Russell Gordan Haig Mathews accuses magistrate of ‘catholic corruption’

An Ipswich man has baselessly accused a magistrate of “catholic corruption” in an attempt to appeal his conviction for “obscene” signage outside his home.

Russell Mathews at Ipswich Courthouse. Photo: Ross Irby

A self-proclaimed political activist has attempted to appeal his sentence after his neighbours complained about the “obscene” signage he had displayed outside his home on a major Ipswich street.

Russell Gordan Haig Mathews was convicted for the signage in 2021 but recently attempted to appeal the presiding Magistrate’s decision.

Court documents state Mathews pleaded not guilty in Ipswich Magistrates Court on March 26, 2021, to knowingly – and without lawful justification or excuse – exposing an obscene object tending to corrupt morals in a public place.

According to a court report at the time, Mathews wore a white T-shirt with red letters stating ‘police are corrupt, courts corrupt’ to court on that occasion.

The court heard that between February 1 to 4, 2019, Mathews had displayed a sign outside his house on Brisbane Rd, Booval, stating: “16+yo Schoolboys FREE SEX – no catholics drugs cigs grog”.

According to the court report, Mathews told the court the sign had been a political statement and he demanded that the magistrate should recuse herself due to perceived bias.

Russell Haig Mathews. Picture: Ross Irby

The magistrate called the sign “obscene and disgusting”, according to the report.

“It would be abhorrent to most people viewing the sign, drawing derision and some disgust,” she said.

Mathews was fined $500 and a conviction was recorded but he recently attempted to appeal that verdict.

Court documents reveal Chief Judge Brian Devereaux SC presided over the appeal in December, 2022, in which Mathews presented four different grounds for appeal.

According to the court documents, Mathews argued the sign outside his home could not be classified as an “object” but “merely a communication of an idea” – which the judge rejected.

Mathews further argued its contents were not “obscene”, that he was denied appropriate disability aids and that the Magistrate’s decision was affected by fraud or corruption.

Judge Devereaux ultimately agreed with the Magistrate’s view that the sign was obscene.

“In my opinion, the sign may also be read as an invitation to interested persons to arrange, through the website or by attending the house, to have sex with 16 year old schoolboys,” he said.

The court documents outlined Mathews argument that “it’s ridiculous to say that it’s not political discourse because whether people talked about it in the community or not. If someone makes a political statement, it stands on its own”.

The court documents also say Mathews stated putting the word ‘schoolboy’ would excite people more than just ‘16-year-old male’.

“It was done there to excite interest or excite anguish or consideration,” Mathews had stated.

Judge Devereaux, like the original magistrate, dismissed this argument, along with the argument Mathews was denied a fair trial due to a disability as he had “ardently represented himself on both occasions”.

Finally, Mathews made a bold suggestion that the Magistrate’s decision was “induced or affected by fraud” as a result of “catholic corruption”.

“No evidence was adduced by (Mathews) at hearing in support of these claims,” Judge Devereaux noted in the court documents.

Mathews’ appeal was dismissed, meaning the initial judgment still stands.