Candidate alleged to be in breach of Victorian Electoral Laws may be subject to six months to five years imprisonment for publishing false and misleading information.(84, 93148 of the Victorian Electoral Act)
The information on the HTV Card published on the candidate's web site advocates that voters to cast an informal and invalid vote. Section 94 of the Act requires that voters indicate preferences for all candidates in order of preference sections 84 and 148 list a possible prison sentence of six months to five years imprisonment for the publication of false and misleading information likely to deceive voters.
Section 84 provides a defense for the publication of false and misleading information if the person responsible was not aware of the error. This would be extremely difficult for Gerrit Schorel-hlavka as he is the person who has authorised the offending material
Gerrit Schorel-hlavka also claims he is a Lawyer in spite the fact that he is not a registered solicitor or barrister. Complaints against the candidate have been lodged with the Victorian Electoral Commission who is investigating the alleged breaches.
If found guilty of contravening the Act Mr Schorel-hlavka would be prevented from running for state elections
1 comment:
Firstly, the publication was made upon the legislation as was downloaded, which afterwards turned out to have been superseded and as such no offence was deemed to have been committed. It only could be deemed to be an offence if the person authorising such publication had reasonable knowledge the material was in breach of law. The publication n itself indicated to rely upon legislative provisions and hence, occurred due to an error in downloading a version of the legislation. This was later clarified with the VEC. Also the allegation that I claimed to be a lawyer is a false an d misleading claim. Not only did I never do so but to me would have been an insult. Over the decades of representing parties (including solicitors/barristers) I made it always very clear that I was not a so to say practicing lawyer. various unsupported allegations were made against me and each and everyone, some taking a year or more, investigations found no evidence against me. it is regrettable that this BlogSpot has been misused on 26 June 2012 to smear my person unduly, and without any courtesy to seek my version first, despite the Federal Court of Australia Andrew Bolt case which indicates a person should check his/her facts with the person he/she writes about. To me a person hiding behind some screen identity to pursue such rubbish is nothing more but a coward. Also abusing and misusing a blog for ulterior purposes.
Post a Comment