Peter Spencer's background story Part 3 of 3

In January 2011, Peter Spencer became aware of an interesting extract from the Queensland Government Hansard which seems to show proof of collusion between the Commonwealth and Queensland Governments to use uncleared land for the Kyoto Protocol requirement.

2011 was a very promising year for Mr Spencer. He was in court several times and turned up many documents which seemed to prove that an agreement existed between the Commonwealth and the State. Access to Cabinet documents was approved by Judge Emmett with access to be granted by State and Federal governments progressively to 2nd September, 2011.

The latter part of 2011 and into 2012 was spent haggling over documents which were required to be disclosed. Many of the 3500 Commonwealth documents were redacted or refused on the grounds that they had “Cabinet privilege”.

On 26th November, 2012 three High Court judges struck down Mr. Spencer’s access to Cabinet documents which were needed to show that state and federal governments colluded to introduce land clearing legislation to lock up carbon on Australian farms so it could meet carbon targets under the Kyoto protocol without compensation.

For four years, the approach taken by the Australian Government Solicitor (for the Commonwealth) had been to deny the existence of any documents showing the existence of informal agreements between the Commonwealth and the Sates (relating to sequestration of carbon and land use change laws and measures) before and after the Kyoto meeting of the UNFCCC in 1997.

In May 2013, still in discovery hearings with Justice Cowdroy ruling that if relevant documents can be found they must be handed over. On 30th May 2013 Mr. Spencer had a productive day in court before Justice Cowdroy.

Barrister Peter King started by giving a detailed chronological account of signed international treaties, intergovernmental agreements, commonwealth/state legislation, commonwealth/state agreements and commonwealth/state committees starting with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992 and followed on citing in detail many High Court authorities with regards to the merits of the case.

Justice Cowdroy ordered that various State and Commonwealth documents be produced within eight weeks with the court able to reconvene with three days’ notice in the event that this order not be honoured.

24th November, 2014 was the start of the major hearing in the Federal Court to determine if there was a clear direction to the States by the Commonwealth.

In spite of the considerable evidence showing dialogue between the Commonwealth and the States about Carbon emissions, the Judge managed to find that an informal arrangement between the states and the Commonwealth was not proven.
Justice Mortimer handed down judgement in July 2015, rejecting Peter Spencer’s claims against the NSW and the Commonwealth Governments

To read more, this web page documents this major court case - Peter Spencer verses The Commonwealth.

Mr Spencer appealed, with a 3 day hearing starting on February 27 2017 before a Full Court of three judges of the Federal Court. Eventually decision was published on 15 February 2018 to the negative.

But Peter Spencer was not giving up, on March 20 2018 it was announced on the Support Peter Spencer & Australian Farmers Facebook page that he is taking his case all the way back to the highest court in the land - The High Court. Read more [here]

The action through the various courts beginning in 2005, looks like it has come to an end on June 21, 2018 when Peter Spencer was informed that  the application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia was refused with costs. 

Further reading:
'The Death of Property Rights' by Alan Moran

Support Peter Spencer & Australian Farmers Facebook page

No just terms on 'acquisition' with quotes from Murdoch University law lecturer Lorraine Finlay. 

'Courts refuse to protect Australian private property rights' by Alan Moran
'Carbon credit hunger strike farmer Peter Spencer returns to court in fight against Commonwealth' by Michael Condon

***

Peter Spencer's background story Part 1 of 3

Peter Spencer's background story Part 2 of 3

Peter Spencer Update May 2013

by Ian Hampton

 

Since the High Court decision that ordered the matter to return to the Federal Court for the discovery of internal government documents, there has been approximately 4000 documents produced predominately from the Commonwealth and some from the State (NSW).

After the reading of these documents it has been found that there are documents that relate to some of the documents that have not been discovered, and some categories that have not been produced by either the Commonwealth and the State.

The Australian Government Solicitors (AGS) and the Crown (NSW Government) have refused to discover any more related docs and also the categories that have not been discovered.
 

Last Friday 17th May there was a directions hearing where the document categories in dispute were filed and a submission made outlining the reasons why these categories are relevant to Peter's case. Federal Court judge, Justice Cowdroy J will hear the case for further discovery at a Interlocutory Hearing next Thursday 30th May in Federal Court, Sydney 9.30 am.

 

Effectively Peter will be arguing the relevance to his case of the further discovery and the AGS and Crown will be arguing that the documents are not relevant and they have exhausted there resources.

 

At the directions hearing last week Justice Cowdroy J made it quite clear that after reviewing the history of the case that if the documents sought by Peter are relevant to his case and can be found, bthen they must hand them over.

The outcome of this hearing next week will be very interesting.

UPDATE # 1
Spencer v Commonwealth interlocutory hearing 30/5/2013
Please read details in the comment section below

Previous related discussions

Peter Spencer Update November 2012

Peter Spencer Update December 2012 

SPENCER GAINS GROUND IN FEDERAL COURT

 

SPENCER GAINS GROUND IN FEDERAL COURT

Article provided by Ian Hampton

SPENCER GAINS GROUND IN FEDERAL COURT - Commonwealth and NSW must attend Discovery mediation meeting

At the directions hearing of Spencer v. Commonwealth on Friday 14 December, Nick Gouliaditis for the Commonwealth Government asked the Court for an order prohibiting Peter Spencer from discovery of any further Commonwealth Government documents of any category on the grounds that the Commonwealth has fulfilled the discovery of all categories as the Court has ordered.

Spencer’s counsel, Peter King responded with a blistering attack on the orders sought by the Commonwealth and State of NSW.  As a result, Justice Emmett J ruled for a mediation meeting between the parties (Spencer, Commonwealth and NSW Government), to be held early in the New Year to be followed by a directions hearing on Friday 8^th February 2013.

In his presentation, King made reference to the mosaic picture arising from the quantity and contents of the documents discovered so far, covering a period of well over 2 decades. 

The mediation meeting will enable Spencer to put on the table all categories of documents that have been sought and not produced, also documents that relate to produced documents.

This is a breakthrough for Spencer who has been frustrated by Commonwealth tactics since his historic win in the High Court in September 2010 where the finding was that Spencer should have access to the documents he needs to present his case.  Since then the Commonwealth have produced 3,500 documents; however in a great many of these documents the relevant material has been redacted, and Spencer has been denied access to many documents on the grounds of “cabinet privilege”.  With regard to the State of NSW they have only delivered 350 documents.  These documents reveal absolutely nothing and appear to have been selected on their merits as a PR exercise.  However, mediation will provide a forum for Spencer to pursue the categories not produced by the State.

There is a sense that with a consistent approach and solid research and advocacy, Spencer is starting to make headway in the Federal Court against the primary respondent, the Commonwealth.  The charter of the Commonwealth Government Solicitor (CGS) is that the CGS is a “model litigant’; in fact the CGS has been anything but – alternately claiming that there is no case to answer, that Spencer is on a “fishing expedition”, using bluster and bullying tactics as its primary courtroom tactic, delaying and delaying the obtaining and supply of discovery documents.  There are no clear tactics and it appears that His Honour, Judge Emmett J is now seeing through these tactics for what they are.

These are the same tactics used for almost 6 years by the Commonwealth Government which has incorrectly applied Section 31A of the Federal Court Rules, which the High Court in Its ruling said did not apply.  These are the tactics of a Government not interested in the truth but desperate to keep their actions, and those of their predecessors deeply hidden from the people. 

King also made reference to the recent failure of the Doha conference regarding the Kyoto Protocol in that it apparently is a failed policy and it is regrettable that Spencer’s farm should be taken among other wrongs for the purpose of a failed policy. 

 

Previous related discussions

Peter Spencer Update November 2012

Peter Spencer Update December 2012  

Peter Spencer Update December 2012

Ian Hampton has provided the following media release

PETER SPENCER FIGHTS ON IN FEDERAL COURT, SYDNEY THIS FRIDAY 

Peter Spencer will be back in the Federal Court, Queens Square, Sydney at 10 AM this coming Friday for a directions hearing of Spencer v. Commonwealth of Australia. 

Spencer’s case will not be assisted by the decision on 26 November by the Federal Court of Appeal upholding parliamentary privilege over four categories of Cabinet documents sought by Spencer, claiming that the subject of the documents is current and contentious.  This decision flies in the face of the unanimous decision of the Full Bench of the High Court in September 2010 that Spencer should have access to the documents he needs to present his case.

 

RELATED ISSUE

Last week in Doha, Australia signed up to the continuation of the Kyoto Protocol agreement.  It is ironic that Australia’s ability to continue meeting its Kyoto commitment target has been solely on the back of the enforced (and unpaid for) storage of carbon in native vegetation on private farms that is at the core of Spencer’s case.

 

Previous related discussion

Peter Spencer Update November 2012

 

 

Later published related discussion

 

SPENCER GAINS GROUND IN FEDERAL COURT

.

 

 

Peter Spencer Update November 2012

The following has been submitted by Ian Hampton. Ian has tried to keep Peter Spencer followers informed on the other site only to have his discussions & comments repeatily deleted by the person who holds the creator status.

“The latest hearing in the on-going Spencer b. Commonwealth of Australia case was held on Monday 12 November in front of 3 judges including Chief Justice Keane constituting the Federal Court of Appeal.  Peter Spencer was represented by barrister Peter King; the Commonwealth is represented by the Commonwealth Government Solicitor (CGS).

 

Peter Spencer has appealed a decision by Justice Emmett denying Spencer access to Cabinet documents as these documents are subject to “public interest immunity”.

The day was fundamentally about the Commonwealth of Australia opposing Spencer’s appeal on the basis that the evidence produced for the Appeal is not applicable.

This turned out to be a gruelling day.

Peter King started his oral submission and spoke for a long time…  re-stating Spencer’s position that (in the light of the High Court decision), Spencer should have access to the cabinet documents he has requested.

Then Howard (for the CGS) went through Spencer’s statement of claim disputing King’s submission on points of law.

King then disputed Howard’s arguments, including putting forward the morality of the case.  Peter King was very good in his oral submissions arguing his interpretation of two High Court precedence cases with regard to parliamentary privilege, he certainly has given the judges something to think about.

The 3 judges then reserved their decision – to be handed down at a later date.  These 3 judges have previously (supported Justice Emmett and) ruled in favour of parliamentary privilege; whereas the unanimous decision of the High Court in September 2010 in Spencer’s case is that parliamentary privilege is not absolute and is open to discretion if it will result in a loss of justice to Mr Spencer.    In effect the Federal Court judges are between a rock and a hard place.  If they support Emmett and the Commonwealth – they are finding against the High Court decision. 

To say the least, the decision of the 3 Federal Court judges will be interesting.

The tactics of the Commonwealth are obvious – with infinite resources the CGS can keep on putting up delaying tactic after delaying tactic to continue to frustrate and hold up progress of Spencer’s case in every way possible.  And unfortunately, the law responds and deals with this matter very very slowly….  It can be seen that the Law (as a whole) only gets stirred into action (and becomes responsive) when there is real public pressure.”

 

Later published related discussions

Peter Spencer Update December 2012

SPENCER GAINS GROUND IN FEDERAL COURT

.