Skip to content Skip to main navigation


Avani Terraces - Greenway
Life is looking up

email to riotact’s EDITOR

By johnboy - 5 July 2005 27

Well the following was submitted as a story but I’ve taken it over in order to provide the relevant extra material, and to save other problems.


I am writing to demand that you remove the defamatory article regarding Justin James Trevitt and that you refrain from publishing any further material in relation to myself. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Director of Public Prosecutions decline proceeding further in the prosecution of Justin James Trevitt due to NO EVIDENCE. (NOTICE DECLINING TO PROCEED FURTHER IN A PROSECUTION by the Director of Public Prosecutions, dated 7th of June 2005: reference: S2004 894).

Failure to remove said material or allow publication of any further commentary on this matter will result in defamation action.


Drugs hidden in wooden block
by johnboy on Thursday, June 17 @ 10:45:15 EST

My word! What was all that about eh? Well the original story is here. I believe the court judgment is this one.

Justin also emailled us with much the same demand only with the following addition:

Your article has damaged my life quite considerably for the last year since my profession involves the internet. I really can’t stress the importance of it’s immediate attention.

Well I’d like to thank Justin for drawing our attention to another case of the boys in blue playing fast and loose with warrants.

Sadly though Justin I consider my comment to be both fair and true and have no intention of expurgating our record. That the charge was thrown out (which I offer my congratulations on) does not alter the fact that you were charged.

It’s been a couple of months since we had a defo threat but in my opinion yours is the funniest we’ve ever seen.

What’s Your opinion?

Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
27 Responses to
email to riotact’s EDITOR
bulldog 11:19 am 06 Jul 05

I’m sure JB will never forget that your enemy’s enemies are all cock gaggers.

Now; You take care.

ssanta 11:12 am 06 Jul 05


If only there were more people like you. That would allow us to thin our gene pool of poor, misguided, hoplessly deluded fools like yourself.

Now thats defamation!

Patcarr 10:33 am 06 Jul 05


Never strike a blow in anger, and never forget that my enemy’s enemies are my friends.

Take care,

bulldog 8:58 am 06 Jul 05

PS Johnboy, you seem to have been promoted;

Refer to the salutation in the letter of demand:

“Dear Sir,”


bulldog 8:57 am 06 Jul 05

It is my opinion that the acquited gentleman should build a bridge. In fact, if I were in the same situation I would very likely just try and forget about the whole ordeal and get on with my life.

And what the hell is with Pat Carr and C*** G******? Methinks he may be a gagger of the closeted variety.

Samuel Gordon-Stewar 12:32 am 06 Jul 05

Heh, I always look at Grapevine users sideways after one started abusing me on my blog. I don’t blame Grapevine users, I just size them up to see if they fit the profile of the anonymous idiot commenter.

In hindsight, one of the comments was semi-funny and relevant to my blog and has since become the tagline.

“It’s just not normal”

sk8erboi 11:18 pm 05 Jul 05

Fascinating…, frankly I’d be more scared of the MIPI going after me for the contents of my iPod.

johnboy 11:13 pm 05 Jul 05

Nice try to get us in trouble patrick, do you realise it would have been you up for the defo action and not us?

We’d have been happy to give up your details, for instance your ISP is grapevine and I’m sure they could tell an inquisitive legal team who was logged on to the IP at 10.57pm on 5 July 2005

Now quit your silly games and bugger off or the next time you’ll be in real strife.

Patcarr 10:57 pm 05 Jul 05

Don’t worry about him Johnboy he is just another one of those c*** g******. [EDITED BY JB]

gingermick 10:33 pm 05 Jul 05

His profession involves the internet? Something in the adult line?

johnboy 10:00 pm 05 Jul 05

There are many defences, truth is one of them. It isn’t an absolute defence.

Spectra 9:54 pm 05 Jul 05

I’m not a lawyer, but a friend of mine who is (and has for various reasons been threatened with defamation suits in the past) told me that “it’s the truth” is a valid defamation defence (providing of course that you can show it to be the truth).
Of course, I may have misunderstood him or he may have been wrong, but that was my understanding of the situation.

johnboy 9:21 pm 05 Jul 05

Well potentially there’s damage to reputation even if it’s true.

But with the court ruling up there on the net I think we have very, very little to worry about.

Spectra 9:03 pm 05 Jul 05

Seems to me that the amount of defamatory material in that article is precisely “bugger all” (behold my immense grasp of legalese).
There are some factual statements regarding the case, and a (somewhat snide, but never claiming to be factual) piece of opinion which could reasonably be seen as calling into question the defence. Stop me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t something need to be…you know…wrong, to be considered defamatory?

… In my opinion.

johnboy 7:08 pm 05 Jul 05

Now everyone, Justin obviously feels very sensitive about this, so please phrase your comments as opinion and bear in mind that no charges have been proven.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved. | |

Search across the site