RSPCA are so Powerful they can have Court Transcripts Interfered with and altered.

There are large and important segments of transcripts missing. It is inconceivable that the relevant issues were not canvassed. There are three witnesses to the fact that these issues were covered. That they are not in the transcripts and this happened from day 2 of the trial only supports the Appellant's belief that the outcome was predetermined.

COURTS CANNOT BE TRUSTED.

Perjuring witnesses are protected by Magistrates when they make a finding of fact that the witness gave open and honest evidence. Some adjustments to the transcripts allows this finding to be vindicated. That the adjustments have been made indicated what the findings will be. The outcome has been predetermined. A deal has been struck. A promotion was gained.
Part of Geraldine Robertson's witness, Annette Barrell's, evidence is missing from the transcript. This evidence would convict RSPCA Inspector Tracey Jackson of the criminal offence of intimidating a witness. Annette Barrell's Affidavit sworn 27th March 2008

How to save RSPCA Inspector and RSPCA Prosecutor Tracy Jackson from being discovered for the crime of intimidating witnesses for the purpose of perverting the course of Justice. After the RSPCA received Annette Barrell's Affidavit, provided to DPI in Geraldine Robertson's Appeal Review, Annette Barrell on 14th of April 2008 received a visit from RSPCA Inspector and Prosecutor in charge the the RSPCA prosecution of Geraldine Robertson Tracey Jackson with Daniel Young. 

RSPCA Prosecutor Tracey Jackson tried to get Geraldine Robertson's witness, Annette Barrell, to give false evidence. That this was done is supported by the nature of the questions put to Annette Barrell in Geraldine Robertson's Appeal Hearing for the return of her dogs. Annette Barrell was told what to say by Tracey Jackson. Annette Barrell was not corruptible and refused to lie for Tracey Jackson although she was threatened. To save her own neck, Tracey Jackson had Dr Mellifont put questions to Annette Barrell to make out that Annette Barrell said these things to Tracey Jackson. This interference with a witness became exposed later in the Re-examination.

Annette Barrell gave evidence and was cross examined by Ms Mellifont, She was then re-examined by Geraldine Robertson. That the issues raised in cross examination were not issues in re-examination is inconceivable. See the Transcripts day 2 pages 18 - 25. day 2 Page 20  line 10 to 55Annette Barrell (note the transcripts highlighted in yellow). At the Court RSPCA Inspector Tracey Jackson was seen handing Ms Mellifont a piece of paper that Ms Mellifont read from. These questions were very relevant to the issues. Note Annette Barrell's denials. 

Then from Page 21.. (missing in the transcripts) in RE-EXAMINATION Geraldine Robertson asked Annette Barrell about these issues raised by Ms Mellifont. Annette Barrell told the Court that RSPCA Inspector Tracey Jackson HAD TOLD HER THESE THINGS AND THAT SHE HAD NOT SAID THEM. Annette Barrell said that when RSPCA Inspector Tracey Jackson told her these things that was the first time she had heard these things. She said she felt Tracey Jackson was telling her what to say as a witness. Annette Barrell said she felt intimidated and bullied and feared RSPCA would do to her what they did to Geraldine Robertson. 

That such important issues did not go re-examined is just not believable. BUT this is missing from the transcripts. Taken from the transcripts Day 2, Page 20 line 8 - 50.

"All right.  Now, Mrs Barrell, during your conversation with the inspectors ----?-- Yes.

----- you were comparing your kennels with Mrs Robertson's; is that correct?-- I'm sorry I don't know what - I don't remember that at all.

Well, I'll expand on it.  You were seeking to explain to the inspectors that your kennels, your property, was in a better condition as compared to Mrs Robertson's; do you agree with me?‑‑ I'm sorry, I really don't know what you're talking about.

All right.  Did you tell the inspectors that you used to help out Mrs Robertson?-- Yes.

Did you tell them that you used to work for her because - was it your kennels were overcrowded?-- No, I had more than the number of dogs that the Caboolture Shire Council would allow me.

I see.  Did you tell the inspectors that Mrs Robertson was only interested in the money now?-- No.  Definitely not.

Did you tell the inspectors that Mrs Robertson would only clip the babies for sale but let the others go matted?-- No.  No.

Did you tell the inspectors that Mrs Robertson wouldn't let anyone into your kennels for fear that the people would see the state of the kennels?-- No.

 Did you tell the inspectors that Mrs Robertson, "Used to be an okay breeder years ago but that she now had too many dogs and wasn't interested in the poodles anymore"?-- I never said anything like that.

Did you say to the inspectors - or mention to the inspectors that, "Too many dogs confined together can be mad" in the context of telling the inspectors about Mrs Robertson's dogs killing each other?-- I didn't even mention anything to do with Mrs Robertson's dogs at all.  That was not me.  Whoever said that was certainly not me, I never said one single thing like that at all.  I have no idea where that came from."

In re-examination Annette Barrell said she felt intimidated and bullied and feared RSPCA would do to her what they did to Geraldine Robertson. Annette Barrell said she was told these things (to say) by RSPCA Prosecutor Tracey Jackson.

Then later the issue of witnesses having been interfered with were raised with Magistrate Colin J. Strofield. Issues relating to intimidating witnesses and the Contempt of Court Application filed previously were raised. These are all missing from the transcript. 

Dr. Mellifont then jumped up and said that was intimidation of a witness, Dr.Mellifont said to Magistrate C.J.Strofield that all the items struck out by Magistrate Bradford-Morgan should now be In Issue and referred to the Contempt of Court Application and said that those issues raised should now be considered in view of what had just happened. There was some dialogue on the subject. Geraldine Robertson started to sob from relief that a major point has been won in this Appeal Hearing and Magistrate C.J. Strofield offered a 10 minutes break which was accepted. Geraldine Robertson then thanked Dr. Mellifont. This unusual occasion was witnessed by persons attending the open Court Hearing and was noted by them as well as it was the subject of discussion for a few days following. 

Tracey Jackson RSPCA Prosecutor and Anthony Deane SC were called as witnesses as a consequence of this decision that is now not recorded in the transcripts. They were called to give details of what happened when the records were seized which was part of the Contempt of Court Application. In reality, they were called to cover up the contempt of Court by RSPCA Inspectors.

 THAT THESE DO NOT APPEAR IN THE TRANSCRIPT AND WOULD HAVE BEEN THE NATURE OF THE QUESTIONS RAISED AND THE DISCUSSION THAT FOLLOWED SHOWS THE COURT CAN NOT BE TRUSTED AND THE OUTCOME HAD BEEN PREDETERMINED. 

This demonstrated that Tracy Jackson has committed a crime of interfering with witnesses and it is now being covered up and that the Court cannot be trusted.

Shayne Towers-Hammond committed perjury and an attempt was made to prove it. 

Magistrate C. J. Strofield would not allow Shayne Towers-Hammond to become a proven perjurer.  But this does not appear in he Transcripts. How the transcripts and evidence has been adjusted to save Shayne Towers-Hammond. 

1. Deleted relevant sections from the transcripts. There were other people in the court listening and some are prepared to give a statement to the effect of what they heard.
2. Hide the fabricated evidence. The DVD called entrance video becomes a tape and the references are changed from DVD to tape in the transcripts.

Note paragraph 4 of Shayne Towers-Hammond's affidavit sworn 1st August 2008 where he said:-

"4.  As I made my way to the front entrance of the property I could immediately smell a heavy pungent stench of what I believe to be animal excrement. This smell was rather overpowering. As I entered through the front entrance doors I saw a number of what appeared to be poodle type dogs in 'penned' directly opposite the office at the main entrance. There would have been about eight or so dogs of varying size. I could see their coats were heavily knotted and overgrown. These animals were in a filthy condition and were barking incessantly. The smell was such I could feel the burning sensation at the rear of my throat. I saw that there was a considerable amount of animal excrement on the ground and there was discarded dog fur strewn throughout the 'pen'. I saw that there were chairs and a table in the undercover area of the pen where the discarded dog fur had built up and had built up to a stage that the fur was attached to these furnishings. The enclosure overall was filthy to say the least."

In the Transcripts Page 31 line 2  Shayne Towers-Hammond tells Geraldine Robertson to her face that as he saw it in the exit video is not how it was because Geraldine Robertsion had cleaned it.  

Shayne Towers-Hammond & Geraldine Robertson from the transcripts: 

"You actually cleaned that, ma'am, when I was - when I was there."
I actually cleaned it-----?-- Cleaned some of the area-----
-----there?-- Cleaned some of the area up. That's not how I originally saw it.
When - when did I clean it? How did you originally see it, or me clean it, which - whichever? How did you originally see it first?-- There were faeces around the area itself in that - that particular location, there were a number of dogs in that area also, and you were - you started to clean the area up whilst we were there.
And I started to clean it up when? I can't remember cleaning it?-- I saw you do it, ma'am. It was - as a matter of fact, if you go further on in the video you'll see you cleaning as well.
Actually clean that area?-- You're cleaning up in another area as well, ma'am.
I cleaned up in another area. You said that I clean up the faeces and the urine, how much was there, like-----?-- There was amounts of faeces throughout that whole area."

That this was perjury is proved by the Entrance Video taken before Shayne Towers-hammond arrived at the premises showing the same condition as the exit video taken by Shayne Towers-Hammond after he said the area had been cleaned. Note the scraping noises added to the Exit video to support Shayne Towers-Hammond's statement that this yard had been cleaned. See screen shots from the videos. This proves the entrance your was not covered in urine and faeces with a putrid smell as claimed by Shayne Towers-Hammond. It also shows the type of perjury Geraldine Robertson was up against all through the hearing. That Magistrate Colin J. Strofield, knowing there was so much perjury allowed this perjury and then said he will consider it shows how unfair and unjust the hearing was.

In the Transcripts on page 38 in pages 34-38 should be His Honour Magistrate Colin J. Strofield, refusing to allow Geraldine Robertson to prove that Shayne Towers-Hammond perjured himself when he said in the Exit Video and in evidence that the yard has since been cleaned. Simply comparing the two videos proves this perjury. That Magistrate Colin J. Strofield would not allow the comparison of the two videos, the entrance video Court Exhibit 2 and the Exit Video Court exhibit 24 has been deleted from the Court Transcripts Day 5 page 38. Line 48. What is peculiar about this page is that the Entrance Video was played and then no questions were asked about it after it had been played. This is unusual. There was in fact a discussion about the two videos that showed Shayne Towers-Hammond was lying.

It was possible to prove Shayne Towers-Hammond had committed perjury by comparing two videos, the entry video and the exit video, to show that there had not been any cleaning done between those two times as Shayne Towers-Hammond had claimed. In his evidence he also said that this entrance yard was covered in faeces and urine and had a putrid smell and had been cleaned before he took his exit video. The entrance video was taken by Lawrence Stageman before Shayne Towers-Hammond had arrived at the Buccan Rd property. Since the Entrance Video had a similar appearance in that stones and leaves were in approximately the same place it was possible to prove no cleaning had been done and therefore the entrance yard was not covered in faeces and urine. Magistrate C. J.Strofield stopped this from happening his interference and protection of witness perjury is missing from the transcripts. 

That an attempt to prove Shayne Towers-Hammond committed perjury was not made when it was so provable is inconceivable and Geraldine Robertson has three witnesses who were in the Court and saw it.

Shayne Towers-Hammond Page 32 line 51

"BENCH: Well, do you accept, Inspector - do you - Inspector, do you inspect - do you accept that it's a - photograph number 27 is a - an entry photograph? No, your Honour. That - I - when I entered - when I entered the premises and I saw - there was faeces over the ground in that area - I had to actually - if you notice in the photograph there's a table and a couple of items on top of that table - I had to actually move that table to get behind to look at a few things behind there, so that would've been in the early stages, but I do recall when I did arrive there that Ms Robertson was doing some cleaning up. It wasn't drastic or anything like that, but she was doing some cleaning up. That would've been taken throughout the time the other inspectors were there, but - and I remember stepping over a number of things to get - to get into there, and there were a number of animals in there."

Then later there were more lies on page 35 line 24 onwards

Hiding this perjury from the Appeal requires substitution of alternative Court Exhibit 24. The DVD that was played to the Court was substituted with a tape that had never been played to the court.

Transcripts Page 3. The word DVD has been replaced with the word tape.

"APPELLANT: Excuse me, could - could I have this tape played please?
MS MELLIFONT: I'll take that.
APPELLANT: Thank you.
BENCH: What is that a tape of?
APPELLANT: That's the exit tape.
BENCH: The exit tape?
APPELLANT: Yes, that was given to us by Ms Mellifont.
BENCH: All right. Mr Towers-Hammond, I - I haven't seen this, I don't think, have I?
APPELLANT: I - I think we've been using it for a while.
BENCH: Is this - it's got the----
APPELLANT: It's the - they - they are both virtually similar.
BENCH:  Okay.  Has - has the exit tape been played before, the actual exit tape?
APPELLANT: Yes, I think so - isn't it, do you know?"

Then on day 5 page 71 lines 4-20

MS MELLIFONT:  Mr Towers-Hammond, can you have a look at this cassette, please.  Do you recognise that cassette?-- Yes, I do.
What is it? --  It's a - a - a video of - or the one I actually took as the exit video for - on the 9th of January 2008 and it's together with another - other videos that was on that particular camera.
Thank you.  Your Honour, I tender that audiocassette-----
BENCH:  The - the exit video taken by this inspector will be Exhibit 24.
ADMITTED AND MARKED "EXHIBIT 24"

Now there is a tape cassette in the Court Exhibits that Geraldine Robertson has not seen purporting to be the Exhibit 24 that was played to the Court.  Courts cannot be trusted. Magistrates act dishonestly.