The Perverted Peter Davis

Public Warning Regarding My Experience with the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission and Justice Peter Davis

I am publishing this statement to warn others about my experience as a self-represented litigant dealing with the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, including my dealings involving Justice Peter Davis.

In my view, the handling of my matter has raised serious concerns about procedural fairness, transparency, disclosure, and access to justice.

My matter involves a workers’ compensation appeal and related issues arising from whistleblower activity, medical evidence, and disputed material allegedly relied upon by decision-makers. Over a prolonged period, I have repeatedly sought basic information, including:

- what evidence has been relied upon;

- what documents exist;

- what material has been withheld;

- whether adverse information has been circulated about me;

- why applications and complaints have not been clearly acknowledged or determined.

Despite repeated correspondence, I say these concerns have not been properly addressed.

One of my central concerns is that evidence appears to have been referred to or relied upon in decisions and proceedings without being properly identified or disclosed to me. That is not a minor administrative issue. A person cannot respond fairly to material they have not seen.

I have also repeatedly raised concerns about the treatment of my medical evidence. Independent medical material was obtained in relation to my capacity, participation, and need for legal support. In my view, that evidence has not been given the careful and fair consideration it deserves.

I have lodged complaints, filed applications, sought disclosure, requested sealed copies of filings, asked for remote access, and repeatedly tried to understand the process. Too often, the response has been silence, deferral, or procedural redirection.

My concern is not simply that decisions have gone against me. My concern is that the process itself appears to have been managed in a way that made it extremely difficult for me to be heard, to obtain evidence, or to know the case being put against me.

I believe the public should be concerned when a self-represented person must repeatedly fight just to obtain basic procedural clarity from a tribunal.

Based on my experience, I warn others to:

1. keep every email and document;

2. request stamped copies of everything filed;

3. ask for a complete schedule of documents;

4. insist that any adverse material be identified;

5. request transcripts immediately;

6. put all procedural concerns in writing;

7. never assume complaints are being recorded or addressed;

8. seek legal assistance as early as possible;

9. escalate non-disclosure issues promptly;

10. preserve a full chronology of every interaction.

I consider my experience to be deeply troubling and inconsistent with the standards the public should expect from institutions responsible for administering justice.

I will continue to pursue disclosure, accountability, and proper review of the conduct I have experienced.

This statement is made in good faith based on my personal experience, documents, correspondence, and proceedings to date.