How Steven Mark Edward obtained the Book of Pleadings
In the leadup to the hearing before Master Efthim, Mr. Steven Edward swore an affidavit that, during the 1995 Woodleigh Heights proceeding, he had attended at my solicitor's office to photocopy documents belonging to me.
I saw this as "not quite correct" because he had in fact attended at my home which was situated on the top floor of the building occupied by my solicitors. The building had previously been a hospital and my flat used to be the nurses quarters. I swore an affidavit to the effect that Mr. Edward attended at my domestic premises and had free access to all my documents.
In reply Mr. Edward swore a further affidavit which specifically asserted that he had attended my solicitor's office and not my private residence.
So what, you may ask...
At the hearing before Master Efthim, Mr. Greg Garde AO RFD QC used these affidavits to successfully impugn my credibility [paras 38 to 42 of Master Efthim's Reasons]. Additionally they used the specific content of the Affidavit of Mr. Steven Mark Edward to provide grounds for the admissibility to the "Book of Pleadings"
The lawyers, and particularly Mr. J Delaney S.C. under instruction from Maddocks and Mr. Greg Garde and Mr. Steven Edward, then used the "Book of Pleadings" to mislead Master Efthim according to the strategy detailed on the Lying Lawyers page.
So... who lied?
At paragraph 11 of his further affidavit Mr. Steven Mark Edward says:
- he was taken to an upper floor which he believed was the third floor
- he was taken to a room where there was two trestle tables covered with piles of papers
- he was given to understand that the documents were the documents being discovered
At paragraph 20 of this affidavit Mr. Edward swears that he received a letter from my solicitors saying that I had requested that the documents be copied on the 3rd Floor. Paragraph 21 of that affidavit says:
- he went to the office of Baldock Stacy & Niven
- a photocopier was carried to the room on the upper floor in the building where my documents were.
- this was the same room as he had carried out a partial inspection of my documents
- again there were documents on trestle tables in that room
In his affidavit Mr. Edward goes to great length to provide details of the intention to photocopy the documents in my solicitor's offices. However, regardless of what was planned, the fact is that, as everyone knows, sometimes planned things do not occur and this was one such occasion.
Mr. Edward says that the photocopier was taken to the top floor and it was this top floor where the documents were and the copying occurred.
My flat, the old nurses quarters, was on the top floor. I had set up trestle tables in my front room (adjacent to the kitchen) to use as dining table/workbench. I gave Mr. Edward full and free access to my home and to my documents. He entered my flat using the narrow internal stairs into my laundry. He used my front room, toilet, bathroom and kitchen, and my bedroom was in plain view.
I do not believe that Mr. Edward confused my front room or my flat with a solicitor's office. The following is the evidence, you be the judge.
The following photographs show:
- The internal stairs into my flat. The only other entrance was by the fire escape.
- My internal back door.
- The laundry area at my back door.
- My front room looking north through the kitchen and showing a trestle table.
- My front room looking south. The woman is standing where Mr. Edward's copier was set up. Two trestle tables are present.
- Looking slightly south west, my bedroom is visible.
I now refer to the affidavit of Mr. James Prosser-Fenn solicitor of Orange where he says that Mr. Edward did not copy the documents in the offices of Baldock Stacy and Niven, instead he was shown to my private residence.
I now refer to two further affidavits, here and here from long time employees of Baldock Stacy and Niven.
On several occasions, Mr. Edward refers to "trestle tables" in the room where he conducted the photocopying and he says All three affidavits by the employees of Baldock Stacy and Niven swear to the effect that trestle tables have never have been in the office of Baldock Stacy and Niven. They also swear that the upper floor has always been a residence and could not be mistaken for an office.
Why would Steven Mark Edward lie?
While Mr. Edward was supposedly photocopying "discovered" documents he was also, improperly, photocopying my private documents. One of these private documents was the "Book of Pleadings". This document had been prepared for the purpose of obtaining legal advice at the time of the 1988 Tylden Rd proceeding.
At the time of the 1995 Woodleigh Heights proceeding, I had discovered every document in my possession which was relevant to the matters in question. During the proceeding, it became known that I had many thousands of other documents. Steven Mark Edward obtained orders for further discovery. Further discovery was impractical because of the vast volume of documents, so it was arranged that Steven Edward attend at my solicitors' offices to view my documents and to take copies of relevant documents. On the day, because I did not want to let the documents out of my possession, Steven Mark Edward attended at my private residence so that he could copy documents relevant to the 1995 Woodleigh Heights proceeding. Although he appeared to me to be intent on copying everything he could lay his hands on, this did not concern me as I had nothing at all to hide.
During this process, he copied the "Book of Pleadings" which never was a "discovered" document, as falsely stated by Steven Edward. Nor was it a discoverable document because documents between solicitors and clients are subject to legal privilege and are not admissible documents. In addition, it is manifestly obvious that it was a document prepared during the 1988 County Court proceeding relating to Tylden Rd and was not relevant to the 1995 Woodleigh Heights Supreme Court proceeding. He obtained and used it improperly and unethically.. [front page here or full document here]
At the time I swore my affidavits I was unaware of the use which Mr. Edward and Maddocks intended to put it, my problem was not with the Book of Pleadings being admitted into evidence because it in fact shows I was telling the truth. My problem was with the underhanded way Mr Edward had obtained this and other private document and the fact that his affidavit was misleading. As I now see it, he lied to have it admitted into evidence.
As I now hypothesise Steven Edward swore his affidavit for the purpose of legitimising his possession of the "Book of Pleading" so that Maddocks and he could put the case which they had carefully fabricated around its content. Their fabricated case depended upon the "Book of Pleadings" [see also Lying Lawyers]
The "Book of Pleadings" was subsequently used by Mr. J Delany SC, under instruction from Maddocks to mislead Master Efthim. Selected extracts were also used by Osborn to provide verisimilitude to his own fallacious reasons and the Reasons of Master Efthim.
| Mr. Edward needed to establish legitimate entitlement to possession of the "Book of Pleadings" which was improperly obtained, and he did so by swearing his affidavits. |
*********
Top of Page ------ Menu Page