Editorial From www.icac-sa.com
The Premier of South Australia, Mike Rann, was seriously assaulted in public. His assailant walked from court a free man. The Premier avoided cross-examination under oath about his alleged relationship with the man’s wife.
The Deputy Premier and Treasurer of South Australia, Kevin Foley, was twice allegedly assaulted in public.
Mr. Foley was promptly appointed Minister for Police, despite his blatant conflict of interest.
In one case, the suspect surrendered to police. Mr. Foley claimed he was unable to identify his assailant from a photographic lineup, charges were dropped and the man walked free. Police have never explained why Mr. Foley was not presented with a live lineup, where the height and build of his alleged assailant would be crucial factors. Under parliamentary privilege, both Mr. Rann and Foley vilified the man in question and declared him guilty.
In the other case, vital CCTV evidence was erased, lost or edited by police. A key eyewitness, whose sworn deposition contradicted Mr. Foley’s version of events, developed amnesia, such that his evidence became inadmissible. Two other witnesses who, the defence lawyer claimed, would testify that Mr. Foley had sexually confronted them on the same occasion, mysteriously vanished. Mr. Foley had previously vilified these witnesses and called them liars under parliamentary privilege.
A plea bargain was struck whereby Ante Tony Grgic would plead guilty, subject to extenuating circumstances. The agreed terms of this plea bargain did not accord with Mr. Foley’s version of events, leading to an extraordinary outburst in open court by a Minister of the State. Mr. Foley appears to believe he is above the law.
In November 2010, and again in March 2011, icac-sa predicted that Mr. Foley’s versions of the two alleged assaults would never be tested in court under oath, and we have been proved right.
A convicted pedophile, a schoolteacher who had sex with one of his male students, walked free from court, on the grounds of his present depressed state of mind, although published precedents confirm that such offences almost always result in a custodial sentence. In this instance, there was no admission of guilt, no apology and no expression of remorse. The convicted man, Malcolm Fox, is the father of a serving state Labor MP, Chloe Fox. Arguably, the personal circumstances of the presiding judge might have led him to disqualify himself from hearing the case.
The victim, together with the Victims of Crime Commissioner, asked the Director of Public Prosecutions to appeal against the leniency of the sentence. DPP Stephen Pallaras refused to do so. Attorney-General John Rau declined to intervene, citing the DPP’s complete independence from government interference. In 2003, the Rann Government had directed (then) DPP Paul Rofe to appeal the sentence in the Nemer case; Mr. Rofe lost his job when he refused to do the government’s bidding.
A mother who murdered her severely disabled son this week escaped a custodial sentence on the grounds of her clinical depression. A Liberal Senator, suffering clinical depression and under medication, is being prosecuted for allegedly shoplifting $92 worth of groceries from a suburban supermarket. Even though supermarket management declined to press charges, police insisted on proceeding with the case. Kevin Foley remains Police Minister.
The State Labor Government constantly cites the advice of Crown Law – rather than the DPP or Anti-Corruption Branch – in shutting down inquiries and dropping charges, such as with the suppressed Lipman Karas Report into the SAJC and the termination of the MacPherson investigation into Burnside Council. The Crown Solicitor is the government’s own in-house lawyer and has no formal investigative or prosecutorial function.
Amidst all this, Police Commissioner Mal Hyde remains unwilling or unable to explain his role in the MacPherson investigation of Burnside Council: why in August 2010 he was given a (part) copy of the draft MacPherson Report, along with persons adversely named in the report; why he did not refer it to the Anti-Corruption Branch; why he did not declare any conflict of interest; what he did or did not tell Police minister Kevin Foley; whether MacPherson’s evidence is currently being investigated by the Anti-Corruption Branch; and if not, why not.
In most mature societies, the unhealthy interaction between politicians, the police and the courts in the above matters would lead to severe public disquiet. In South Australia, the media and the dormant Opposition look the other way. But then, most mature societies have an anti-corruption commission to ensure the integrity of the system and the proper separation of powers. South Australia is the only state which does not have such an ICAC, and day by day it becomes more apparent why.
icac-sa calls for a Royal Commission into the conduct of these matters.
Recent Comments