Tags
Julian Moti
Story by Susan Merrell
Aussies not aiding Solomon Islands to uphold the rule of law
Canberra: In Australia’s High Court last week, Justice Heydon, one of seven judges hearing the appeal of former Attorney General Julian Moti, conceded that although Moti’s 2007 illegal deportation from the Solomon Islands was a decision of the Solomon Islands’ government, Australia failed to fulfil its mandated role (under RAMSI).
“We [Australia] went to the Solomon Islands in order to restore the rule of law,” he said.
“What happened on 27 December [the illegal deportation] did not involve the Australian Government participating in a process of restoring the rule of law.”
Moti was in court appealing for a permanent stay of prosecution as redress for Australia’s alleged abuse of executive process – i.e. deportation, in contravention of a court restraining order that gave him 7 days to appeal.
Also in court both days observing proceedings was Solomon Islands High Commissioner BerakiJino.
The 2007 deportation led directly to Moti’s subsequent arrest in Brisbane and brought him wrongfully into the jurisdiction of the Australian courts.
Ian Barker QC for Moti, argued the Australian authorities ‘connived and colluded’ with the Solomon Islands government to effect what counsel described as an “abduction.”
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) argued to the contrary that Australia was rightfully disinterested in the internal processes of another sovereign governmentand evidence was led includingofficial emails to Australian personnel in Honiara telling them to maintain the correct protocol and not become involved in the Solomon Islands deportation process.
However, there was competing evidence that these directives weren’t obeyed – including correspondence by AFP officers and other officials discussing and making arrangements for the departure of Moti via deportation.
Canberra’s wrongful involvement was further highlighted by a travel document emanating from the Australian High Commission, issued via instructions from the Australian capital.
It was issued without the request of Moti and was the document that facilitated the deportation.
The Justices questioned whether the Australian authorities could and should have denied supply of this document as they were aware of the illegality of the process it would serve.
CDPP argued that the Australian authorities, in issuing the document,were acting on legal advice from the Solomon Islands that the deportation was legal.
In response, Justice Heydon said the legal reasoning behind the advice was ‘laughable’ and furthermore that the Australian authorities had never accepted the veracity of that advice “for a moment.”
Justice Susan Kiefel, commented that given that the Australian authorities had the choice to deny issuance of the document, especially as they knew it was to carry out an illegal activity – that “…in that exercise of choice there may be the collusion.”
With the full bench of the High Court not calling for any evidence from the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) on the second ground of appeal – the excessive payments to witnesses, making it likely that this ground will be thrown out – Moti’s case will be decided on Australia’s inappropriate’collusion’ in the unlawful deportation process.
The court reserved its judgment and a verdict is expected in the coming months.
Should the appeal be upheld, Moti will be granted the permanent stay of prosecution if not, the court case emanating from the 2006 charges of child-sex tourism from an alleged statutory rape in Vanuatu in 1997 will go ahead.
First published in the Solomon Star – Monday 8 August
Window Dresser's Arms, Pig & Whistle 
A wise lawyer advised me once. In any Court you get ‘law’ but rarely ‘justice.’
LikeLike
Will have to re-read before commenting. It seems that perhaps Australia is in the process of redressing its prior wrongs.
Now Susan, tell me what I’m supposed to think. Not really. Is it possible to give an executive summary without doing that though? Have you explained RAMSI in a previous article?
LikeLike
Hi Voice,
It’s what’s referred to as a ‘hard news’ item – i.e. facts not interpretation and it was meant for a Solomon Islands’ readership who know too well that RAMSI is an acronym for Regional Assistance Mission to the Solomon Islands. They were the peacekeepers who “came to do good, and stayed to do well” according to a certain person. It is a rescue mission morphed into neo colonialism (oops, now I’m editorializing)
LikeLike
Believe it or not, I had already realised that first bit about it being a locally (Solomon Island) targeted hard news item . [Tosses head.]
That local quote about RAMSI is a good one and very evocative; is that opinion of them widespread?
Thought 1: I could have told you just by looking at the full name that RAMSI would inevitably be accused of neo-colonialsim by people whom it incommoded. Clearly from my position of total ignorance, if you say it actually IS neo-colonial, I believe you. But it does lead me to question whether it was ever in our interest to set it up.
Thought 2: Human nature being what it is, it was inevitable that such an organisation, no matter how well-intentioned and successful at the start, would move in the direction of a privileged club. Maybe such organisations should be have definite and unextendable time limitations.
Or maybe there are other long term assistance organisations that haven’t moved in that direction from which we could take structural lessons if we are going to continue being in the business of providing expertise and assistance to Pacific countries.
LikeLike
BTW, I’m not a total stranger to that odd nexus between assistance and privilege. I met some UN families through the ex-pat community in Paris, and as nice and committed as they genuinely were, there was always some incongruity between the poverty of the countries they occasionally visited as advisors and their acccommodation provided , tax-free, privileged, Parisienne family life.
LikeLike