DPP INVOVLEMENT case #1 and case #2

Case #1 and Case #2 are identical in law.

Both constitute Failure of Duty of Care by WA Fisheries Department and Criminal Code 409 Fraud committed by a WA Licenced Fishing Boat Licence [LFBL] holder.

See Legal Opinions Case # 1 W.J.Miller Case#1 Evidence Pages 75 to 86 and David Leaske Pages 223 to 238

Both involved Boat Broker Jim Mace, Independent Boat Brokers,Geraldton.

Both had briefs prepared by the WA Police and submitted to the DPP John McKechnie, for Prosecution.

Letter 14 February 1994 to Mr R Eadie Parliamentary Commissioner for Administrative Investigations from Peter Rogers Executive Director WA Fisheries Department,following complaint by Mark Paxton.

Case # 1 Evidence Page 56,57 Paragraph 5

“While the Fisheries Department recognises the licencee of a fishing boat, all limited entry fishery licences and gear unit entitlements attached to the fishing boat licence are also CONSIDERED to be owned by that licencee.What has apparently been happening is that Mr Paxton has, by verbal agreements with the licencee, maintained some form of ownership outside the fisheries regulations, of a gear unit attached sequentially to various boats of which he was not the licencee”.

NB: That “some form of ownership” referred to was ACTUAL/BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP ,recognised and confirmed by Peter Millington Director of Licencing

NB: The fisheries regulations Peter Rogers refers to is another example of Peter Rogers saying anything to fit his narrative. No Fisheries “regulations” referring to or recognising ownership existed.

The Failure to have a Legislated Register of ACTUAL/BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP is the Failure of Duty of Care, that led to both Case #1 and Case #2 frauds.

Its worth noting here that Peter Rogers was notified of the Fraudulent sale of Mr Paxton’s unit [3.5.1991] , in 1992,when he became aware of it.

A meeting at Mr Paxton’s request took place on 17.2.93 with Mr Paxton, Peter Rogers , and fellow Fisheries Department employees Tony O’Conner, head of Legal and Alex Ceschner from licencing.

Mr Paxton produced Justice Mason’s Specific and general reliance test, a High Court Ruling to assess Duty of Care of Public Administrators, to which Peter Rogers replied, “The Fisheries don’t have a duty of care”, adding, as a joke to entertain Mr O’Conner and Mr Ceschner “we don’t have a duty of care to you ,you don’t own a licence anymore”.

Peter Rogers, knowing full well his licencing system was inadequate and enabled fraud, then refused to meet all his Legislated obligations, as per the Public Sector Code of Ethics, being report fraud, attempt to resolve the issue of two people claiming ownership of the same fishing licence by interviewing all parties involved,

Blenkinsop had no right to sell the licence,which he did without their Knowledge]