Two aggressive loggers get off with a rap over the knuckles for violently assaulting two community members

 

It was two arrests and two court judgments long delayed - with little in the way of deterrence at the end of proceedings.

News of the Area, 25 June 2023:

Two men appeared in Coffs Harbour Local Court on June 14 in relation to an incident in Wild Cattle Creek State Forest in June 2020.

Michael Luigi Vitali from South Grafton is charged with common assault against local ecologist Mark Graham.

Grafton man Rodney James Hearfield is charged with common assault and assault occasioning bodily harm against Andre Johnston.

Both men pleaded ‘not guilty’ and the matter will be heard next in Coffs Harbour on August 16......

Echo, 16 January 2024:

The Coffs Harbour Local Court has found two forestry workers guilty of assaulting two members of the community on a public road in Wild Cattle Creek State Forest on 25 June 2020.

NSW Upper House Greens MP Sue Higginson reported the guilty finding, which was handed down by the court yesterday, in a press release.

Ms Higginson said the assaults had been recorded on a mobile camera device by a Forestry Corporation Officer.

The two forestry workers were, at the time, employed by logging company Greensill Bros that was contracted by the NSW Forestry Corporation, a state owned corporation.

The forestry workers were not charged immediately following the assault, and one of the victims was instead targeted and charged by the Coffs Harbour Police.

The officer who handled the matter attempted to withhold the video footage of the assaults from the victims and the public, according to Ms Higginson. He is no longer a police officer.

‘Today’s judgement is well overdue and is the end of a harrowing experience for the two victims, Mark Graham and Andre Johnston,’ Ms Higginson said.

‘Mark and Andre were on a public road, in a public forest, when the forestry workers approached, threatened and then assaulted them all while being filmed by an employee of the NSW Forestry Corporation…’

‘The initial investigation into these assaults resulted in the charging of one of the victims, Mark Graham, who is a forest ecologist.

‘The NSW Police, after discussions with the Forestry Corporation charged Mr Graham with approaching forestry operations, those charges were wrongly pressed and were later withdrawn.

‘The fact that Mr Graham was charged for a crime when he was a victim of what the Magistrate described as a violent assault on a public road, in a public forest, and it was captured on video, can only be described as a wilful miscarriage of justice.

The Magistrate noted that the evidence showed the police officer who handled the situation had been helpful to the guilty men and took a serious dislike to the victims of the assaults.

‘The video evidence is confronting and unambiguous.’ Ms Higginson said.

‘Two members of the community, who are acting in a friendly and non-threatening manner, are approached by two agitated and hostile forestry workers who then proceed to assault them, demand their personal property and shout threatening abuse at them.

‘It is gross and brutal and shows the level of impunity that forestry workers are afforded from their actions when the local police then charge the victims of the assault instead of the perpetrators.’

‘It is a good day for justice, as slow and bumpy as this road has been for Mark and Andre. There must be a strong response from the Government.’

Blue Mountains Gazette, 16 January 2024:

The Forestry Corporation is under pressure to blacklist a logging contractor after its workers attacked two environmentalists in a NSW forest.

It's been three-and-a-half years since Mark Graham and Andre Johnston were assaulted on a public road during a day trip to the Wild Cattle Creek State Forest, where logging was under way.

On Monday, the pair got their day in court with a Coffs Harbour magistrate finding two employees of Greensill Bros had committed common assault.

The environmentalists are now demanding Greensill Bros be banned from any further logging work for the NSW government-owned Forestry Corporation.

They also plan to pursue a corruption complaint against the Forestry Corporation, saying one of its direct employees who was overseeing the logging operation filmed the assault but failed to intervene.....

"Immediately following the assault in 2020 neither of the forestry workers were charged and one of the victims was instead targeted and charged by the Coffs Harbour police."

Ms Higginson said the charges were laid after discussions between the police and Forestry Corporation.

Mr Graham has told AAP he was dismissed by police when he went to report the assault in June 2020 and was instead to go and "get a job".

About six months later he was charged with being within 100 metres of logging machinery.

Ms Higginson represented Mr Graham in that matter and has accused police of trying to withhold video evidence of the assaults from both victims, and from the public.

The charge against Mr Graham, of being too close to logging machinery, was eventually dropped in May 2022.....

No convictions were recorded with Michael Luigi Vitali and Rodney James Hearfield both put on 15-month good behaviour bonds.

The Forestry Corporation and Greensill Bros have declined to comment.

AAP has also sought comment from police.

It appears that Prime Minister Scott Morrison is unhappy with Nine Entertainment senior journalists - including Tingle, Savva, Kelly & Hartcher. So with his media chief and another political advisor in tow he met with Nine CEO Mike Sneesby and expressed his displeasure

The Australian, 6 December 2021:

Last Monday, Nine CEO Mike Sneesby made his first trip to Canberra since securing the role last year and, in a packed schedule, elbow-tapped with everyone from Labor’s Anthony Albanese, Jim Chalmers and Tony Burke to the Greens’ Sarah Hanson-Young.

But for sheer entertainment value, we hear it was Sneesby’s audience with Scott Morrison in the Prime Minister’s office that stole the show.

The meeting between the PM and the media boss may have only lasted 20 minutes or so. But it was certainly meaningful.

Diary has learnt Sneesby – joined for the meeting with ScoMo by his publishing boss James Chessell, along with two prime ministerial advisers including the PM’s media chief Andrew Carswell – was offered a full and frank opinion by Morrison about Nine’s columnists at The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. The PM allegedly told Sneesby his columnists were too “tough” on him. The Nine camp is adamant “no concessions” were made in response.

It is understood the PM has no problem with the political reporting of the Canberra bureaus of Nine’s TV operations, plus The SMH, The Age and The Australian Financial Review. In the meeting, he even singled out A Current Affair host Tracy Grimshaw for particular praise, after a tough but fair interview in the wake of the Brittany Higgins allegations earlier this year.

But the PM has a different view on how he is treated by the political columnists at the Nine papers, particularly The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age – and he wanted to put it on the record in his meeting with the Nine CEO.

Diary is told the PM’s tone was “grumpy, not furious”.

On one version out of the Nine camp, Morrison told Sneesby: “You’re too tough on me.” On another slightly more heightened version of events, the PM told him: “You smash me every single day.” While Morrison didn’t name names, a number of Nine columnists have sharpened the knives for the PM in recent weeks, including Sean Kelly, a former adviser to Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard, Peter Hartcher, the SMH and Age political and international editor, AFR columnist Laura Tingle, and Nine papers’ Thursday political columnist, Niki Savva. …..

[My yellow highlighting]

Later that night, Diary’s spies say Sneesby was seen out at dinner at trendy Asian eatery XO with his big two editorial executives, publishing chief James Chessell and TV news boss Darren Wick, as well as his big three political journos: the SMH and the Age’s David Crowe, the AFR’s Phil Coorey and Nine TV’s Chris Uhlmann.

Given it came in the hours after Sneesby’s meeting with the PM, we’d love to have been a fly on the wall for that one….. 

The outcome of three complaints about newspaper articles

Australian Press Council dealing with unsubstantiated serious allegations and unfairness, lack of balance and inadequate remedial action:

Adjudication 1659: Complainant/WA Today (December 2015)The Press Council has considered a complaint about an article in WA Today on 9 May 2015 headlined “Bong claims Santa Maria teacher’s job: You’ve got to be toking?”, which was also posted by the publication on Twitter and Facebook.
The article referred to a teacher losing her position at a named Catholic girls’ school as a result of a “social media incident”, said to involve a photograph of her holding a bong . The incident had been referred to in a local radio station’s “Rumour File” segment. The WA Today article was accompanied by a stock image of a person apparently smoking a bong. That article suggested a topless photograph of the teacher may also have been behind the loss of her position.
The Council concluded that drugs played no part in the teacher’s resignation and accepted that no photograph of the teacher with a bong or topless existed. As the article had originated from the radio station’s “Rumour File” segment and the allegations were serious, the publication was required to take greater care to establish the facts. In addition, even after the school Principal's denials, the publication repeated the allegations and the article remained online without sufficient remedial action, despite concerns raised by the teacher.
The Council concluded that the publication failed to ensure accuracy and fairness in the initial article and subsequent revisions or to provide adequate remedial action and therefore found a breach of its Standards of Practice.
The Council accepted there is public interest in highlighting the impact of social media on individuals’ professional lives. However, the inaccuracy in the headline and the reporting of unsubstantiated serious allegations that intruded upon the teacher’s privacy and caused her significant distress were not justified in this public interest. Accordingly, the Council also found a breach of its Standards of Practice in this respect.

Adjudication 1652: Paul Lynch/AAP (October 2015)The Press Council has considered a complaint by NSW Labor MP and Shadow Attorney General Mr Paul Lynch about an article published by AAP on 5 February 2015 headlined “Labor MPs at pro-Russian rebel event” which related to his attendance at the 24th St Sava Youth Festival at the Serbian Cultural Club.
The article referred to the event as “a meeting organised in support of pro-Russian separatists”. It said the meeting was attended by Mr Lynch and others, including Mr Semyon Boikov the “leader” of the Zabaikal Cossack Society of Australia, and that Mr Boikov spoke “calling for a swift victory in Ukraine by pro-Russian separatists”.
The Council considered the description of the event as being “in support of Pro-Russian separatists” was not accurate. The terms used, including the word “meeting”, implied that Mr Lynch was party to the pro-Russian separatist sentiment. The focus on Mr Lynch’s attendance was compounded by the failure to mention the many other attendees and, as a result, the event was not reported with reasonable fairness or balance. The failure by the publication to seek more accurate information about the event from other sources or to provide more time for the complainant to respond resulted in the material not being presented with reasonable fairness and balance. Accordingly, the Council found a breach of its Standards in this respect.
The Council also noted the revised version, “NSW: Anger as MP poses with man on ASIO list”, maintained a focus on pro-Russian separatist elements and described the event as a “meeting” rather than a traditional St Sava celebration. The revised article also failed to correct inaccurate and unfair aspects of the original article. Accordingly, the Council also found a breach of its Standards about adequate remedial action.

The NSW legal system dealing with a defamation claim……….

On 7  October 2010 The Sydney Morning Herald published an article which began; Dozens have been sued, felt harassed to work longer hours or otherwise fallen foul of Australia's richest doctor, writes Natasha Wallace.

In November 2010 the named millionaire doctor sued Fairfax Media Pty Ltd and others for defamation and injurious falsehood. The matter winding its way through the courts to a conclusion in late June 2015 with both claims struck out.

In September 2015 The Sydney Morning Herald published the doctor’s death notice.

Commonwealth Ombudsman Annual Report 2014-2015 with a sidedish of Shorter Commonwealth Ombudsman

Wading through annual reports can be a bit of a chore so I give you some highlights from the Commonwealth Ombudsman Annual Report 2014-2015 with a Shorter Ombudsman cheat sheet for those unable to find time to read the full document:

Department of Human Services & Centrelink

In 2014–15 we received 8116 complaints about DHS programs. This represents a 21.5% increase against the 6682 complaints we received in 2013–14, largely as a result of the 26.5% increase in the number of Centrelink complaints. Complaints about the Centrelink program made up 77.4% of complaints about DHS, followed by 18.1% about the Child Support program. Of the remaining complaints, most were about Medicare and the early release of superannuation benefits programs…..

In 2013–14 DHS paid out $159.2 billion to customers in respect of programs across the Australian Government and ‘touched the lives of around 99 per cent of Australians’ through the delivery of payments and services.1 It is inevitable that errors and delays will occur in an operation of this scale. However, the potential for these errors to impact on the lives of a significant number….

In 2014–15 we received 6280 complaints about Centrelink, an increase of 26.5% on the 4966 we received in 2013–14. This increase follows two years of reduced complaints about Centrelink. While it reflects a greater number of complaints across the board, there has been a particular increase in complaints about difficulties accessing DHS services and its own phone and online complaints mechanisms. These issues are discussed in greater detail below under Implementation of recommendations in Centrelink Service Delivery report. During 2014–15 we investigated 8.7% of all finalised Centrelink complaints compared to the 10.7% we investigated during 2013–14. This reduction is largely explained by two factors; namely, an increase in the number of referrals to the DHS Feedback and Complaints service where a complainant has not already accessed it, and ‘warm transfers’ to DHS’s internal complaint service for resolution where a complainant is vulnerable or requires assistance to communicate their complaint. This ‘warm transfer’ process allows DHS the opportunity to resolve the complainant’s concerns in the first instance without the need for investigation by our office. At the time of transfer the complainant is invited to contact the Ombudsman again if they are dissatisfied or do not hear from Centrelink within the agreed timeframe.

Shorter Commonwealth Ombudsman: Centrelink service delivery sucks but don’t expect our department to do much about it.

Department Human Services & Department Veterans’ Affairs

From 1 July 2014, as part of ongoing reforms to the aged care system, the arrangements for calculating residential aged care fees changed, with DHS taking over responsibility from DSS for assessing those fees.

In late 2014 we received a cluster of complaints about delays in processing of fee assessment applications. People also complained about fee assessments that were affected by errors and instances where people were sent multiple but contradictory assessment letters.

The impacts of these issues varied. Some people were advised by the aged care facility that they were unable to secure a permanent place until they had received notification of an aged care assessment determination, while some were charged higher respite care fees until they received their assessment. Others paid a much higher fee to the provider than they were ultimately assessed to pay in their corrected assessment.

Many complainants raised concerns that the higher fees depleted their funds, forcing some to make hard decisions about as whether their loved one could remain in the aged care facility. They also complained about out-of-pocket expenses incurred from juggling finances while trying to meet the higher fees, pending receipt of a corrected assessment notification and subsequent reconciliation process with the aged care facility. Overpaid fees meant people needed to negotiate a refund with the provider, sometimes encountering resistance because providers were not prepared to review their fees until they had received advice from DHS of the possible refund amount.

Our investigations, and information provided at DHS briefings, highlighted issues with the quality and timeliness of the fee assessments and with the transfer of what we do COMMONWEALTH OMBUDSMAN ANNUAL REPORT 2014–2015 31 data relevant to the assessment.

Both DHS and DVA have been affected by system issues. DHS became aware of the issues shortly after implementation and applied a manual quality-checking process for every automated assessment letter it produced, replacing incorrect letters with manual letters.

At the time a lack of established communication protocols between DHS and DVA also added to the delay in resolving complaints and led to customers’ frustration as they ‘bounced’ between departments. Multiple aged care phone lines maintained by all three departments (DHS, DVA and DSS) further complicated complaint resolution. Our office met with DHS several times, and with DVA, to discuss the complaint issues.

Those discussions centred on the errors made, the fixes they had applied and the strategies DHS and DVA had put in place to rectify the communication barriers and establish interdepartmental complaint-handling processes.

We suggested that the departments invite any customers in that position to make a claim under the Compensation for the Detriment caused by Defective Administration (CDDA) scheme. DHS has agreed to include information about the CDDA scheme in its letters to affected customers. We also suggested that a comprehensive review into the multiple causes of the problems be undertaken so as to ensure they do not occur again in respect of this program or others. DHS has confirmed review processes were undertaken and that this information will be used to feed into future changes.

It has also committed to continue to engage with this office to support future change processes.

Shorter Commonwealth Ombudsman: When the Abbott Government changed the federal department responsible for processing aged care fee assessments things went pear shaped, but we fixed it.

Department of Human Services

Our last two Annual Reports mentioned the arrangements DHS has available to impose service restrictions on some customers to manage the way they interact with DHS. We are satisfied that in many cases this is a sensible practice, which aims to protect staff and other customers from risks presented by physical or verbal abuse.

However, we continue to receive complaints, albeit at a reduced rate, from DHS customers who are unhappy that their access to DHS services has been limited. Our investigations of these matters indicate that DHS generally manages these cases well. However, we consider that some areas of DHS’s administration of these arrangements could be improved. For example, recent complaints indicate that staff do not always clearly communicate the reasons and terms of the restrictions to customers, or record these in detail on DHS’s records.

Shorter Commonwealth Ombudsman: We are definitely not going to say that there may be some sly payback by Centrelink staff occurring from time to time.

Child Support

In 2014–15 we received 1468 complaints about Child Support, only a slight increase on 2013–14 when we received 1426. We classify the issues in the complaints we receive about Child Support according to whether the complaint was made by a payee (the person entitled to receive child support) or the payer (the person assessed to pay child support). As in previous years, we received just over twice as many complaints from payers (67.2% of all Child Support complaints) as from payees (30.7%).

During 2014–15 the proportion of complaints we investigated about Child Support dropped to 16.6%, compared to 18.4% in 2013–14. This continues the downward trend seen in past years resulting from our focus on encouraging complainants to allow DHS the opportunity to resolve their concerns in the first instance, either via complaints directly to DHS or via having their complaint warm transferred to DHS for priority response.

Shorter Commonwealth Ombudsman: We really wish that men behaving badly were not our problem.

Department of Employment

During 2014–15 our office saw a 53.1% increase in complaints about the Department of Employment with 344 complaints received this year compared to 224 in 2013–14. The majority of these complaints were recorded as being about the actions or decisions of job service providers.

From 1 July 2014 the Government commenced a phased process for ‘strengthening the jobseeker compliance framework’.

This process implemented arrangements to place a greater onus on jobseekers to engage with employment service providers and to impose more stringent consequences where they failed to complete these engagements without a good reason.

As part of these reforms, employment service providers have been empowered to recommend to DHS that a jobseeker’s income support payment be suspended where they have failed to attend an appointment without a good reason.

While the provider makes only a recommendation, as long as the jobseeker is in fact receiving an income support payment and is required to participate in job services, the DHS ICT system will then automatically apply the suspension.

During the past six months we have seen a spike in complaints about employment service providers where a jobseeker has their payment suspended as a result of a failure to attend an appointment, and then experiences difficulty in identifying whether DHS or the provider is responsible for assisting them to reconnect….

from 1 July 2015, job services providers are also able to recommend that DHS impose a financial penalty (in the form of a reduced income support payment) where a jobseeker has failed to attend an appointment….

We will be monitoring complaints in this area closely into 2015-16 to understand the practical implications for jobseekers, and will also engage with the Department of Employment and DHS to discuss their respective approaches to the new compliance arrangements.

Shorter Commonwealth Ombudsman: Trying to implement Abbott Government policy was a bit of a nightmare all round  – we  will follow closely on Prime Minister Turnbull’s watch.

Department of Social Security

The National Rental Affordability Scheme (NRAS), which commenced in 2008, is a partnership between the Commonwealth, state and territory governments which aims to increase the supply of new affordable rental housing and reduce rental costs for low and moderate income households by offering incentives to invest in dwellings.

The scheme is administered by DSS. Approved participants are entitled to an annual incentive in respect of each dwelling that satisfies certain NRAS requirements, such as letting the property at 20% or more below the market rent value.

The incentive is either a cash amount or a tax offset certificate that is issued to the Approved Participant and then distributed to the individual investor who owns the property. Approved Participants are usually property developers, not-for-profit organisations or community housing providers.

NRAS is designed so that DSS has a direct relationship with the Approved Participants, but not with individual investors.

In early to mid-2014 DSS became aware that its administration of the scheme was not consistent with the regulations.

DSS also assessed that a high proportion of the Approved Participants’ claims for the 2013–14 NRAS year were likely to be refused.

Shorter Commonwealth Ombudsman: Ooopps!

March 2014 complaint lodged with the Australian Stock Exchange concerning Metgasco Limited

Coal seam and tight gas exploration & mining company Metgasco Limited is listed on the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX).

An individual has lodged a 3-page complaint with ASX alleging that the company failed to meet its disclosure obligations and engaged in allegedly misleading and deceptive conduct (click on page images to enlarge):

The Australian Stock Exchange sent a 2-page reply in which it stated it was investigating the complaint in relation to the mining company's listing obligations:

Click on page images to enlarge

Note: 
The complainants address has been redacted from both letters for privacy reasons.
These digital copies of the complaint and response were received by North Coast Voices as a direct result of Metgasco Limited's release on 9 April 2014 of email addresses on its subscriber list.