printer friendly version

WIFE

In the midst of the mayhem in America, with the terrorist destruction of the World Trade Centre and the attack on the Pentagon and the loss of thousands of lives, one court decision in this country has snuck through with very little publicity and virtually no debate.

It may seem strange, even insensitive, to mention the New York and Washington carnage and a court decision here in Australia in the same sentence but I believe this country has more to fear from the judiciary than from any terrorist threat.

And I am not talking about what I consider to be a bizarre decision by Supreme Court Judge Tony North that the Federal Government acted illegally in sending SAS troops on board a Norwegian freighter after it defied orders to enter Australian waters with a boatload of illegal boat people it had picked up in international waters.

Mr Justice North not only ordered them to be freed but set a deadline for them to be brought back to Australia. And some bleeding heart civil liberties lawyers were even talking about the boat people suing the Australian Government for millions of dollars for “false imprisonment”!

(In the aftermath of the World Trade Centre slaughter and with the Saudi terrorist Osama bin Laden being one of the early suspects as he remained holed up in Afghanistan one of the main themes of calls on talkback radio was along the lines of “how do we know there aren’t Bin Laden operatives hidden in the throng of boat people?” But that’s another story.)

The court decision that riled me was handed down by Magistrate John Burns in the ACT.

It concerned the drug possession case against Olympic swimming coach Gennadi Touretski.

Touretski, head coach at the Australian Institute of Sport and coach to Olympic gold medallists Michael Klim and Alex Popov was charged with possessing the banned steroid stanozolol after tablets were found in a safe stolen from his Canberra house.

Touretski has been suspended by the AIS (on full pay) until his case is finalised.

The coach’s wife, Inna Touretskaia, a former USSR Olympic swimmer, was regarded by the prosecution to be a vital witness.

Her evidence could have been vital because she could have testified as to who had access to the safe and there were indications that the defence lawyers could even argue that it was possible Touretski’s wife had put a packet of the performance-enhancing drugs in the safe.

Inna Touretskaia did not want to testify. It was claimed that if she did take the stand and it helped lead to a guilty verdict here husband might resent her and the marriage could end.

Magistrate Burns ruled the wife should not be forced to give evidence ands now it looks like the case against Touretski will be dropped by the DPP.

In fairness it should be said that in the ACT people can be forced to give evidence against their spouses but public benefit must outweigh possible damage to the relationship.

But it was Magistrate Burns’s reasoning for exempting the coach’s wife that I find extraordinary and if magistrates and judges across this country adopted his line of thinking we would have anarchy.

It would inflict far more damage on this country than a couple of bombs with wings.

Magistrate Burns said:

“It has long been recognised that criminal convictions may be achieved at too great a cost to the community”.

Scuse me?

He also said that keeping the Touretski’s 10-year marriage intact was more important than the benefits Inna Touretskaia’s evidence could bring to the case.

And yet he conceded that her evidence was “central to the prosecution case” and predicted her non-appearance on the stand “would mean the prosecution of Mr. Touretski must inevitably fail”.

This is Noddyland. Since when was a criminal conviction achieved at “too great a cost to the community”?

I believe the greatest cost to this community is the lack of criminal convictions and the wrist-slapping sentences handed down by judges and magistrates on the occasions criminals ARE convicted.

The effect on a marriage should be irrelevant. Perhaps, on some occasions, in sentencing but surely not before.

Think about it. I commit a crime. My wife sees me do it. I tell her if she testifies against me I’ll leave her. She doesn’t. The judge exempts her. I get off. Oobli di oobli da, life goes on as the song says.

To me this is also redolent of the incestuous father who tells his molested daughter that she shouldn’t tell anybody because “Daddy might go to jail and think about what that would do to the family”.

But the world according to Mr Burns didn’t stop there. He pointed out that the drugs charged faced by the Australian head coach had a maximum penalty of a $5000 fine and/ or six months jail.

“Whilst the offence is not trivial, “ he said, “it would be unfair to characterise it as serious”.

Yeah, right.

Australia’s Olympic swimming coach, the chief at the Australian Institute of Sport, coach of Olympians Klim and Popov, is accused of an involvement with performance-enhancing steroids. At a time when Australia has been leading the charge against drug cheats in sport.

Does Magistrate Burns really think it would be unfair to “characterise it as serious”.

The wife of coach Gennadi Touretski should have been forced to testify. She may have helped convict him or clear his name. Whatever.

And frankly I don’t give a damn about the state of their marriage.