她由律师，Akhmed Glashev先生代理。
She is represented by counsel, Mr. Akhmed Glashev.
事实背景
Factual background
2.1 1999年3月，一架在悉尼上空游览飞行的直升机被劫持。
2.1 In March 1999, a helicopter was hijacked on a tourist flight over Sydney.
劫持者下令飞机驾驶员将飞机停在银水监狱，直升机从监狱中接出了被判罪的银行抢劫犯，狱中囚犯Killick先生。
The hijacker ordered the pilot to land at Silverwater prison, where a Mr. Killick, a convicted bank robber and inmate of the prison, was taken on board.
劫机者接上Killick先生乘直升机越狱，而后隐遁匿迹。
The hijacker and Mr. Killick escaped from the prison aboard the helicopter and disappeared.
1999年3月25日至31日期间，报刊登了约40多篇文章将提交人描述为劫机者，罪犯的同谋以及对社会的威胁。
Between 25 and 31 March 1999, some 40 articles appeared in the press portraying the author as the hijacker, an accomplice of criminals and a threat to society.
1999年4月刊登了13篇类似文章，并于1999年5月发表了19篇文章，而后关于越狱的报道逐渐减少。
Thirteen similar articles were published in April 1999 and 19 articles were published in May 1999, before the news coverage diminished.
1999年5月8日提交人因涉嫌劫持航空飞行器，非法协助有极大危害性的罪犯越狱而遭逮捕。
On 8 May 1999, the author was arrested on suspicion of hijacking an aircraft and unlawfully aiding a particularly dangerous criminal to escape from detention.
同时，Killick先生也被逮捕。
Mr. Killick was also arrested.
据提交人称，在整个2000年期间无数新闻报道将她定性为一名对社会尤其具危险性的罪犯。
Throughout the year 2000, there were numerous media reports which, according to the author, characterised her as a criminal posing a particular danger to society.
据称，有些新闻报道说，必须阻止对社会形成威胁的大量俄罗斯移民涌入。
Some of these media reports were said to have stated that it was essential to stem the flux of Russian immigrants as threats to society.
2000年12月，Killick先生对与越狱逃跑相关的各种罪行认罪之后被判刑。
In December 2000, Mr. Killick was sentenced following a plea of guilty to various offences associated with his escape.
在判刑时，判决法官M说，“据我来看，这至少是一桩非同寻常的越狱事件。
At sentencing, the sentencing judge, Judge M., remarked that “In my view this was an extraordinary escape to say the very least.
这起事件具有好莱坞虚构故事的天赋。
It had its genesis in Hollywood fiction.
罪犯与同案犯熟悉并反复操练各自的角色，精确到准确的时刻”。
Both the offender and co-offender … learned and rehearsed their respective roles right down to the matter of timing.”
2.2 2001年3月对提交人开庭审理。
2.2 In March 2001, the author's trial commenced.
Killick先生既未被作为证人受到传唤，也未出庭。
Mr. Killick was neither called as a witness nor attended.
尽管提交人辩称她不是案中的劫机者，但仍被新南威尔士区法院陪审团判定她犯有武力协助依法被监禁囚犯的越狱，和袭击一名机组成员，劫持利用航空器罪，以及两项非法持有火器(手枪)罪行。
Despite the author's argument that she was not the hijacker in question, she was found guilty, by a jury in the District Court of New South Wales, of rescue of an inmate in lawful custody by force, as well as assault on a member of the crew of an aircraft, detention for advantage and two counts of unauthorized possession of a firearm (pistol).
提交人宣称，M法官虽没有参与对提交人案件的审理，但在判罪下达之前，接受了《每日电讯报》的采访。
The author alleges that before the verdict was handed down, Judge M., who had no involvement in the author's case, gave an interview to the Daily Telegraph newspaper in which he effectively declared that the author had committed the offence.
在采访中，他实际上了宣布提交人犯有罪行。
The author alleges that before the verdict was handed down, Judge M., who had no involvement in the author's case, gave an interview to the Daily Telegraph newspaper in which he effectively declared that the author had committed the offence.
区法院按最严重罪行判处了她十年监禁，并与较短刑期的其它各项罪行一并服刑役。
The District Court sentenced her to ten years of imprisonment on the most serious offences, with lesser periods of concurrent imprisonment on the other offences.
2.3 2002年8月20日，新南威尔士刑事上诉法院驳回了提交人的上诉。
2.3 On 20 August 2002, the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal rejected the author's appeal.
2003年4月2日，提交人请求法律援助，以支持她向澳大利亚高等法院提出上诉请求，但基于不存在上诉请求会得到批准的合理前景而被驳回；为此，提交人准备由她本人提出请求。
On 2 April 2003, the author's application for legal aid in support of her application to the High Court of Australia for leave to appeal was rejected on the basis that there was no reasonable prospect that leave would be granted; as a result, the author prepared her own application.
2004年3月16日，高等法院(Gummow、Kirby和Heydon 法官)拒绝了她提出要求上诉的请求，其理由是“向高等法院提出上诉的唯一问题涉及[不利的报导问题；]然而，即使这能表明存在报导失误问题，但是其他的身份证据……如此的完备充实，报道失误不能证明引起了误判”。
On 16 March 2004, the High Court (Gummow, Kirby and Heydon JJ. ) refused her application for leave to appeal, reasoning that “the only question that would arise on an appeal to this Court would concern [the issue of adverse publicity;] [h]owever, even if it were shown that there had been a failure in that respect, the other evidence of identity … was so overwhelming that the failure could not be shown to have given rise to a miscarriage of justice”.