ISSUE: 20191218- Supplement 77-Detention versus Punishment

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST my concern is the true meaning and application of the constitution.

* Gerrit, before we are going to the issues of Detention versus Punishment are you aware that Sir
Ken Jones gave evidence to the Royal commission about likely prison staff having been involved
in the murder of Carl Williams?
**#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, this is precisely what I already made known way back in 2017
when I was investigating the murder of Carl Williams. And I had already made my submission to
the Royal Commission about the same and detailing how this could be exposed. I so far gained
great respect for the way the commissioner is dealing with matters and so the Counsel assisting
the Commissioner. Time will tell what really comes from it all.
* OK, now what about detention versus Punishment?
**#** I think I better quote my correspondence I earlier today forwarded to the Rt Hon Boris
Johnson MP
QUOTE 18-12-2019 correspondence to Rt Hon Boris Johnson MP
Rt Hon Boris Johnson MP 18-12-2019
Parliamentary. House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA.
boris.johnson.mp@parliament.uk

Boris,
hereby I request you to adhere to the British legislation regarding the Commonwealth of
Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) within the UK jurisdiction.

As you may be aware the United Kingdom Parliament legislated this constitution with
considering also the Constitution Convention Debated leading up to tis constitution. As such the
members of the United Kingdom Parliament had full knowledge of what was proposed, and in
fact some issue were not accepted. Hence the final form in which the constitution was enacted
was different then what was proposed.

However, we do have a record of what were the legal principles that were enshrined within the
constitution.
.
Hansard 2-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-
The record of these debates may fairly be expected to be widely read, and the observations to which I
allude might otherwise lead to a certain amount of misconception.
END QUOTE

The following will also make clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended to have CIVIL
RIGHTS and LIBERTIES principles embedded in the Constitution;
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. CLARK.-
p1 18-12-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
 the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual citizen is entitled to
claim that the federal government shall take under its protection and secure to him.
END QUOTE

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-the liberty
and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire. A charter of liberty is
enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good government for
the whole of the peoples whom it will embrace and unite.
END QUOTE

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by the
Parliament of the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in effect, because the
provisions of this Constitution, the principles which it embodies, and the details of enactment by which
those principles are enforced, will all have been the work of Australians.
END QUOTE

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about to commit to the
people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to commit this new Magna Charta
for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole
history of the peoples of the world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of
Australia to vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This new
charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.

END QUOTE

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power?

Mr. GORDON.-There will be more than one sentry. In the case of a federal law, every member of a
state Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituent of a state Parliament will be a sentry.
As regards a law passed by a state, every man in the Federal Parliament will be a sentry, and the whole
constituency behind the Federal Parliament will be a sentry.
END QUOTE

One of the principles of Western civilisation is that a person is:

“INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY”.
I now come to the centre issue and that is Mr Julian Assagne.
No matter what anyone politically may view is appropriate it should be understood that the
United Kingdom having legislated the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900
(UK) then is bound to observe the same. Hence, Mr Julian Assange awaiting trial for
extradition must be provided with all rights ordinary provided to an accused, and I view that the
current Belmarsh Prison conditions placed upon him are not in accordance to the embedded legal
principles of our constitution.
Agin:
QUOTE Mr. CLARK.-
the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual citizen is entitled to
claim that the federal government shall take under its protection and secure to him.
p2 18-12-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
END QUOTE

In my view the cruelty inflicted upon Mr Julian Assagne defies our Western culture and
principles of “INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY”.

I urge you to ensure that Mr Julian Assagne as like any other person accused but not convicted is
provided with appropriate facilities and rights, such as his rights to have legal counsel and prison
facilities that are appropriate considering his status of health and where this kind of facilities is
not available within the prison system he is provide appropriate alternative accommodation.
":.. The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its
makers" Gaudron J (Wakim, HCA27\99)

"... But … in the interpretation of the Constitution the connotation or connotations of its words should
remain constant. We are not to give words a meaning different from any meaning which they could have
borne in 1900. Law is to be accommodated to changing facts. It is not to be changed as language changes.
"
Windeyer J (Ex parte Professional Engineers' Association)

Hansard 2-8-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

Clause 113.-Every state shall make provision for the detention and punishment in its prisons of persons
accused or convicted of offences against the laws of the Commonwealth and the Parliament of the
Commonwealth, may make laws to give effect to this provision.

Mr. GLYNN (South Australia).-I think the words "or detention" should be inserted after "the detention."
At present the clause reads-"The state shall make-provision for the detention and punishment in its prisons of
persons accused or convicted," &c. We do not want to punish "persons accused." I beg to move-

That the words "or detention" be inserted after "detention."

The clause will then read-"For the detention or detention and punishment," &c.

Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I do not think that amendment would quite do. I could understand the
clause being amended so as to make it read-"detention or punishment of persons accused or convicted." The
object of the clause, as it stands, is to keep together the terms "accused or convicted," so, that the relation,
both of accusation and conviction, to the laws of the Commonwealth may be made clear. The clause only
applies to accusations or convictions in respect of laws of the Commonwealth, and, therefore, these words
"accused or convicted" are kept together just before the words "offences against the laws of the
Commonwealth." I think that if my honorable [start page 693] friend (Mr. Glynn) would alter his amendment
so as to make it read "detention or punishment," there can be no misreading of the clause.

Sir JOHN DOWNER (South Australia).-I think the words should stand as they are. You have to make
provision for both things.

Mr. GLYNN.-Not for the punishment of accused persons.

Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Provision has to be made both for detention and punishment. I think the clause is
clear enough as it stands at present.

Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-I believe that my honorable friend's (Mr. Glynn's) feeling is that, by
leaving the words as they are, the clause might be interpreted to enable the federal authorities to demand from
the state the detention and punishment of persons who were not convicted, but I do not apprehend that
there is the slightest difficulty on that score. I do not think any court would interpret the words to mean
the punishment of a person accused and not convicted.

p3 18-12-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
 Mr. GLYNN (South Australia).-My contention is that, as the clause stands, the words are to be read
conjunctively in relation to the word "accused." The clause says that each state shall make provision for the
detention and punishment of persons accused or convicted. You must read the word "punishment" in relation
to "accused," as well as to "convicted." The clause should read-"For the detention, or detention and
punishment, as the case may be, of persons accused or convicted," &c.

Sir EDWARD BRADDON (Tasmania).-I think the clause might be amended to get out of the difficulty
which has been pointed out. As it stands at present, it provides that the state shall make provision for the
detention and punishment in its prisons of persons accused or convicted. Now, evidently, the detention is for
those who have not yet been convicted, and the punishment is for those who have been convicted, and I
think that those two classes ought to be separated.

Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I have an amendment which I think will meet the case, and enable us
to get on. I beg to move-

That the clause be amended by striking out the words after "detention" down to "Commonwealth," and
substituting in lieu thereof the words "in its prisons of persons accused of offences against the laws of the
Commonwealth, and the punishment of persons convicted of such offences."

Mr. GLYNN (South Australia).-I would point out that, under the clause as now proposed to be
amended, a state might make provision for whipping persons convicted, but not for detaining them in
prison.

Mr. ISAACS.-Detention may be part of the punishment.

Mr. GLYNN.-But the punishment may not be detention, it may be flagellation. Are you going to allow a
state to make provision for the character of the punishment for an offence against the Commonwealth?

Mr. Barton's amendment was agreed to.

END QUOTE

In the end the following Section was provided for, as part of the United Kingdom legislation and
enactment:

QUOTE
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
QUOTE
120 Custody of offenders against laws of the Commonwealth
Every State shall make provision for the detention in its prisons of persons accused or convicted of
offences against the laws of the Commonwealth, and for the punishment of persons convicted of
such offences, and the Parliament of the Commonwealth may make laws to give effect to this
provision.

END QUOTE

As the United Kingdom has the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) then
the United Kingdom Government is bound to adhere to these principles and must avoid that
Belmarsh Prison is used as a form of punishment against Mr Julian Assange.
Currently, as I understand it Mr Julian Assange is in grave mental health condition and denied
ordinary rights that ought to be provided for a person who is detained but not to be punished.
I urge you to show that you will not allow the United Kingdom so to say be used like some
puppet-on-a-string to deny Mr Julian Assange his constitutional and other legal rights and will
without undue delay ensure that Mr Julian Assange is transferred to a facility that is appropriate
p4 18-12-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
for his health condition and enables him to have visitors, including that of lawyers, without any
undue interferences.
Just consider if you were accused of something and placed in conditions similar to those now
applied to Mr Julian Assange would you then not object to them not to be a mere detention but to
have become a form of punishment that is unlawful to be applied without a conviction having
eventuated?
I trust you will act immediately without undue delay to ensure that you as United Kingdom
Prime Minister will not stand for any abuse and misuse of powers and will take urgent and
immediate action.
If indeed for example Mr Julian Assange physical/mental health has severely deteriorated due to
the conditions he has been confined to then in my view his immediate release is warranted, this
as his incarceration has been grossly misused and abuse to inflict an unconstitutional/unlawful
for of punishment. It also ought to be understood that while the Courts may order the detention of
a person ultimately the Governor of a Prison (In this case Belmarsh Prison) is entitled to release a
prisoner where the circumstances/conditions warrant this.
In my view the form of detention must be that is appropriate to the person detained in all relevant
circumstances. Where I understand Mr Julian Assange was even denied appropriate
liberty/freedoms to consult with his lawyers then this underlines the extend that the detention
unconstitutionally/unlawfully was used as a form of punishment this even so Mr Julian Assange
is not detained on basis that he violated any laws to which the extradition request of the USA
relates. As such, the Courts have grossly failed to supervise its own orders of DETENTION and
hence the British Government under your leadership should make clear not to tolerate such
unconstitutional/unlawful conduct.
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to address all issues.
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

(Our name is our motto!)
END QUOTE 18-12-2019 correspondence to Rt Hon Boris Johnson MP

* I am impressed as to how you formulated your argument. Shouldn’t the Federal Government
under PM Scott Morrison also follow this through?
**#** In my view he should. The problem is that we seem to lack any credible Member of
Parliament who pursues the rights of Mr Julian Assange on constitutional grounds and this might
likely be because they do not even grasp the true meaning and application of the constitution.
You then have to ask how can they be competent to legislate without knowing and understanding
the principle law, the constitution.
Anyhow, I now also have placed it in the hands of the Rt Hon Boris Johnson MP.
We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal constitution!
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® (Our name is our motto!)

p5 18-12-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati