0 Comments
AU Press Council: Inaccuracy in Sydney Morning Herald Article: Breivik Appeal Case Formally Ends10/9/2012 Complaint (PDF) against Sydney Morning Herald: 08 September 2012 Article: No Breivik Appeal as Case Formally Ends: Error: The case has not ‘formally ended’. Relief Requested in terms of General Statement of Principles: (2) Correction of inaccuracy & (3) Publishing responses [1] 27 August Application to Supreme Court for Review of Breivik Judgement. On 27 August 2012 an application was filed with the Norwegian Supreme Court for Review of the Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement, to set aside (A) the Necessity ruling, and (B) the conviction and Remit to Oslo District Court for hearing of further evidence to conclude Objective and Subjective Necessity Test Evidentiary Enquiry. The finding of guilt, in the absence of full Objective and Subjective Necessity Test Conclusions renders the Guilt Finding Inadequate. Additionally the application for review also requested an Order to Set Aside the Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement’s failure to disclose the pending Judicial Ethics violation complaint against Judge Wenche Arntzen, filed on 06 June 2012 to the Secretariaty for the Supervisory Committee for Judges (Case 2012-072 ), as a violation of Aarhus Convention Article 3.(3)(4)(5) principles and general ECHR public accountability transparency (Lithgow & Others v. United Kingdom) principles. The Norwegian Supreme Court Registrar has so far refused to issue a Case Number for the Application for Review of the Breivik Judgement, or to provide reasons for their refusal. A complaint of Slow Case Processing against the Supreme Court Registrar was submitted to the Parliamentary Ombudsman on 02 September 2012. [2] Notifications to Norwegian Foreign Press Association (FPA) The Norwegian Foreign Press Association as well as all their members, which include journalists from Reuters, Agence France Presse (AFP), Associated Press (AP), Al Arabija, Al Jazeera, BBC, Bloomberg, Globe and Mail, Xinhua, Die Welt, Irish Times, Himalayan Times, Itar-Tass, etc., were notified by 13:00 hrs (GM+2) on 07 September 2012 of aforementioned information, that: (A) Application for Review of Breivik Judgement filed with Norway Supreme Court; (B) Complaint filed with Parliamentary Ombudsman against Supreme Court, for slow case processing; (C) Pending Judicial Ethics violation complaint against Judge Wenche Arntzen. Direct Association: Yes. I filed the application for Review of the Breivik Judgement to the Oslo Supreme Court, as well as prior Habeus Mentem (Right to Legal Sanity) applications to the Oslo District Court, on behalf of Mr. Breivik's sanity. Contact with Publication: Yes. I contacted Sydney Morning Herald Readers Editor with a Request for a Correction on Sat 9/8/2012 12:29 AM. On Monday, September 10, 2012 9:19 AM, Ms. Judy Prisk, their readers editor responded refusing to publish a correction, or to change the story online, as follows: “We will not be publishing a correction; nor will we change the story online.” Response from Alicia Sammy: Complaints and Communications Officer: The Australian Press Council Inc: Subject: Re. Your complaint I acknowledge receipt of your complaint received on 10 September 2012. At this stage it appears that we will not be able to consider your complaint because Sky News is not a member of the Press Council. In addition, the content of the articles on its website are reflections of the stories they have broadcasted on the channel and accordingly are not classified as content within the scope of the Press Council. As such if you wish to pursue the matter further, I would recommend you contact the Australian Communications and Media Authority. If you wish to provide any further information which indicates that we should reconsider this conclusion, it will need to reach us by no later than 17 September 2012. Response: "Many thanks for your response and information. I shall contact the Australian Communications and Media Authority." Complaint (PDF) submitted to Australian Press Council: RE: AU Press Council: Re: Inaccuracy in Sky News.AU Online Article: No Breivik appeal as case ends Request Correction of Inaccuracy in: Sky News - Australia: No Breivik appeal as case ends The case has not ‘ended’: [1] 27 August Application to Supreme Court for Review of Breivik Judgement. On 27 August 2012 an application was filed with the Norwegian Supreme Court for Review of the Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement, to set aside (A) the Necessity ruling, and (B) the conviction and Remit to Oslo District Court for hearing of further evidence to conclude Objective and Subjective Necessity Test Evidentiary Enquiry. The finding of guilt, in the absence of full Objective and Subjective Necessity Test Conclusions renders the Guilt Finding Inadequate. Additionally the application for review also requested an Order to Set Aside the Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement’s failure to disclose the pending Judicial Ethics violation complaint (PDF ) against Judge Wenche Arntzen, filed on 06 June 2012 to the Secretariaty for the Supervisory Committee for Judges (Case 2012-072 ), as a violation of Aarhus Convention Article 3.(3)(4)(5) principles and general ECHR public accountability transparency (Lithgow & Others v. United Kingdom) principles. The Norwegian Supreme Court Registrar has so far refused to issue a Case Number for the Application for Review of the Breivik Judgement, or to provide reasons for their refusal. A complaint of Slow Case Processing against the Supreme Court Registrar was submitted to the Parliamentary Ombudsman on 02 September 2012. (Annex A) Direct Association: Yes. I filed the application to the Supreme Court, as well as prior applications to the Oslo District Court, on behalf of Mr. Breivik's sanity. Contact with Publication: I tried to, but could not find a contact email address for the editor. |
RH Data Archive:Radical Honoursty Eco-Feminist legal applications and complaints submitted to Norwegian and European Authorities in the Norway v. Breivik trial.
Archives
April 2016
Categories
All
|