faith?
severe with them, or did not even converse with them? Maybe Jesus did not say «Whoever is not with
Me is against Me?»
 
John Paul II at the “Wailing Wall,” placing a sheet of paper with a prayer of forgiveness for past wrongs of
the Church against the Jews in a crack in the Wall.
 
At the meeting of inter-religious prayer in Assisi in 1986, John Paul II prevented the statue of Our Lady of Fatima to
enter the Basilica so as not to “offend” other religions, and allowed a statue of Buddha to be placed on the tabernacle
containing Our Lord Jesus Christ.
And was it not perhaps also a grievous concern that he visited the “Synagogue” and the “Lutheran church?” Are not the Jews still determined to NOT recognize Jesus Christ as God and Messiah? Maybe they are no longer persecuting the Church of Christ? Perhaps Jesus was not always “Chiesa viva” *** September 2010
...
His papacy was long and so contradictory that, knowing this, we gave our attention to a diverse number of “cases”
that exposes, in all truth, the other Wojtyla.
 
There was also serious error in giving permission to the various Bishops to administer Communion in the hand, thus allowing a serious desecration of the Holy Eucharist, and also stripping away the due respect given to the Holy Eucharist, this respect that many popes had tried to increase over all of the past centuries of Church!
After this outline of John Paul II, Pope and man, and on the principles of his pontificate, it must be admitted that he, on his death, has left a legacy to the Roman Catholic Church: a Church certainly much changed from that with which he had been entrusted with on October 16, 1978.
Clearly, then, John Paul II wasopposed to the “past” Tradition of the Church, and the work done by his predecessors.
In other words, he worked in reverse to turn the permanence of the papal throne into a mobile home, travelling from one end of the world to other. It becomes necessary to ask oneself, therefore, whether it is possible to imagine a “different” Wojtyla, that is one who was not constantly center stage in the media,
hailed by crowds from America, Africa, Asia, old Europe and from his home country, Poland
itself. From any place on earth, all were able to see him, up close, through the powerful zoom of satellite TV, the gestures of his hands, the hardness in his eyes, his tense face, his rare and elusive smile, the tremor of Parkinson’s disease, the patient and his convalescence at the window of the hospital, the grand gestures, ecumenical, inter-religious, and pacifistic in nature, the “meaculpa” of March 12, 2000, or the visit to the “Wailing Wall,” etc.His Holiness John Paul II
 
– Biography Pre-Pontificate –
 
The little Karol Wojtyla with his mother, Emilia and father, Karol.
THE FAMILY
His father, Karol Wojtyla, the son of Maciej, master tailor, and Anna, was born July 18, 1879 at Lipnik near the
town of Bielsko Biala. A tailor by profession, he became a non-commissioned officer in the Austrian army in 1900,
and then lieutenant in the Polish army until his retirement in 1927.
His mother Emilia Kaczorowska, daughter of Felix who was an artisan and Mary Anne, was born March 26, 1884.
His brother Edmund, born August 27, 1906 in Krakow; was a doctor in a hospital in Bielsko Powszechny.
KAROL JOZEF WOJTYLA
1920 (May 18) Born in Wadowice (Krakow), Poland. (June 20) Baptized by the military chaplain, Fr Franciszek Zak. He lived with his parents in Wadowice, at Rynek 2 (now Via Koscielna 7, ext. 4).
 
1926 (September 15) Attended the elementary school,
and then the prep school “Marcin Wadowita.”
Throughout his studies he achieved top grades.
1929 (April 13) The death of his mother.
1930 (June) Admitted to the State Secondary School,
“Marcin Wadowita.”
1932 (December 5) The death of his brother, Edmund.
1933 (June 14) Finished High school.
1934 (1934-1938) His first theatrical performances in
Wadowice. During school, he was president of the Society of Mary. This same period marks his first pilgrimage to Czestochowa. 1935 (September) Participated in the military training exercises at Hermanice.
 
“Chiesa viva” *** September 2010(December 14) Was accepted into the Society of Mary.
 
1938 (May) Received the Sacrament of Confirmation.
(May 14) Final exam.
(June 22) Applied for admission to the Faculty of Philosophy (Polish course) of the Jagellonian University in Krakow.
(Summer) Moved, with his father, to Kraków (Via Tyniecka 10).
(Academic Year 1938-39) While studying at the University, he joined “Studio 38,” a theater group founded by Tadeusz Kudliñski.
1939 (February 6) Entered the Student Society at the Jag-
ellonian University (Eucharistic and charitable division).
(July) The social formation of the Legion at the Uni-
versity Ozomla at Sadowa Wiszna, for Polish and Ukrainian students.
(September 1) World War II broke out.
(November 2) Enrolled in the second year course for Literature and Philosophy.
1940 (February) Met Jan Tyranowski, a tailor, and a man of deep spirituality, who was educated at the Carmelite School. He introduced Wojtyla to the writ-
ings of John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila. This period marks the beginning of the underground the-
ater directed by Tadeusz Kudliñski.
(November 1) Was employed as a carpenter in the
The young Karol with his friend Hania: a quasi-engagement.
stone quarries in Zakrzówek, near Krakow, thus escaping deportation and forced labor in the German Third Reich.
1941 (February 18) The death of his father.
(August) Welcomed home the family of Mieczyslaw Kotlarczyk, founder of the Theater of the Living Word (Rapsodyczny).
(November 1) First theatrical play of Król Duch (Royal spirits), Juliusz Slowacki.
1941 (February 18) Began working as a carpenter in a quarry, thanks to the solicitude of his trusted friend and French teacher, Jadwiga Lawaj, who, in turn, was a friend of Henryk Kulakowski, President of the Polish division of the Solvay empire.
1942 (Spring) Was transferred from the quarry to the Solvay factory and was provided with, apart from salary, residential housing equipped with a doctor, library, and gym plus the guarantee to ride out the war
unscathed.
 
(October) Began to attend clandestine classes of the Faculty of Theology of the Jagellonian University as a seminarian of the Archdiocese of Krakow.
 
Karol Wojtyla 18 years old.
 
The first performances date from 1934-38. From 1940, Karol was a part of the underground theater of Tadeusz Kudliñski.
 
“Chiesa viva” *** September 2010
 
1943 (March) Played the leading role for the premiere of “Samuel Zborowski” by Juliusz Slowacki. It was his
last appearance on the stage (these “underground”
performances took place in the homes of his group of friends).
5Actress Ginka and Karol as young actors. In Jerusalem, John Paul II
had a poignant meeting with her and with her Jewish friend, Jerzy
Kluger, his former rival in friendship for Ginka Beer.
The young actress, Halina, who recited with the young Karol.
(Academic year 1943-44) Marked the second year of theological studies. Continued his work at Solvay.
1944 (February 29-March 12) Was hit by car, and hospitalized for his injuries.
(August) Archbishop Adam Stefan Sapieha trans-
ferred him, along with other clandestine seminarians
(illegal), to the Palace of the Archbishop. He re-
mained there until the end of the war and continued
with his studies. During this time he discontinued
contact with Solvay.
(November 9) He received the tonsure.
(December 17) Took the first two minor holy orders.
1945 (January 18) The Red Army liberated Krakow from the Nazis.
(Academic Year 1944-1945) Marked his third year of studies in the Theological Faculty of the Jagiellonian University.
(April 9) Was elected vice-president of the student body “Bratnia Pomoc” (Fraternal Aid) of the Jagiellonian University and retained this post until May 1946.
(Academic Year 1945-1946) Fourth year of theological studies.
(December 12) Took the other two minor holy orders.
 
Karol Wojtyla became a priest in 1946.
 
“Chiesa viva” *** September 2010
 
1946 (October 13) Became a subdeacon.
(October 20) Became a deacon.
(November 1) Was ordained a priest. As in previous occasions, he received Holy Orders from the handsn of Archbishop Metropolitan Adam Sapieha in his private chapel.
(November 2) Celebrated the Poor Souls in the crypt of St. Leonard in Wawel.
(November 15) Continued his studies in Rome.
(November 26) He enrolled at the Angelicum.
(November 15-end December) Stayed at the Pallot-
tines in Via Pettinari, Rome.
(Last December) Together with Don Starowieyski,
he stayed at the Pontifical Belgian College in Vian Quirinale 26.
1947 (July 3) Passed the exam to earn him a Diploma in Theology.
(Summer) Again with Fr. Starowieyski, he took a
trip to France, Belgium and Holland. Near Charleroi he carried out pastoral work among the Polish work-
ers.1948 (June 14) Took the admission examination for his Ph.D. Cardinal Sapieha sent him to Rome to continue his studies at the Angelicum. But there was, at that time, as Rector of the university, the great theologian and writer Father Garrigou-Lagrange,who was a giant on Thomism. Wojtyla, not being a  member of that teaching, was following the philosophy that he wanted, that of existentialism, the modern type of Kant. Therefore, his dissertation,
“Faith according to St. John of the Cross,” was criticized and rejected by Lagrange, because it supported the ideas of the Modernists who claimed that Faith is based on personal experience. For this, Wojtyla was not accepted for the doctorate and he had to return to the University of Krakow, where there he was accepted.
1950 He started his publications.
1951 (September 1, up to 1953) Archbishop Baziak put him on leave so that he could prepare himself for the qualifying exam to become a university professor.
Up to this point he had only provided pastoral care for university students (in St. Florian) and for Health employees.
Zakopane, April 1953. Father Karol (center) after skiing with friends. Their passion was skiing at night with full moon.
1953 (From October) Taught “Catholic Social Ethics” for the Theological Faculty at the Jagellonian University.
(December 1) Had his interview for professorship qualification.
(December 3) Conference of professorship qualification, with given approval of the thesis “Evaluation of the possibility to build Christian ethics using, as a foundation, the system created by Max Scheler.”
Father Karol with a group of university students, in 1951.
1954 After the faculty of theology at the Jagellonian University had been abolished, a theological faculty was
organized at the seminary of Krakow, where he continued teaching, also teaching at the Catholic University of Lublin as a lecturer.
Father Karol at Romanko, July 1953, with his boys and girls.
Park Oikow. Father Karol shared his tent and his kayak trips with his students.
 
“Chiesa viva” *** September 2010
 
7On July 4, 1958, Father Karol was appointed Auxiliary Bishop of Krakow by Archbishop Monsignor E. Baziak, his great defender. Karol teacher, vicar and writer.
1956 (From December 1) Became the official substitute professor and employee of the Catholic University of Lublin.
1957 (November 15) The Central Commission of Qualification approved his appointment as a free lecturer.
1958 (July 4) Appointed Auxiliary Bishop of Archbishop of Krakow, Mons. Eugeniusz Baziak.
(September 28) Ordained Bishop in the Cathedral of Wavel.
1960 (January) Karol Wojtyla’s dissertation for his teaching qualification was published by the Society of
Sciences (Towarzyst Wojtyla Naukowe) at the Catholic University of Lublin: “Evaluation of the possibility to build Christian ethics using, as a foundation, the system created by Max Scheler.”
(During the year) First edition of “Love and Responsibility” (ed. by TNKUL).
1962 (April 15) Was co-opted in the Episcopal Commission for Education.
(July 16) After the death of Baziak he was elected Vicar of the Chapter. 8
Msgr. Baziak died, June 15, 1962, after nearly two years of clashes between Card. Wyszynski, and the President of the Polish Parliament, Zenon Kliszko, the main ideologue of the Communist Party. Card. Wyszynski did not want Wojtyla as Archbishop of Krakow.
However, in January 1964, under Pope Paul VI, Wojtyla was elected Archbishop of Krakow. After vetoing seven other names, Zenon Kliszko, had made it clear that he only approved of Wojtyla as Archbishop of Krakow.
“Chiesa viva” *** September 2010The picnics and sporting life of Father Karol (like this) would
continue even as Archbishop and Cardinal of Krakow.
(October 5) Participated in the work of Vatican II, the First Session (October 11 to December 8).
1963 (October 6 to December 4) Participated in the work
of the Second Session of Vatican II.
(December 5-15) Made a pilgrimage to the Holy Land with some bishops of different nationalities that were present at the Council.
(December 30) Was appointed Archbishop of Krakow with the approval of Communist ideologist and President of the Polish Parliament, Zenon Kliszko.
1964 (January 13) Date of the papal seal that appointed him Archbishop of Krakow.
(March 8) Officially established in the Wavel Cathedral.
(September 10) Third Session of Vatican II (14 September-21 November). At the conclusion of this session he made a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, remaining there two weeks.
While Card. Wyszynsky could not get away from his diocese, because the communist government would not grant him permission, Archbishop Wojtyla had full freedom to travel abroad without restriction. This was the common policy of encouraging Wojtyla and destroying the old Cardinal Wyszynski for his anti-communism.
After a hike, Archbishop Wojtyla rests in shorts and a red scarf on his head.
Archbishop Karol, in shorts and T-shirt, during a picnic with women and child.
 
“Chiesa viva” *** September 2010
 
The former Bishop of Krakow, Karol Wojtyla allows himself a moment of relaxation on a canoe along the Skawa River. Since then, he often ignored strict protocol, as well as when he became Pope.
Card.
Wojtyla in shorts and T-shirts, accompanied by a young woman with child and family, near Krakow.
1965 (January 31 to April 6) He participated in the work on the thirteenth draft of “Gaudium et spes” on the Church in the contemporary world (January 31st to February 6th in Ariccia, February 8th to 13th in Rome, and again in Rome from March 29th to April 6th).
(September 14 to December 8) Fourth session and conclusion of the Vatican II Council.
(November 18) Letter of Reconciliation of the Pol-ish Bishops to the German bishops, containing the famous words:“We forgive and ask forgiveness.”
1966 (December 29) The establishment of the Polish Episcopal Commission for the Apostolate of the Laity, of which Archbishop Wojtyla became president.
(During the year) Attended numerous celebrations of the Millennium of Poland.
1967 (April 13 to 20) Attended the first meeting of the Council for the Laity.
(May 29) Paul VI announced the Consistory. Among those elected for cardinal is the name of Karol Wojtyla.
(June 21) He left for the Consistory.
(June 28) Paul VI presented Card. Wojtyla in the Sistine Chapel with the Title of “St. Cesareo in Palatio.”
(September 29 to October 29) First General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops. Cardinal Wojtyla
did not go as a sign of solidarity with the Primate, who was not granted a passport.
(October 29) Solemnly received the frame of the effigy of the Black Madonna of Czestochowa in the Archdiocese of Krakow. The sacred image was not there, but was blocked by the authorities in Czêstochowa.
1968 (February 18) Took authority of the titular Church of St. Cesareo in Palatio, Rome. (September 25) Visited “Ad Limina.”
(December 15) This date concluded the “pilgrimage” of the Virgin Mary to the Archdiocese of
Krakow. Cardinal Wojtyla attended the correspond-ing ceremonies in 120 parishes.
1969 (January 10) He was registered as a resident in the Archbishopric at number 3, Franciszkanska Street.
Until that moment he had continued to live in the old housing at number 22, Kanonicza Street.
(February 28) During a visit to the parish of Corpus
Christi, he met with the Jewish Community and vis-
ited the Synagogue of Kazimierz, in the district of
Krakow.
(March 15) Marked the approval of the Statute of
the Episcopal Conference. Cardinal Wojtyla was Vice President of the Conference.
The Archbishop of Krakow, Karol Wojtyla at a party of young people in costume. From his intense gaze, looking to his left, the photographer does not seem to attract the attention of the Archbishop.
 
The Archbishop of Krakow, Karol Wojtyla at a Christmas party.
“Chiesa viva” *** September 2010(During the year) Made some pastoral visits to var-
ious nations in Europe.
On June 26, 1967. Paul VI makes Archbishop Wojtyla a Cardinal. Poland, for the first time, has two cardinals. Why? The two radically anti-communist cardinals of Eastern Europe, Mindszenty and Sljpij,
were punished for their intransigence. However was it possible to treat Card.
Wyszynski in the same way, when he was so loved by all the people? Was it not better to create another cardinal a bit more sensitive to his Ostpolitik?
(October 12-18) After returning from North America, he participated in the first extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, as a member ofpontifical nomination.
 (December) The Theological Society of Poland (PTT) of Krakow publishes “Person and Action” (Osoba y czyn).
1970 (April 5) Consecration of Auxiliary Bishops Stanis-
law Smolenski and Albin Malysiak.
(May 27-June 2) Pilgrimage to Rome by Polish priests formerly imprisoned at Dachau.
(May 29) He celebrated the Mass in St. Peter with the Polish priests on the 50th anniversary of the
priesthood of Paul VI.
(May 30) He participated for the Mass of Paul VI and in the audience held for the celebration of the 50th anniversary of the priesthood of the Pope.
1971 (January 8) Summoned the Preparatory Commission of the Synod for the Archdiocese of Krakow.
(Spring) Processed and published, in the diocesan bulletin, “Notifications,” the project for the sum-
mons of a Diocesan Synod.
(September 27) Left for the Second General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops (September 30 to No-
vember 6).
(October 5) Was elected to the Council of the General Secretariat for the Synod of Bishops.
Card. Karol Wojtyla after a fishing expedition during a summer trip together with his friends of the Srodowisco group.
(October 17) Participated in the beatification of Father Maximilian Kolbe.
1972 (May 8) Opening of the Synod of the Archdiocese
of Krakow.
(During the year) He published “On the basis of renewal. Study of the implementation of Vatican II,”
edited by PTT.
Between 1973 and 1975, Card. Wojtyla was received 11 times in private audiences by Pope Paul VI, which had never happened before to a foreign Cardinal!
 
“Chiesa viva” *** September 2010
 
1973 (March 2-9) Participated in the Eucharistic Congress in Australia. Also stopped in Manila (Philip-
pines) and New Guinea.
111976 (March 7-13 Preached the exercises at the Vatican, in the presence of Paul VI (these meditations are
then published in the volume “Sign of Contradic- tion”). He was back in Krakow on March 16.
(March 27) Attended a conference at the Gregorian
University in Rome where he gave a lecture on the phenomenology of action.
(April 1) Gave two reports to the Cultural Encounters of the Angelicum in Rome.
(July 23 to September 5) Made a pastoral and academic visit to the United States and Canada.
(September 8) Rome, Genoa: Report to Congress of
Philosophy “Theory-Praxis: a Human and Christian Theme.”
October 1978. Cardinal Wojtyla and Card. Wyszynski (left) just before the conclave to elect a successor to John Paul I.
(May) Took a trip to Belgium.
(June 30) First meeting of Expert Commission of the Diocesan Synod, chaired by Cardinal Wojtyla.
(September 26 to October 5) Visited “Ad Limina.”
(October 5) Audience with Paul VI.
(November) Traveled in France (Paris, Chamonix, Annecy).
1974 (April 17-25) Participated, in Italy, in the Congress held for the VII Centenary of St. Thomas, and there, on April 23, gave a report.
(June 28) Participated, in Rome, in the anniversary celebrations of the coronation of Paul VI and the consecration of Bishop Andrzej Maria Deskur.
(September 27 to October 26) Third General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops. Cardinal Wojtyla was
spokesperson for a doctrinal section.
(November 1-3) Visited San Giovanni Rotondo. He had already been there for the first time during his
years of study and he had met Padre Pio.
1975 (February 8-9) As a Cardinal he summoned, in Krakow, the First National Assembly of doctors and theologians.
(February 27) Gave a report (“Participation or Alienation?”) at the International Seminary of Phenomenology in Fribourg.
(March 3-8) First meeting of new Council of the General Secretariat of the Synod of Bishops.
(May 8) IV General Assembly of the Synod of Kraków.
(September 19) Left for a trip abroad to the German Democratic Republic.
(December 1) At the invitation of Cardinal Colombo, gave a lecture at the Ambrosiana in Milan on the
theme: “The rights of the human person in light of the recent Synod of Bishops.”
 
(November 22) In Rome, Cardinal Wojtyla chaired the Polish delegation at the International Congress of
Catholic universities and ecclesiastical faculties for the preparation of the new apostolic constitution for
ecclesiastical studies.
1977 (7-15 March) Took part in (and even presided over, given the absence of Cardinal Seper) the tasks of the third meeting of the Council of the General Secretariat of the Synod of Bishops.
(March 18) At the University of the Sacred Heart of Milan held the conference “The problem of forming
of culture through the human praxis (human practice).”
(June 23) Received the honorary doctorate from the Palidoro, Rome. Card. Karol Wojtyla immortalized by the photographer a few weeks before the conclave, as he leaves the water.
 
“Chiesa viva” *** September 2010
 
Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz. (July 1) Attended a conference at the “Centre du Dialogue” in Paris, at Osny, near Paris, where he chaired the Meeting of Catholic Poles.
(September 30 to October 29) IV Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops. On October 24 he was elected to the Council of the General Secretariat of the Synod. 1978 (March 12 to 17) Worked with the Congregation for
Catholic Education. At the same time he assisted in the ceremony of conferring the “pallium” to Archbishop Tomálek.
(May 16-19) Council meeting of the General Secretariat of the Synod of Bishops.
(June 21) Milan: reports “Marriage and Love” to the Congress IFSC (International Centre for Family Studies) organized to mark the 10th anniversary of Humanae Vitae.
(August 11-12) Attended the funeral of Paul VI.
(August 25) Marked the beginning of the conclave.
(August 26) Pope John Paul I was elected. (Albino Luciani).
(August 30) John Paul I received in audience the
Cardinals, and also Cardinal Wojtyla in private audience. On September 3, participated in the inaugura-
tion of the pontificate of John Paul I.
(September 19-25) Travelled in the Federal Republic of Germany with Primate Stefan Wyszynski and
Bishops Strobe and Rubin.
(October 3-4) Left for the funeral of Pope John Paul I and attended the funeral.
(October 14) The conclave began.
(October 16, 1978 - approximately 17.15) Cardinal Karol Wojtyla was elected Pope is the 263rd
successor of Peter.
 
THE POPE WHO HAS COME FROM THE EAST
 
“Chiesa viva” *** September 2010
 
HIS INTERNATIONAL
TRAVELS
Paul VI, unlike previous modern day popes, opened the door to travel beyond the borders of Italy with his visit to the Holy Land during the Second Vatican Council. The last Pope, before Paul VI, that been out of Italy was Pius VII (1800-1823), taken away by Napoleon Bonaparte, in forced exile, to Fontainebleau in June 1812.
John Paul II, during his pontificate, had made 247 trips, of which 104 were international and 143 were made in Italy, covering a total of about 1,164,000 km, and a total of 543 days abroad. How many billions of dollars have been spent by the Vatican for these trips, and for what purposes and with what results?