Asides

THROWN OUT: Most charges against Droutsas thrown out by Magistrate as Victorian OPP faces mounting criticism

Former Whitehorse mayor George Droutsas has succeeded in getting the vast majority of the controversial “false documents” charges thrown out at a committal hearing in the Magistrates Court.

Droutsas faced dozens of charges relating to documents lodged as part of the Whitehorse council elections in 2005. On the basis that he helped organise a number of candidates to run in those elections, and that some of those who properly signed the relevant forms seemed to have regrets about the candidacy, the increasingly controversial Victorian Office of Public Prosecutions proceeded with a case against him.

The vast majority of the charges were thrown out by the Magistrate today, with those relating to four people who – to varying degrees – say they weren’t certain what they were signing despite being able to read English and explanations from Droutsas proceeding to the next level.

A very high percentage – some say as high as 95% – of committal proceedings go through to a higher court, so Droutsas and his legal advisers have had a considerable victory at this stage.

The remainder of the charges will be heard next year.

This is the second highly contentious prosecution brought against a political figure by the Office of Public Prosecutions that has substantially failed at the Magistrates Court level. Public criticism of the Director of the OPP led Jeremy Rapke to take the unusual step of writing an oped for the Sunday Age this past weekend defending his decision to proceed with the Theophanous case. Rapke made the argument that he was entitled to test the case at the committal stage because it would “flush out” evidence and bring new issues to light. He told the small and weary band of inner-city readers of the left-wing press on the weekend:

For all its flaws, one function performed by the committal system is its ability to flush out evidence previously not discovered by, or available to, investigators.

That new evidence can transform what once appeared on paper to be a strong case into one with inconsistencies. If this occurs, can it be fairly said that the investigators or prosecutors were careless in their preparation of the case? Or is it, rather, merely proof that the criminal justice system works?

And yet this champion of the efficacy of the criminal justice system has previously argued that committal proceedings ought to be abolished.

He can’t or shouldn’t be allowed to have it both ways.

There’s nothing wrong with a bit of spin and we encourage everyone to have a go at the aerobic activity but it is always wise to keep your eye on a fixed object lest you bump into the lyrca-wearing individual next to you. In this case Rapke falls over on his own rhetoric, hoping we’d forget his previous statements. Sadly Google is not his friend.

Meanwhile, one of his most senior staff, the tendentious thunderer Michele Williams SC could face a custodial penalty herself for contempt of Parliament.

Regular readers will recall raising her conduct in court as a serious ethical concern during the Theophanous trial. We were unaware that Williams had broken the law by using a Member of Parliament’s words against him in a criminal trial.

VEXNEWS understands there to be cross-party concern about the breach of parliamentary privilege and that the issue of the prosecutor’s conduct would be examine on a non-partisan basis, a prospect that could send a shiver down Michele Williams’s spine as she contemplates some enforced leave from her duties as a guest of Her Majesty.

This weekend’s Sunday Herald Sun reported:

Theo lawyer in court row

THE LAWYER who led the failed rape prosecution of former Brumby minister Theo Theophanous may be hauled before Parliament’s privileges committee for quoting his parliamentary speeches in court.
During Mr Theophanous’s committal hearing this month, Michelle Williams, SC, reportedly quoted a speech Mr Theophanous made in the Legislative Council in 2006.
The use of an MP’s words against him in a court can be unlawful and a breach of parliamentary privilege, constitutional experts have told the Sunday Herald Sun.
Mr Theophanous is understood to have raised the matter and is expected to make a formal complaint to the President of the Legislative Council, Bob Smith.
Parliament has the power to reprimand, fine or jail anyone it deems has breached privilege.
Brian Costar, Professor of Victorian Parliamentary Democracy at Swinburne University, said he was surprised the prosecution may have been unaware of the ban.
“It’s clearly open to any member of the Victorian Parliament to refer it to the privileges committee,” he said.
Ms Williams referred inquiries to the Director of Public Prosecutions, Jeremy Rapke, who declined to comment.

© 2009 VEXNEWS 2010©.