These are the rules – hang on, not they’re not, they’re the laws – that apply if a duly sworn officer of the Queensland Police Force wishes to ask questions of a young woman who was once an average punter and reader of Archie Butterfly’s brilliant works, but due to the hitherto unknown propensity of the dozen roses on Valentine’s Day toting boyfriend to become a psycho of Norman Bates proportions at the click of two fingers, has become an invalid pensioner with irreparable damage to the brain due to the aforesaid maniacs decision to crash the car in which she was an innocent passenger whilst driving at 120km an hour around a hairpin rural road bend.

The fact that over the subsequent years the woman has retained her youthful beauty – indeed, in the eyes of good judges like your faithful correspondent has actually enhanced it – neither mitigates the fact that takes enough prescription pills to fill a schooner glass, and suffers daily from blinding headaches of the type that would drop an elephant in its tracks, nor does it derogate the particular police officer or officers duty to comply with the act that prescribes the manner in which they conduct interviews of good folk that they believe may be able to assist them with their inquiries into the allegedly unlawful activities of others with whom they may have had contact.

So why then did one or more Queensland Police Officers conduct private questioning of a young woman who was in no way a person of interest in the particular matter they were investigating, and then not only severely and most prejudicially criticize her in documents tendered to an open court for having the temerity to afterward hold a discussion with the very people – her parents – that she should have been afforded the opportunity to hold a discussion with, and seek advice from, prior to said unlawful questioning?

And even importantly, why did the officers in question then take advantage of their absolutely misused powers to even further misuse them by telling the court that the defenders of the thin blue line have information that the young impaired woman with the brain injury ‘continued’ the family drug operations, even though there is no evidence whatsoever that the family were engaged in such ongoing operations, if they ever existed at all, or that the young woman ever began the step that is absolutely fundamental to any allegation of ‘continuing’ a thing, which is beginning it, or at least being involved in its beginning or at some stage along the way.

To be basely rude and crude, just to illustrate the point, I cannot continue rooting the young woman if we have never shagged, and if both she and I remain virgins unto each other into our middle ages can we? So how on earth can the young woman not only be bereft of the intense pleasure of my Viagra enhanced after dark (or before if you like) skills, but also of involvement in the transaction of anything but the filling of doctor prescribed medication, if she has never begun involvement in either the boom, crash, Archie pleasure and leisure zone, or involvement in illegal drugs.

Simple answer she can’t, much to her chagrin in the former case, and her credit in the latter. The only lawbreakers in this instance are the uniformed public servants who for reasons of their own refuse to abide with their lawful responsibilities.

Now for legal reasons I am unable to disclose to you the identities of the individuals to whom I refer, not to the case that my comments relate to. But let me merely say that is a big one, huge in fact, and one that will dominate the front pages later this year should the expected timetable put forward by the force’s finest be adhered to, which in my book is at odds of about 100 to one and blowing like a gale.

As long as it takes though, we’ll be watching, for although we make no denial of the guilt of those accused in the matter, we make no declaration of their guilt either, for the function of the criminal justice system in all 3 of the separated powers is the impartial examination of facts in order to ascertain truth. Our democracy and the freedoms we enjoy in the Wide Brown Land depend absolutely upon it.


So when those with power over others begin breaking the rules, writers like me have to stand up and shout from the rooftops about how wrong it is, particularly when vulnerable people’s rights are abused simply so that the institutional representative toward who the balance of state power is pronouncedly slanted may attempt to fill lines between the dots of a tale that they have created through imagination, ignorance of history, and misrepresentation of the evidence, rather than via the process of unbiased examination and exploration that as young police officers and lawyers they swore to pursue.

Writers create narratives and then invent the facts and characters to fill their plots. Police officers, prosecutors and judicial officers should not, for to do so is simply un-Australian, and even worse, it’s just not cricket. 

And no-one likes a Mankad, and we sportsfans and punters hate match-fixing  even more, because it drags the players down into the same gutter into which they are attempting to land their opponents by lining them up for a big blindside hit.

So be warned, umpire Archie’s watching, and stump cam is active.