Let me share what I suspect is likely to be a bitter pill that you will be unwilling to swallow - at least not yet. When it comes down to a fight between one person and the government over any particular matter the odds of the one person coming out victorious is so low as to be almost incapable of measurement. Your odds of success only start to increase when you attract enough people in substantially the same position as to make the problem you are trying to overcome move from a 'singular' instance to a representative amount.
There are exceptions to this, and the key lies around focus and exposure (hence the 'so low' and not 'absolute zero'). If you're a walking headline and you can time it right, then yes one person can get the outcome they deserve. But the trick to that is that you've got to capture the popular opinion which de facto takes you out of the 'singular instance'.
Otherwise the system will always side with the government. It inherently has to do so, otherwise it runs the increasing risk of creating unrest and infighting within the very groups it requires to run the show. No one is going to risk that without a solid basis. It's an extreme example, but consider the issues the USA has had within its law enforcement organisations over the past while. People have died in those situations and there is still resistance to accountability and change. Sure, it's not Australia and the circumstances are different; but sometimes you need to set the extreme example to show the concepts at play.
It comes down to a singular concept of two words: public interest. The public interest is not in upholding the interests of any one person if it comes at a cost to the overall administration of society, which includes the way in which the administration of the society is perceived to operate. An adjunct part of that interest is in dissuading further individuals from attempting to make a claim against the public good because that will ultimately negatively impact the administration of society through increased cost in dealing with and defending such claims. Even if the system is so corrupt that it should be brought down, the impetus needed to accomplish that is still huge as the cost in doing so is massive.
What is fair for you as an individual is inconsequential when it is compared against the concept of what is fair for society as a whole. Each individual is expected to bear the personal cost of protecting and maintaining the whole, which includes the perception of the whole (not just the reality). It is only when the individual gains enough 'gravity' (usually through banding together) do they gain a voice to have input into/challenge what is for the 'good of society'.
