ACTnowforsaferroads

13/08/2026

MARCH FOR MATTHEW

Tomorrow, a dedicated group of supporters is holding the March for Matthew to shine a light on systemic failures in the ACT Justice System and the ongoing disregard for victims of crime.

Over the last decade, we have seen an inversion of justice in Canberra, where the offender background and disadvantage consistently take precedence over victim impact during sentencing.

Victims of vehicular homicide, sexual assault, home invasions, and violent assault watch repeat offenders receive lenient sentences or community service.

Today, nearly one in three convicted rapists in Canberra do not serve a single day in prison.

At the same time, frontline sworn police numbers have dropped below levels from 14 years ago, despite our city's growing population.

I am unable to attend tomorrow for two reasons. First, with an appeal decision still pending, my presence carries a legal risk of contempt of court. Second, after nearly three years of grueling proceedings, I am simply broken and exhausted. Taking part would be too overwhelming.

If you can spare an hour tomorrow to stand up for victims and lend your voice to reforming ACT justice, it would mean the world to us.

Event Details:

When: 10:00am, Friday 14 August 2026

Where: Canberra Times Fountain, Civic Square (in front of the Canberra Centre entrance)

Route: March to the ACT Law Courts

Media Enquiries:
Zoe Cee | 0412 696 065
John Mikita | 0407 008 818

04/08/2026

A CALL TO ADDRESS SYSTEMIC FAILURES AT THE AMC

A humane, balanced justice system must provide justice for victims, appropriately punish serious wrongdoing, and treat those incarcerated humanely.

A prison should never be a human warehouse. The punishment is the denial of liberty, and that alone.

To keep our community safe and break the cycle of criminality, our correctional system must actively enable rehabilitation through proper vocational, educational, recreational and healthcare support.

Please see Claire Fenwick’s report for Region Media on the operational shortcomings of the Alexander Maconochie Centre.

This highlights, despite assurances from two Government Ministers made nearly two years ago, it is highly likely the young woman who killed my son will receive a reduced sentence in large part due to the AMC being unable to cater for her needs.

It is not outside the bounds of possibilities she may spend the majority of her sentence in the community.
https://region.com.au/tom-mcluckie-was-assured-the-amc-could-house-his-sons-killer-its-failures-could-see-her-sentence-reduced/986486/

While community-based sentencing plays a role, the reality is that not all offenders can remain in the community if public safety, which should be paramount, be maintained.

I believe this to be the case regarding Shakira Adams who killed my son on the evening of 19th May 2022. During her bail period she continued to take drugs and drive.

Yet I do believe that whilst incarcerated, she should be treated humanely and with dignity and have access to care that meets her needs. This appears not to be the reality, as per the exposé at the court last Friday.

For me, if we are going to increase community based sentencing, and contemplate offenders like Shakira having conditional liberty, we need to have the appropriate measures and processes in place.

Despite the May 2024 election-year promises from Chief Minister Andrew Barr that electronic tagging was only months away, August 2026 arrives with still no timeline for implementation or any announcement for when it is planned. Yet another election promise that has not been met.

For too long, the ACT Labor Government (and the previous coalition government of Labor and Greens who governed together for 12 years ), has turned a blind eye to the failures of the AMC and the high reoffending rates associated with community-based orders.

This is driven by an ideological belief that imprisonment itself is inherently immoral, and hence policy has drifted toward non-custodial options without building a functioning rehabilitative prison framework.

Effective corrections systems prove that human rights and accountability can coexist.

As per the article I wrote for the Canberra Times a few years ago, following major 1990s reforms, Norway shifted from a merely punitive model of incarceration to one centered on restorative and rehabilitative justice, based on "normalisation".

Normalisation attempts to make life inside mirror life outside as closely as safety allows. By combining humane conditions with robust education and job training, Norway has reduced its two-year recidivism rate from 60–70% down to roughly 20–25%.

By contrast, the ACT continues to record the highest rate of prior imprisonment in Australia. For the general AMC population, approximately 77% to 80% have been imprisoned previously. For First Nations detainees this is at 91% to 92%.

We cannot break this cycle without genuinely investing in post-release pathways, job training, and education during custody. Up until now, Government policies and initiatives have amounted to little more than promotional brochures, sound bites and policy announcements by our Government.

The loss of a loved one to any crime of homicide is a tragedy that no family should ever endure. When serious criminal behaviour results in the loss of life, a term of imprisonment is essential to reflect the severity of the crime, the lack of remorse, and the need to protect the public.

Yet, due to the systemic failures at the AMC, these custodial sentences are being actively compromised. Defence counsel is arguing due to the failures of the AMC, dangerous prisoners should be afforded lesser sentences and in some cases to have their sentence fully served in the community.

Judges are increasingly forced to deliver these reduced or suspended sentences simply because the government has failed to provide a facility capable of delivering basic, human-rights-compliant care.

As one retired senior judge confided to me, the AMC has effectively become the "Academy for More Crime". He advised me it was "a place from which few emerge better off".

Holding offenders fully accountable for severe crimes is a cornerstone of justice. To maintain public trust, the ACT Government must ensure the AMC is fit for purpose, delivering sentences safely, humanely, and without judicial compromise.

The current failure sits wholly with the leadership of the Government, and our Chief Minister Andrew Barr.

We are consistently seeing an inverse Midas touch, where despite good policy intent, just about everything this government touches turns to s**t.

IT IS TIME FOR A CHANGE

Concerns about the AMC's inability to properly house and care for killer driver Shakira Adams were raised almost two years…

30/07/2026

WHEN WILL THE ACT JUSTICE SYSTEM STOP LETTING SEMANTIC NUANCES WARP REAL ACCOUNTABILITY?

In recent days, serious concerns have been raised regarding the murder resentencing of Jude Luckshan Wijesinghe, as reported by Region Media below.

https://region.com.au/zoo-murderer-jude-wijesinghe-appeals-overly-technical-sentence/985263/

This evil man murdered his co-worker, Tshewang Choden, a 29-year-old woman who had moved to Australia from Bhutan, a young woman whose future was stolen from her, when he stabbed her 14 times in a kitchen at the National Zoo & Aquarium in December 2023.

Our Court of Appeal is currently being asked to assess if an appropriate therapeutic approach was taken regarding her murderer's sentencing.

It is being asked to consider whether he should have received a significant discount for his plea of guilty, which was entered only four weeks prior to the scheduled trial.

No therapeutic considerations are being extended or considered for the victim or her family.

Yet, even in a crime of such horrific violence, the sentence is allowed to be challenged, not on the facts of the objective seriousness of the offence, but on "overly technical" sentencing grounds.

This is ACT justice. A circus of hypothetical arguments and meritless defence appeals tolerated by our Justice system, that drag on for years.

This exact, exhausting pattern is playing out in the appeal regarding Matthew’s killer, Shakira Adams. This is scheduled for 10.00 AM tomorrow.

Matthew was stolen from us in the most brutal way imaginable. His injuries were so severe, and the damage to every major organ so extensive, that the only part of his body he was able to donate in death were his eyes. In death, Matthew afforded the gift of sight to two people.

In this matter, the Court of Appeal is being asked to consider if the Chief Justice placed enough weight on the offenders self-inflicted injuries and the discount she should have received due to her 'early' guilty plea.

Yet, while the human rights, empathy, and therapeutic needs of offenders are virtuously defended by the legal system and promoted by our Ministers in the ACT Government, the fundamental rights of victims and their families are routinely sidelined, and they are expected to endure years of protracted wranglings through the justice system.

We are all equal under the law, but offenders appear to be more equal than others.

More than four years after Matthew’s death, we remain trapped in regulatory limbo, entirely unclear as to whether common law compensation can even be pursued due to the ACT Government’s Motor Accident Injuries (MAI) Act implemented by ACT Labor in 2019. This scheme is currently up for its second review.

Despite enduring significant lost income and unending trauma, the system offers no recourse. Unless I meet an arbitrary 10% Whole Person Impairment threshold through an assessment scale with no psychometric validation, there is simply no mechanism available under this legislation to seek common law damages for the crippling financial loss, injury and harm we have experienced.

The Financial Assistance Scheme managed by Victims of Crime Commission is capped, and does not factor in economic loss past the first year.

Due to two assessments determining that my mental health is not stable, as part of the MAI Act, I am required to wait until four and a half years after Matthew's death to undergo a fourth assessment that will provide an indicative percentage.

I continue to deal with debilitating health issues. I nearly died from a peptic ulcer bleed in March, and I am still battling daily with PTSD, bouts of depression, and severe anxiety.

It is deeply perplexing that the offender's health, future, and human rights are deemed vitally important to our Courts, and to be revisited again and again, whilst my family's rights rest in the hands of the courts, the prosecution who represent the Territory, and an insurer. We have no voice in those outcomes.

It is infuriating that we are navigating a profit driven insurance scheme that is justified and defended by its own 'independent' overseers, the Motor Accident Injuries Commission and the ACT Labor Government who introduced it, who both developed and proposed the current system.

The violent, gruesome deaths of Matthew and Tshewang Choden are reduced to mere footnotes on a court docket, while families are left to bear both the eternal emotional trauma and the systemic financial fallout.

Once again, defence lawyers are leveraging administrative oversights and procedural semantics to force a full resentencing. The fundamental facts haven't changed. The offenders' actions haven't changed. Their lack of remorse hasn't changed.

Yet, because of technical judicial drafting errors, the defence will be debating precise wording surrounding self-inflicted injuries and explicit percentage calculations for guilty plea discounts. The defence gets another opportunity to chip away at the sentence.

When judicial oversights open the door to technical loop-holing and opens up meritless arguments, true justice is distorted, and the crime itself gets pushed into the background. Matthew's life is devalued. The only people who benefit are our well paid defence counsel. It clogs up our courts and the appellant system.

My views on the inadequacy of our justice system are clear and I call on the Government to look into the following.

End the cycle. If technical errors force a resentence, the Court of Appeal must handle it directly and finalise it without dumping it back into the Supreme Court for further delays. We are left in limbo currently, as we have no guarantees that the Appeal Court will simply put this review back to the Supreme Court for re-sentencing. That may have the matter deferred until 2027, and close to the fifth anniversary of Matthew's murder.

Close the loopholes. Procedural missteps by judges should never be allowed to minimise an offender's sentence or dilute accountability for violent crime.

Recognition of the harm done to the victim. This purpose of sentencing needs to be the primary purpose of sentencing in all matters related to any criminal act of homicide. Therapeutic justice needs to be applied to both victims and the offender, and our courts need to explain in their decisions and judgements how a sentence is therapeutic to the victims and their families.

Victims deserve finality, and the public deserves a system where true justice, victim impact, and real support outweigh legal semantics, financial roadblocks, and offender-centric technicalities.

I will not be attending court tomorrow. To do so only adds validation and legitimacy to a broken system. I've had enough.

JUSTICE FOR VICTIMS IN THE ACT.

27/06/2026

THE COMPUTER SAYS NO

On Thursday, I received the most dismissive letter I have ever received.

Please feel free to read it for yourself. It is the culmination of years of complaints to the Motor Accident Injuries Commission.

I have also made available the communications I have had with the Minister responsible for the scheme on the link below. This matter is not done with.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Xvntu2dIzkTKBQEbz4Nz07JVFXLWfE95?usp=drive_link

It appears, with this final gaslighting, the Commissioner believes her job to be done. Her response states ‘Closing all previous correspondence.’ Ms. Clark then adds ‘this will be our final response. Any further correspondence received from you or Ms Payne will be recorded, but we will not be providing additional replies unless new matters are raised.’ Job done then.

In her email she claims in her engagement with the Victims of Crime Commission, ‘On contacting ********* to confirm that she is willing and able to act as a conduit for correspondence she indicated that this had not been foreshadowed with her.’

This is a lie. Here is what is on record from the Victims of Crime Commission.

‘….to clarify when Nicola contacted me I let her know I was happy to receive the letter on your behalf and pass it on but she decided to send it directly to you.’

I’ve had many attempts over the last few years to minimise and deflect the concerns I have raised;, from Shane Rattenbury, Chris Steel, Rachel Stephen-Smith and emails from Marissa Paterson and Tara Cheyne, to attempt to change the narrative, where in their views my concerns are not a problem to be investigated, but that I am the actual problem. When challenged, their default behaviour is to close off all communications. Your objections are deemed ridiculous and rightfully to be dismissed.

I will not redact this highly paid individuals name. I believe it is important they are afforded credit for their good work.
Her name is Nicola Clark, the Commissioner of the Motor Accident Injuries Commission. They claim to be ‘independent’ oversight of this scheme that came onto effect in February 2020.

ACT motorists pay for them through their annual vehicle registration There is a specific, regulated statutory levy is bundled directly into the premium. This levy is collected from licensed insurers and the Nominal Defendant and funnelled straight into funding the Commission’s regulatory oversight, operational costs, and the Commissioner's office.

The MAI Commissioner is concurrently appointed as a senior executive within the Chief Minister, Treasury and Economic Development Directorate (CMTEDD) sitting at the Executive Level 2 or 3 band.

For an executive of this scale overseeing a statutory financial scheme in the ACT, the total remuneration package typically ranges between $260,000 and $340,000+ AUD per annum.

Despite this significant remuneration, the Commissioner can unilaterally decide that matters are now closed.
I have been affronted over 4 years by dismissal and denials of the impacts of this scheme.

At one stage the commission even suggested my common law rights had not been revoked, and restitution could be made if I proved that I was a dependent on my 20 year old son student son who stayed at home.

The impact of the scheme was known in advance. Modelling undertaken by EY predicted that the ability of persons to make and be paid common law claims would be reduced by around 80%. I’ve had it suggested to me that the legislation is complete because it was selected by a Citizens Jury. This fundamentally ignores that this jury were not responsible for defining the scheme.

They were presented with four options from the Stakeholder reference group (SRG). The jury published a minority report with many concerns raised. It was ignored.

Members of the Commission in their previous roles as the CTP regulator, were part of and gave advice to this group. The Commission simply lacks any credibility as to its ability to oversee this scheme. It is a vested interest group, who need to justify the legislation. It has been marking its own homework for 6 years.

Despite Nicola’s dismissal, I am not walking away from this fight. The reality is the next time I meet Nicola it will be in the Supreme Court. At least there she is not protected by her title, the Government or her office.

The history of these communications need to be understood. They occurred over a period where we were experiencing a significant bereavement. Our son was murdered. We were involved in a lengthy and brutally drawn out criminal justice matters. That journey goes on - we are back to the courts on 31st July for the appeal against the sentence.

I continue to fight not for my own benefit, but for all those who will be impacted by this inhuman and illegal scheme in the future. The harm to me has been done, but it does not need to be this way in the future for others.

Who are the real benefactors of the scheme? The multi-billion dollar insurance industry. Simple.

Bring it on. I'll see you in court, or hell. Whatever comes first.

24/06/2026

GOODBYE TO KAISER

Today, we said goodbye to my best friend, and lifesaver, our dog Kaiser.

At times he provided me with strength, at other times solace and understanding, and on some days, he provided me with the purpose of getting out of bed, to put one foot in front of the other. Sometimes I succeeded. Some days not. But he was always a close supervisor of my wellbeing. He made it bearable to exist. He saved me on more than one occasion when everything felt like it was too much.

He was always there.

He and Poppy were our constant companions as we lived through the horrendous experience of our son’s murder, the shenanigans of the criminal justice system, the burdensome engagement with bureaucratic authorities regarding insurance, the funeral, inquiries, the constant gaslighting from our politicians, and trolling from self-righteous individuals who took it upon themselves to attack me for looking into the failings of the justice system. I have blocked over 100 such individuals. There are some who continue to offer their opinion on my sons death, and my integrity and character.

Kaiser, and Poppy, are and he was much loved amongst my family, all our friends and our neighbours.

Matthew and Joseph love them deeply, and they them. I hear the frequent phrase that they are just dogs. But without these four-legged soulmates, I do not know how we would have made it over the last four years.

Kaiser was always a beautiful soul and personality. He was loving, constant, strong and reliable, and in tune to our lives. He was gentle and friendly.

When Matthew died, he and Poppy spent months reacting to the sound of cars outside the house that we stayed in Chifley at the time. They were excited for anyone to come to our door. They seemed to hope that Matthew would walk back in. He never did.

For 11 months before we moved into our new house, they often slept in Matthew’s room. I had not changed it or moved anything since he had been taken from us. It was their way of asking why he had never come home.

Myself and his long-term vet helped him to take his final sleep this afternoon. He was with people who loved and cared for him. He was very unwell, and there was no chance of recovery.
The memories came flooding back. The trips to the beach at Vincentia, the walks up Mt Taylor and Arawang. The trips to Uriarra as I taught Matthew to drive.

Farewell and hope to see you soon my old and trusted friend.

I’m not hugely religious, but if there is something after this life, I would like to think Matthew and Kaiser are off on some awesome adventure, or they are throwing and chasing balls on the beach, or swimming in a beautiful river, or on a wonderous bushwalk.

He is very much loved, and will be always remembered and cherished.

21/06/2026

THE CLOSED SHOP REVIEW OF THE ACT JUDICIARY

Yesterday, after careful consideration, I raised a complaint with the ACT Judicial Council regarding the appointment of Jon White SC to the position of Resident Justice in the ACT.

I would have made this complaint to the ACT Bar Association, but that avenue is now closed to me due to this appointment.

The details of the complaint are available at the following link and raise questions regarding the suitability of this appointment:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AqypQ4i5WD-j-UZmYj3SWXSgw6yadCTd/view?usp=sharing

I will let readers examine the details of the complaint for themselves and will not repeat them here. However, let me explain my concerns even before the complaint is reviewed.

We have a justice system and legal framework in which the conduct and behaviour of members of the legal profession, from solicitors and barristers to magistrates and judges, are reviewed by their own professional bodies.

For barristers, complaints are assessed by the ACT Bar Association; for solicitors, by the ACT Law Society; and for magistrates and supreme court justices, by the ACT Judicial Council. In simple terms, we have a legal profession that is largely responsible for reviewing its own conduct and, at times, determining whether misconduct has occurred.

This was part of the reason that, in 2022, I sought an independent review of the performance of the judiciary through two petitions. The first called for an independent review of sentencing consistency within the ACT judiciary over the preceding five years. It received 2,446 signatures. The second sought a review of the judicial appointments process, calling for greater transparency and due process in judicial appointments. It received 2,194 signatures.

Neither petition was effectively considered through the Dangerous Driving Inquiry (the limited committee that was meant to examine the concerns raised in all three petitions), and through bureaucratic sleight of hand, the status quo remains unchanged more than four years later.

I would advise maintaining limited expectations of what can be expected from the ACT Judicial Council's assessment of my complaint. There will be no public coverage, reporting, or publication of outcomes.

We hear regularly from the current Government that we have a transparent justice system, yet complaints regarding judicial officers are never placed on the public record, and the ACT Government has continued to resist independent oversight of the performance of the judiciary using the justification of "judicial independence".

There is an obvious lack of transparency. The ACT Judicial Council's approach of not conducting public hearings, not publishing complaints, and not routinely releasing investigation reports is generally justified by four themes.

First, there is the argument of protecting judicial independence. It is claimed that judges and magistrates must be protected from political pressure, media campaigns, and public attacks that could undermine their independence. Supporters of confidentiality argue that a complaint is not proof of misconduct and that many complaints arise from dissatisfaction with a court decision rather than actual misconduct. It is further claimed that publicising complaints before they are substantiated could damage judicial independence and public confidence in the courts.

Second, there is the argument that judicial reputation and procedural fairness require protection. It is claimed that judges have limited ability to publicly defend themselves because judicial ethics generally prevent them from commenting on matters before the courts or engaging in public disputes. Therefore, publishing allegations that are ultimately unfounded could cause irreparable reputational damage. The argument is similar to the principle that a person should not be publicly accused until there is evidence supporting the allegation.

This argument is relied upon because many judicial complaints are dismissed at an early stage as misconceived, vexatious, attempts to appeal a decision through a complaints process, or complaints about judicial reasoning rather than judicial conduct.

Another argument is that courts are a separate branch of government. Unlike executive agencies, they are not intended to be overseen through ordinary administrative complaint mechanisms. The traditional Australian position is that serious judicial misconduct ultimately becomes a matter for Parliament (or the Legislative Assembly in relation to ACT appointments) because judges can only be removed through parliamentary processes, not by a complaints body. Complaint bodies therefore act primarily as screening and investigative mechanisms rather than disciplinary tribunals.

One of the more paradoxical arguments used to defend this veil of secrecy is that it encourages frank participation. It is claimed that complainants may be more willing to come forward, witnesses may be more cooperative, judicial officers may respond more candidly, and informal resolution may be possible without public spectacle.

This is a primary rationale underpinning judicial conduct systems across Australia.

A central criticism of the confidentiality arguments advanced in defence of judicial complaint processes is that they prioritise the protection of judicial officers and institutional reputation over public accountability. Given that judicial office is wholly publicly funded, this criticism carries significant weight. While judicial independence is an essential principle of the rule of law, independence should not be confused with immunity from scrutiny. Citizens are required to fund these institutions through taxation, yet are afforded little insight into their closed-door processes.

When complaints, investigations, and findings are withheld from public view, there is limited opportunity for the community to assess whether concerns have been investigated thoroughly, impartially, and consistently. The result can be a perception that judicial conduct is subject to a lower level of accountability than that expected of other public officials, regulators, or professions.

I contend that excessive secrecy can undermine, rather than strengthen, public confidence in the administration of justice. Confidence is not maintained solely through assurances that complaints have been properly handled, but through transparent processes that demonstrate fairness and accountability. Without public access to hearing records, investigation reports, or detailed reasons for decisions, complainants and the broader community are effectively asked to trust outcomes without being able to scrutinise the process that produced them. Current judicial complaint mechanisms risk creating an appearance of institutional self-protection, particularly where serious allegations are dismissed without publicly available reasons or independent review.

The Council is made up of the following persons: the ACT Chief Justice (who serves as Head of the Council), the ACT Chief Magistrate, an appointed legal practitioner, and an appointed community member representing community interests. Some matters may be referred by the Council to the relevant head of jurisdiction (the Chief Justice or the Chief Magistrate respectively). The Council's legislative framework is established under the Judicial Commissions Act 1994 (ACT).

It is worth noting the outcomes of eight years of complaints regarding judicial conduct between 2017 and 2025.

There have been 73 complaints received.

• 62 were dismissed after a preliminary examination (s 35B).
• 4 were referred to the head of jurisdiction (s 35C).
• 1 was examined by the Council (s 35D).
• 3 were withdrawn.
• 1 was considered an invalid complaint.

Seventy complaints have been finalised out of 73. The Council publishes an annual report. Despite being fifteen pages long, only two pages are devoted to complaints and conduct matters. No further information is provided, particularly regarding the nature of the complaints or alleged misconduct.

This is why I have made this complaint public. I am affording the respondent (the subject of my complaint) more procedural rights than were afforded to me through his conduct in the Supreme Court, including the right to procedural fairness and the opportunity to respond. I was afforded no such opportunity. Nor do I have the protection of the Court or the Bench to shield me from public scrutiny.

I believe my complaint is likely to be dismissed, ignored, and ultimately forgotten.

It is important in the public interest for the community to understand the level of self-regulation and governance afforded to the legal profession. I suggest that the appropriateness of these mechanisms needs to be reviewed.

Otherwise, we can continue allowing the profession to mark its own homework.