The Native Iowan

Julian Moti

Three Australian High Court Judges sitting in Sydney on Friday granted Julian Moti special leave to have his case heard in the highest court of the land.

In a process whereby less than 1 in 20 cases are granted special leave, Moti’s case was allowed on two counts.

Firstly, on the excessive payment to witnesses, which was the ground that Justice Debra Mullins granted Moti a permanent stay of prosecution in December of 2009 (later reversed on appeal).

On this count, the three judges made their decision from the written submissions and did not seek any further clarification from the two barristers.

However, on the second count – the questionable legality of Moti’s deportation from the Solomon Islands which Justice Mullins had not considered as a valid ground for the stay application, discussion and questions from the bench focussed on the role of Australian Federal Police Agent and Senior Liaison Officer in Honiara, Peter Bond.

While in the original trial Justice Mullins had accepted that Bond was only ever a disinterested observer in the deportation process, questions from the High Court bench indicated otherwise.

The Justices were particularly interested in a meeting that Bond had with Solomon Islands’ Chief Justice, Sir Albert Palmer and its purpose.

They also remarked on Bonds words regarding the deportation “do it quickly because the plane will be waiting.”

After hearing from both sides special leave was granted on this count too.

Outside the court, Julian Moti indicated he was particularly pleased that the court would re examine the issue of his illegal deportation and he calmly reaffirmed his confidence in the rule of law to curb what he characterised as “executive lawlessness”.

Such as the illegal executive decision to deport Moti that was taken by the Solomon Islands government led by Dr. Derek Sikua in late 2007 in direct contravention of a court order to the contrary.

Moti characterised this ‘deportation’ as nothing short of “kidnapping”

In a reference to the heinous 19th Century practice of ‘blackbirding’ whereby Australian authorities kidnapped Pacific Islanders to work in the sugar cane fields Moti called himself ‘Australia’s last blackbird from Melanesia.”

He added that he hoped that he’d be “the final and not just the most recent one”.

For contrary to its duty of care to ensure the rights of one its citizens, Moti claims, and his lawyers have charged, that the Australian authorities colluded and aided in a deportation that they were aware was illegal.

“The High Court has given me reason today to hope that executive lawlessness of the kind practiced by the [Australian] Commonwealth government and its agencies in my case will never again be condoned, under any pretence.”

“When the Australian government intervenes in fragile states like the Solomon Islands to restore and uphold law and order, its agencies and officers must be held accountable for their actions and inertias under their laws and ours,” he added

It is in the High Court of Australia that the principle of Australia’s extraterritorial responsibilities to its citizens will be tested later this year.

The high court challenge is the latest in a saga that began in 1997 when Moti was charged with the rape of a 13-year-old girl in Vanuatu.

Even though the Vanuatu authorities did not consider the case to have any merit and deemed Moti had no case to answer, Australian authorities revamped and repackaged the charges as child-sex tourism in coincidence with Moti’s mooted appointment as attorney general of the Solomon Islands.

During Moti’s application for a permanent stay of prosecution in 2009, evidence was tabled that proved the motivations for this prosecution were indeed political and directly gave rise to the ‘executive lawlessness’ that the high court will make its ruling on later this year,

Indeed, just last month, in what became almost a death-bed confession, Mr. Ariipaea Salmon, the father of Moti’s alleged victim (who died three days after an interview with him was taped) spoke of the desperate measures employed by the Australian Federal Police to secure the reluctant testimony of a family who just wanted to be left alone.

This included the payment of vast sums of money as ‘living expenses’ to the family which gave rise to one of the counts on which the High Court challenge will be launched.

Disturbingly, he also told of coercion and intimidation by the Australian authorities to keep the family cooperating.

To reach the high court of Australia, this case has cost the Australia taxpayer millions of dollars, not to mention the very significant human cost – executive lawlessness on trial?  Indeed.