After a sleepless night, my boss gave me the company solicitor’s number, and I  arranged a meet in Manly later that day and it was there in the cold hard light, that the enormity of the charges sank in. 25 year charges, a 7 year charge and a 2 year charge; they were

 to maliciously inflict grievous bodily harm with intent to commit grievous bodily harm in company of persons unknown:25 years.
(The judge later said he had never heard of such a charge-they must have been making this stuff up as they went along.)

A further statutory alternative charge to the main charge that was then broken down into 3 further elements. I still don't understand it and I have studied the transcript minutely. What chance did the jury have? This had to be a pre-planned strategy to overwhelm the jury. There was literally hours of summing up regarding the various charges and their alternatives. The jury was swamped.

There was also an assault occasioning actual bodily harm in company of persons unknown charge (in company makes the charge aggravated = much more serious) then a further alternative charge to this secondary charge.

They went on to accuse that I was "in a spontaneous joint criminal enterprise"  ????

My solicitor then looked up the last 20 incidents of these charges and could find nothing similar to my scenario. I then searched all databases available for all precedents. They included attack from behind with a knife, attack with a machete, a chainsaw and use car as a weapon. How could they charge someone who was at work with pre-meditated charges? Are they suggesting that I planned this? Even if they kept their heads in the sand and blinkers over their eyes, and clung on to the ridiculous premise that I assaulted Bullock for no reason, they still can’t possibly compare these weapons with my fists. Totally absurd. Another blatant abuse of power. The police were fully aware that I had been assaulted, that I/we were completely outnumbered, that Bullocks face had smashed the pot-plant, and that I acted to defend my barman. Lets get some perspective here;Bullock was back playing A grade Rugby League two and a half weeks later and even scored a try.

Little was I to know that because of the laying of these massive charges, they would give the Security Industry Registry the excuse to not allow me to have a restricted licence so that I could at least continue to work at my day job (running security for a major government installation), for which I needed a security licence for, so that I could carry out my duties, which did not require me to touch anyone, even though everybody from the director down wrote to them imploring them to allow me to work. These massive charges would also give the Daily Telegraph free right to call me a coward on their front page, without me being able to sue for libel, and also give the jury free right to find me guilty of the lowest charge, as they felt compelled to do so due to the number of extremely serious charges, considering that they thought that surely the police could not be so wrong in such a modern democratic powerhouse like Australia.

If only the jury knew, which they couldn’t because the judge would not allow my barrister to cross examine the police as he did not want a “trial within a trial”. The police and the DPP knew that all along. Many of the watchdogs advised me that I could address all my complaints at trial; the watchdogs knew that all along that the judge would not allow it. The judge only wanted to hear from people who were there. And the only people that were there were the ones that the corrupt police cherry picked to be there. The jury were so sure of the police, they effectively over ruled the judge when he offered the jury a Prasad (an offer to find me not guilty) half way through the trial after we had completely destroyed every witness for the crown who were all found to be liars. However the judge knew this case stank and he effectively over ruled the jury by giving me a section 10 non conviction at sentencing. Other barristers commented that it was strange to see someone cross examined all day/days at sentencing. Prosecutor Aitken must have been in on the act; he knew I was set up; he knew the police had used illegal tactics; he knew that the police were perverting the course of justice; he knew the police were illegally pressuring and intimidating the only truly independent witness. He did seem to take it very personally when I wiped the floor with him during 2+ days on the stand. (see "the accused" in the transcript) He was a broken wreck by the time I had finished with him. He had admitted to my counsel that this was a very weak case, but the constant badgering by Hennessy and Mooney and my merciless, relentless counter attacks forced his feeble hand.