(c) to proceed with the prosecution would be contrary to the public interest - law enforcement is necessarily a discretionary process, and sometimes it is appropriate for subjective considerations of public policy,such as the preservation of order or the maintenance of international relations,to take precedence over strict law enforcement considerations;
That's where you come in.
We don't need a torches burning, pitchfork wielding mob. We are not like that. But we do need to be active. And we need public support.
We need to be considered, fully conversant with the facts - but more importantly able to explain to our friends why it is in the public interest that these charges are laid and prosecuted.
Australians are fair minded people. We give others a fair go. It's a big ask to get a normal Aussie with a normal life to jump over the hurdle of agreeing to pull a former politician in to answer for 20+ year old offences. Most people (unacquainted with the facts) would just say leave it.
I say Gillard went into Dyson Heydon's royal commission carrying a forged letter purporting to be from Ray Neal, the WA Corporate Affairs Commissioner.
She knew it was a forgery. And she used it as if it was real. She gave false evidence about the way the AWU WRA was incorporated. She knew it was false evidence. She was covering up the truth - which isn't that hard to discover!
Yvonne Henderson, the Minister in Carmen Lawrence's government directed that the AWU WRA Inc be incorporated.
Gillard knows that because she prepared the submission asking for a ministerial review of the commissioner's decision to refuse incorporation. And her submission included a filing fee of $22 - made out on an AWU WRA Inc cheque!
But instead of "remembering" the truth, she "remembered" receiving a letter which turns out to be a forgery. It was never sent to her.
She tried to be vague in the Royal Commission
Once again, my view about this is informed by documents. If I hadn't seen the documents I'm not sure I would have recalled these matters, but it is evident on the documents that some inquiry was made, I presume of Mr Blewitt, about the nature of the Association and whether or not it was a trade union and that was then referred to me.
She then goes on to give a dubious account of having no memory of "the documents" but treating them (ie the Ray Neal forgery and the memo to Blewitt) as the real deal, which triggered memories of what she "must have done" at the time.
It was over 20 years ago you see. She's looking for wriggle room so as to avoid the perjury charge she knows she's risking.
Trouble for Ms Gillard is that line is nicely snookered by her own evidence to the Royal Commission:
Q. You have been answering questions about these issues for many years; correct?
A. I most certainly have, Mr Stoljar.
On 29 November 2012 Ms Gillard held a public press conference and said this:
PM: I dealt with this extensively at the marathon press conference that I did in August and before I answer your question let me just go to some of the issues here about the amount that I've dealt with this on the public record.
There has been an emerging kind of consensus amongst the media, perhaps egged on by the Opposition, that I need to give a full and frank account of these matters. Let me just remind, I first answered these matters on the public record in 1995, when they were raised by a Liberal Party minister.
I then dealt with these matters on the public record again in 2001 when they were raised by a Liberal Party backbencher.
I dealt with these matters on the public record in 2006 when I filmed an Australian Story.
I dealt with these matters on the public record in 2007 after the shopping around of a dirt file by persons employed then in the ministerial office of the Liberal Party.
I dealt with these matters on the public record in a marathon press conference in August, one of the longest prime ministerial press conferences ever held.
I have dealt with these matters at press conferences in Melbourne, in Brisbane.
She dealt with the WA Corporate Affairs matter in the parliament for a week.
As she says, over the years she's regularly gone on the record to explain what went on.
And she's never once "remembered" the forged letter from Ray Neal - until the Royal Commission.
In November 2012 she had McTernan produce this after the reports that said she'd done a lot more than just give advice as a lawyer:
And when Fairfax broke the story that Gillard's initial claim that she only provided advice on the incorporation was false - that she'd argued the case with the WA office of state corporate affairs - she wrote this little number to Greg Hywood.
And to quote Kevin Rudd, "You know something?"; not once did she ever mention anywhere that she'd written back to a letter from Ray Neal offering to incorporate if the association promised to make a rule change. Nor did she mention the memo she now says she sent to Ralph all those years ago. Nor did she mention anywhere until the Royal Commission Ralph's purported role as the head honcho in getting the rule change up etc etc etc.
In fact, she didn't mention Ralph Blewitt at all in her explanations to Peter Gordon.
Just her and Bruce. And a note from the regulator that said the entity was ineligible for incorporation. In answer to which she made a submission arguing the case for incorporation. And sent a $22 cheque made out to the corporate affairs people. And 2 men from the WA office of state corporate affairs who say the decision to incorporate was made by the minister. And that the letter Gillard used in her false evidence is a forgery.
So get ready for lots more detail. Share it with your friends. Let's get Ray Neal and his offsider Ralph Mineif cleared of the implicit defamatory imputations in Gillard's forgery.
And let's all make a stand for the truth!