Jump to content

Alexis's Court Booking

Recommended Posts

Alexis's Court Booking
Application ID #10018
Submitted on 09/17/21 at 10:23:01 AM

Plaintiff Steam Name
Plaintiff Name
Pitt Langley
Defendant Name
Motion for Re-trial.

Court Case
A Court Booking was set for 6pm Tuesday 14th September 2021.

Reason for Retrial
Two items were revealed to be in conflict with a fair and impartial trial.

1. Judge Selection, Partial to ruling verdict.
During the Court Proceedings it was revealed that the same judge that signed the warrant for the arrest, search and seizure of items of my clients property was responsible for their verdict.

In this instance it can be argued that the courts did not provide a fair and impartial trial.

REF: Justice System Protocol https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YBKXkvyH25Jsffi8IGEk176RZoANoZ3JpM4kWIwZyLE/edit
Page 2, Paragraph 2 Line 2.
"They must give all parties a reasonable chance to state their case, evidence and reasoning. They must rule on the evidence presented and the quality of the argument, ignoring any preconceived ideas or OOC knowledge of the case. Their judgements are final. Appeals will only be heard if suitable evidence is provided that material information was omitted/misrepresented or the circumstance warrants (such as a miscarriage of justice). In extreme cases, the government may order a retrial."

2. Secretive Authoritative Evidence.
Under the rules governing submission of evidence, both the plaintiff and defendant are required to submit to the courts evidence prior to the trial. This information is to be provided to the courts and then distributed to the opposing counsel in order to represent the evidence for their client.
In the case Pitt Langley vs NSWPD held on Tuesday 14th September 2021 new evidence was presented prior to the final verdict.
This information was not provided to the defense counsel and was not able to be screened for authenticity of information, qualification of the witness nor the integrity for which the information was gathered. During the trial, the defense counsel was not able to view, hear or examine the evidence that had been provided to the courts.

Given that this information was provided at the trial, it may be concluded that it was the sole piece of information used to indict my client.
To promote a fair and balanced court system I feel it is necessary to have this case scheduled for Re-trial.

If the Secretive Authoritative Evidence that was used in the previous case is required in the next scheduling,
I would like to ask the courts that this information be made available to the defense prior to the next court date.
I also ask that the courts consider assigning a judge who was not involved in the signing of the warrant to oversee the re-trial for this case.
Do you confirm all information provided is the truth to the best of your knowledge?

  • Like 1
  • thumbsup 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


I would be happy to hear this retrial.

I will be speaking with Justice Freeman and I will reply here with the outcome of that meeting.

Book this in tentatively for now and I will give you an absolute answer soon.

Just for clarification, I have not issued any warrants for Pitt, nor have I seen the other case meaning there is zero conflict of interest or any bias.

Thank you

Judge Chris Pierce

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To whom it may concern,

The New South Wales Police Force vehemently opposes the defence's motion for a retrial. Below, I will outline our responses to the points raised by Mrs Rose and will raise some others to support our position.

Point 1: "Judge Selection, Partial to ruling verdict"

Mrs Rose argues that since it was revealed during the proceeding that Judge Masters authorised one of the warrants relevant to the case, it could be argued that he did not provide a fair and impartial trial.

I would remind Mrs Rose and the court that the warrant in question was provided at the time of the execution of the search warrant and before the case via discovery. If the defence was so concerned about this possible conflict, why was it not addressed before the court date? Additionally, Mrs Rose provides no evidence, only her insistence that this has affected the judgement of Judge Masters, only stating that it "could be argued" that the courts did not provide a fair and impartial trial.

Point 2: "Secretive Authoritative Evidence"

Mrs Rose argues here that new evidence was introduced to the case and then withheld from her at the time of the trial. She then asserts that this evidence must have been the single critical factor in the judge's decision to find Mr Langley guilty.

Before I go into the reasons, I would like to outline why the NSWPF requested the evidence to be withheld. If any of the raw evidence was presented to the court, it would have resulted in compromising the safety of one or more people and would have put their lives in mortal danger. The NSWPF has a responsibility to these people and the public to keep them safe and so does the DOJ.

I would like to remind Mrs Rose and the court of a fact that was stated at the time clearly by the NSWPF and Judge Masters, all evidence used in the case was provided to the court before the final time for submissions set by the judge (24 hours before the trial in this case). Second, Mrs Rose's claims that the information was not screened for authenticity or integrity is erroneous. As was stated to Mrs Rose by Judge Masters, the evidence was screened by the DOJ for authenticity and was confirmed by them to be authentic. Furthermore, Judge Masters made it clear that any exculpatory evidence would have been transmitted to the defence. Mrs Rose also states that the evidence that was withheld by the court was authoritative. Ignoring that the court has the right to decide what evidence it does and doesn't hear, this is a baseless claim that Mrs Rose has provided no backing for.

Given that the NSWPF has shown the reasons provided by the defense to be baseless, the DOJ should not entertain the possibility of a retrial.


Inspector Arthur Johnson


New South Wales Police Force


Even if this retrial is granted, there is no scenario in which the New South Wales Police Force could allow the evidence withheld from the defence to be given to them in their raw forms, as doing so would likely result in the deaths of one or more people.

Edited by Goliath2093
edit of last argument and closing statement for clarity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good Afternoon all,

The DOJ has approved the hearing of this appeal.
Appeal date has been laid down for Wednesday the 29th of September 2021 at 19:00 AEST

The Judges/Justices presiding will be as follows;
Judge Pierce (Leading)
Judge Evans
Judge Romeo

If the event one of the above Judges cannot make the appeal Justice Freeman will sit in absence.

Matter of Pitt Langley VS NSWPF
Armed robbery of a store

Full evidential disclosure is to be submitted to all parties by Monday the 27th of September 2021 at 23:59
NSWPF are to provide affidavits that have involved the use of CHIS's with names & other identifying features redacted to ensure the safety of those involved, Persons mentioned in said statements are to be referred as person A,B,C.
In the event that the anonymity can not be guaranteed by use of redacted disclosure, it shall not be submitted or used in court.

(Example Person A knows that Person B stores weed in a trap door under his bed, however he is the only person who knows this as he built the trap door for Person B. This would be unusable as Person B would automatically know that person a has told this to police putting their safety in jeopardy.) (Person A knows Person B stole a car, He told Person A whilst in a group of other people who were listening at the time. This information could be used as multiple people are aware and it would not link directly back to Person A.)
Single source CHIS intelligence or information can never be used in court.

A full witness list that either party wishes to call on the day of appeal must be provided to Judge Pierce by Monday the 27th of September 2021 at 23:59
Any evidence provided beyond the above date will NOT be heard on the day of the appeal.


Edited by PandaKazii
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...