WHEN THE LAW REALLY IS AN ASS
Take a look at this picture:
Don't laugh, but it’s a picture of a former Australian sailor — Gregory Mills Clark — who alleged that I had king hit him with a closed fist in a shopping mall at Corrimal in January, 2010. I was subsequently charged with assault, placed before the courts, and found guilty by a magistrate. The prosecutor, acutely embarrassed that he even had to prosecute this matter, immediately asked the magistrate to apply a Section 10 to the matter — that is, not to record a conviction.
Although he had found me ‘guilty’, the magistrate agreed to it. No conviction was recorded.
Still — I had been falsely charged with assault in the first place, and forced to go through the police and court system with accompanying media attention:
Until this event occurred, I placed great faith in the NSW Police Service and our judicial system.
But what I learned from the experience is that the law really can be an ass.
This is how it all went down…
I first met Clark at a Vietnam Veterans Lifestyle Program in the late 1990s. He was sitting in a group spinning a yarn about being part of an elite naval/infantry unit — and his job was to pick off VC snipers!
I called him out on it. No such unit ever existed, and no sailor would be involved in it if it did. He was a bare-faced liar.
In fact, he had served as a stoker on the HMAS Sydney, spending just 24 days in ‘Vietnam waters’, seven floors below deck:
Despite the paucity of his ‘war’ service, never having seen combat or even setting foot on Vietnam soil, Clark managed to convince psychiartrists that he deserved the highest Australian war pension — the TPI (Totally and Permanently Incapacitated) and it was duly awarded.
He boasted about his ‘war-caused’ conditions when he sent me a letter and the following document:
Yet, Greg Clark is the Illawarra region’s most famous ‘Vietnam veteran’. He has every piece of Vietnam paraphenalia in his home, wears all the badges and patches he can get a hold of. He made the local VVAA office his home away from home — until his mother died and left him a house to live in.
So that is the ‘man’ who fronted up to the Wollongong Police in January 2010 with the tiddly scratch on his face and alleged that he’d been assaulted. (Most infantrymen, indeed most men, who are aware of this matter just laugh at Clark’s allegation.)
The officer who took the complaint — Constable Ross Andriske — actually took him seriously, but later, had to admit in court that he’d never personally seen a ‘king hit’ himself, or even been involved in a fight, and was unaware of what physical damage could result from one.
THE EVIDENCE AGAINST ANY ASSAULT EVER BEING COMMITTED
There was ample evidence that no assault could have happened, or was ever, possible in the manner described. For example:
(a) As well as having a severely arthritic right knee (which was replaced a few months later) I have other profound war-caused physical disabilities — including a shattered right hip from a machine-gun bullet; the hip is arthrodesed. This makes assaulting anyone very unlikely…
(b) a letter from my treating physiotherapist
(b) x-rays of my right wrist (held together by seven pins, some of which are broken) which preclude it being used in a punch
On their own, that should have been enough defence.
But consider these facts:
- Clarke alleged that I had used my right fist to hit him. If that had been true, my right fist would have struck him on the left side of his face, not the right side (a matter of basic physics lost on the poor constable who took the statement from Clark)
- If he had been hit anywhere on the face with a closed fist (given that I am a former boxer and weighed 103 kgs at the time) he would have had a welt, a broken cheekbone, or a severe bruise — not a little scratch
But that’s all common sense. Too much common sense for a magistrate in a local court to handle.
The police had acquired cctv footage which they maintained showed an assault. It did no such thing. I have posted that footage on facebook at:
https://www.facebook.com/DONALDWILLIAMTATE/videos/10151806954029895/
The objective viewer would note that:
- yes, there was an altercation
- that I was demonstrably upset
- that I moved towards him aggressively
- he moves backwards out of sight — but within three seconds is seen moving away, pushing his trolley and still mouthing off
Yet Clark told the court that he had been struck in the face and knocked down, and a bystander had asked how he was, and helped him up — all within three seconds!
Nor was there any evidence of a punch being thrown. Nor did the police examine my knuckles to see if there was any abrasion etc.
Unfortunately, Clark claimed he was suffering from a lung disease that made it all but impossible for him to walk (thoroughly disproved in the cctv footage). But the police version of the cctv footage conveniently deleted a large section showing him roaming freely around that mall in other areas in no discomfort whatsoever.
POLICE INVESTIGATE CLARK FOR PERJURY
Det Sgt Darren Kelly of the Lake Illawarra Police — a most competent police officer who was not part of the initial complaint lodged in Wollongong Police Station — later re-examined the matter.
He put together a sound analysis of why the charge of assault was inconsistent with the facts and submitted it to the Attorney-General.
The Attorney-General instructed Det Snr Sgt Kelly to put together a brief of evidence on my behalf regarding the matter, including the material above, as well as 13 instances of clear perjury by Clark which he discovered in the initial police statement given to Constable Ross Andriske, and in Clark’s oral evidence in court under cross-examination.
Here are some examples of the perjury:
- Clark maintained that I had ‘restrained him and manhandled him three times’. AT NO TIME WAS HE EVEN TOUCHED
- Clark maintained that he was ‘standing out in front of Woolworths, minding (his) own business when (he) noticed (me) approaching him’. THE CCTV FOOTAGE CLEARLY SHOWS US WALKING TOWARDS EACH OTHER
- On four occasions, Clark stated that the scene was ‘upsetting his grandson’. NO GRANDSON IS EVER PRESENT ON THE CCTV FOOTAGE
- Clark stated that he had ‘asbestosis, and couldn’t walk from here to the car without stopping…’ THE CCTV FOOTAGE CLEARLY SHOWS HIM PUSHING A TROLLEY WITH LITTLE EFFORT
- Clark stated that my ‘wife was with (me) and she was trying to settle him down.’ MY WIFE WASN’T EVEN PRESENT
They are only a few examples of his lies.
The brief of evidence was sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) but not acted on.
When queried as to why it wouldn’t act, the DPP replied that to do so would ‘render the finding unsafe’.
Clark was never charged with perjury. But he has to live with the knowledge that he accused a fellow veteran of assault, knowing full well he had made a false statement, and most likely simply scratched himself with his fingernail.
So much for justice.
Still, mud sticks.
FOOTNOTE: I had a lawyer who charged me $5000 for his ‘services’ — name of Borg. He isn’t one any more.. .
