Skip to content Skip to main navigation


Daily flights from Canberra
to Singapore and the world

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?

Please login to post your comments, or connect with
27 Responses to
email to riotact’s EDITOR
Showing only Website comments
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
Thumper 8:29 am 08 Jul 05

Auto googling?

Is that akin to using a lap top in your car?


LurkerGal 6:15 pm 07 Jul 05

Someone’s been auto-googling!

Thumper 11:39 am 07 Jul 05

Yeah Nic,

I’d agree with Bonfire on that one.

bonfire 11:11 am 07 Jul 05

nik you are prob right. too many govt priorities, too few police, the thin blue line gets pretty stretched at times.

Nik_the_Pig 10:35 am 07 Jul 05

Funny how we always get the most comments on stories that turn into slanging matches, often not even related to the story at hand.

Anyway, back to the story at hand – from reading the court ruling that was one poorly written warrant. I can’t comment on how Mr Trivett came to have those items in his car but there is not doubt in my mind that the case was rightly dropped. I don’t always like the fact that there is so much pedantic little bits of paperwork to obtain and present evidence legally but it’s the best system we have and considering it’s our (the police’s) job to work within that system you would hope that we would be able to get it right.

I wonder if inexperience or fatigue had anything to do with the officers who produced that warrant leaving out those few important lines?

Kerces 7:19 pm 06 Jul 05

You don’t need to prove public interest in a defense of truth in all jursdictions (mainly only in the ones where there were convict origins). However, you do need to prove truth of all imputations, not just that the facts are true.

bonfire 5:22 pm 06 Jul 05

your article has damaged his life ?

So getting pulled over, cops finding inadmissable date rape drugs, going to court etc was just minor in comparison.

power of the blog/press!

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved. | | |

Search across the site