Judges only have authority over waterways, Queen Elizabeth committed treason and Tasmania Police is a company just like Bunnings and McDonald’s, a jury has heard.
Daniel Victor Gandini, who refers to himself as Diplomat Dan, has presented his defence in the Supreme Court in Burnie, where he is on trial accused of family violence and splashing a corrosive acid on four police officers at his home at Port Sorell in July, 2021.
He is charged with three counts of assault against his ex-wife, and four unlawful acts intended to cause bodily harm to police officers attempting to arrest him for the alleged family violence.
He denies the allegations and has been representing himself in the trial now at the end of its third week.
Over the past three weeks the jury has heard evidence in the prosecution case from the complainant, the defendant’s psychologist Mike Marriott and each of the nearly 40 police officers involved in the 11-hour operation, which Dan has called a siege, to arrest him on the day in question.
In opening statements and in cross examination of each of the witnesses, the accused has attempted to paint himself as the victim of a malicious conspiracy fabricated between his ex-partner and the police while he was “in the peaceful occupation” of his home.
Dan’s ex-wife told the court she had been subjected to verbal and physical abuse for years prior to July 8, 2021, and that in one of the charged assaults he squeezed her head so hard it felt like her “skull was going to crack”.
In a triple-0 call played to the jury as she fled the house with her children on the morning of the incident, the alleged victim sounded highly distressed as she said she believed her husband had had a mental breakdown and that he had said he would be “ready for war” if police attempted to arrest him.
Giving evidence in his own defence on Thursday, the accused claimed he had simply locked himself in the house when his wife and children left to create a “barrier” as his marriage had just ended, and he needed to figure out his next moves.
He claimed he simply went to sleep and did not know about the police operation and woke up to news reports about a “knife-wielding maniac” at Port Sorell but did not realise he was the subject.
Crown prosecutor Peter Sherriff suggested Dan had secreted knives in several places around the house, which he denied, and that he had in fact committed the crimes he was charged with, which he also denied.
Mr Sherriff asked why there was an open bottle of hydrochloric acid on his kitchen bench, which Dan could not explain, though he did agree there may have been such a substance on the property.
He claimed he never splashed acid on the police officers, but agreed he did throw a liquid, which he claimed was water, through his front door.
Accused questions presiding judge’s authority
Dan tendered several documents in his defence which he said supported his assertions that Queen Elizabeth committed treason in Australia, and the country’s laws only related to New Norfolk Island.
He also claimed that the judge in his trial, Chief Justice Alan Blow, only has authority over estuaries and waterways.
“Technically, I am questioning his authority,” Dan said.
Dan said he did not comply with demands on the day because Tasmania Police is a private company and private companies cannot compel people to do things.
“Maccas can’t force you to eat their food, Bunnings can’t force you to buy their tools,” he said.
He claimed several times he did not intend to harm anyone that day, and that he himself was injured by the methods police used in arresting him.
The jury has been told one of the police officers required hospital treatment after being splashed with acid, which caused him “excruciating pain” and melted his clothing.
The court also heard “less-lethal ammunition”, which were described as beanbags fired from shotguns, were used to subdue the accused prior to the arrest.
He previously claimed that he was shot 30 times and that police had attempted to murder him.
The trial before Chief Justice Blow continues.
Loading…