Today’s instalment is a mixture of both. It involves barristerial pedophile slurs, sexual assaults, marriages and lawless cops. What is particularly interesting to note is that it all comes from Victoria … perhaps Australia’s most disorderly state?
Hold onto your hats folks, it’s about to get ugly!
Burnicidal Pedophilia
for service as a human rights advocate, particularly for refugees and asylum seekers, to the arts as a patron and fundraiser, and to the law.
However, a few weeks ago Counsel Burnside offered a “service” of an entirely different kind, unleashing a bizarre attack on the Federal Opposition Leader Tony Abbott. Yes, in the midst of series of Twitter comments Mr Burnside was making about a newly published book on Mr Abbott, Burnside tweeted:
“peados in speedos”
It’s a bit like a Homer Simpson thought-bubble which accidentially popped out. Except, moments later, Mr Burnside tweeted:
“This is an unprompted apology to #Abbott. He is NOT a pedophile and I was not referring to him. He has many flaws but that is not one of them.”
Err… maybe Burnicidal QC had meant that when Mr Abbott hops into his speedos he morphs into a peado?
Not so, according to Mr Burnside, who later told The Herald Sun that he thought he had been replying to an unrelated text message and claimed it was all a “mistake”. Of course, this didn’t stop Mr Burnside from later breathlessly making the following observations of Mr Abbott:
“he is a truly dangerous, unprincipled person, a liar and a hypocrite… a dangerous man with no moral compass.”
A truly dangerous, unprincipled man with no moral compass? Sounds a bit like a peado to us…
If you’re about to pop the question, the usual course is to take the missus out to a nice dinner, or at least to a location that has sentimental value. Or perhaps to a destination that is slightly more costly to get to, but offers more romance and a sense of adventure, like Paris or Zanzibar.
But this one is new.
Last week, Victorian barrister David Moen, appearing in a sexual assault case at the Bendigo County Court, lent across the bar table at the conclusion of proceedings and asked the solicitor sitting next to him to marry him. That solicitor, Melanie Hrvatin, also happened to be Mr Moen’s long-time partner.
After reflecting at lunch on the proposal, Mr Moen decided that despite the serious sexual allegations being tested in the criminal proceedings in which he was appearing, the time was right to pop the question. Heck, it was the man’s birthday and an indecent Bendigoan sex act shouldn’t stand in the way!
“The environment was right, the feeling was right and I just spoke from the heart. It wasn’t a prepared speech, I was just speaking to someone I love. I wanted to do it in the courtroom because that’s our forum and I wanted people to see and hear how much I love her …It was my birthday that day and I decided over lunch I was going to do it.”
County Court Judge Barbara Cotterell looked on from the bench while Counsel Moen’s blushing girlfriend Melanie momentarily paused to consider the marriage proposal. The Judge then interjected, reiterated the question, which elicited from Ms Hrvatin a response in the affirmative … to the Judge:
“Absolutely, Your Honour”.
A court transcript reads:
Mr Moen: Only a personal matter, Your Honour.
Her Honour: Yes?
Mr Moen: It doesn’t go to the case at all, but I just wanted some witnesses to see whether Ms Hrvatin would marry me. I’m asking her now in court. Would you?
Her Honour: Right. Will you marry him, Ms Hrvatin?
Ms Hrvatin: Absolutely, Your Honour.
A big FS congratulations to Mr Moen and Ms Hrvatin. The pair intend to marry in the next few weeks and Judge Cotterell has offered to conduct the ceremony. In response to her Honour’s generous offer, Mr Moen said:
“We’ll probably take her up on the offer any time she is free in the next few weeks.”
Too right! We’re sure her Honour could accommodate the ceremony immediately after the verdict is read out.
Lawless Policing
To finish, we move onto perhaps the most disorderly of all. When FS editors have in the past had occasion to speak with Australian police men and women, we’ve been known to utter unrepeatable things about the intelligence of some of those charged with our protection. But even we, acid-tongued at the best of times, could scarcely in words do justice to the policing stupidity that might see a manufacturer of methylamphetamine walk free because of the apparent inability of Victorian police to swear affidavits.
A few days ago the Supreme Court of Victoria Court of Appeal unanimously agreed with a County Court judge who disallowed evidence illegally obtained by police as to the manufacturing of the methylamphetamine. The police in question failed to swear affidavits in support of warrants to collect evidence, instead merely signing them in the presence of an inspector authorised to take affidavits. The police used those illegally obtained warrants to conduct an investigation, to which they gave the very apt codename “Operation Falsie”. Operation Falsie was an investigation into the manufacture of meth by the first respondent, Mr Glushak, at residences in Sunshine and Essendon.
As a result of evidence obtained through Operation Falsie, Mr Glushak faced trial on multiple counts of conspiracy to traffic a commercial quantity of a drug of dependence, possession of items for trafficking in a drug of dependence and possession of precursor chemicals. But an interlocutory appeal against the ruling as to the admissibility of the Operation Falsie evidence led to a halt in proceedings that wound up in Victoria’s highest court. Said the Court of Appeal:
The nature and seriousness of the charges was not in issue on the appeal nor was the probative value of the impugned evidence gathered pursuant to the warrants. It was not disputed that the exclusion of that evidence would substantially weaken the prosecution case against the respondents.
Excluding the evidence will substantially weaken the prosecution case? Whoops. Sounds like cops need to OBEY THE LAW!
Chief Justice Warren and Justices Buchanan and Redlich held that:
[giving the Magistrate] material which is not sworn or affirmed in order to obtain a search warrant has a tendency to subvert a fundamental principle of our law.
Sure does. They also held that the decision by the trial judge was:
reasonably open because of the finding that the conduct (by the policeman) was deliberate, meaning knowingly illegal, and that the gravity of the impropriety was of a high order.
Knowingly illegal behaviour by cops aint great. But then again, neither are paedo slurs or general sexual indecency that winds up in court. Good thing there’s reason to celebrate – a barrister and a solicitor are getting married!
Loading...
A few corrections, Moen and Hrevatin were dating for a year, so not really “long time partners”. Also, there’s a 13 year age difference between the two.
Prior to moving to Melbourne in 2010, Moen was a Perth based barrister, one of two with a Canadian accent.
It’s a disgrace that a marriage proposal took place during court proceedings and was condoned by the magistrate. The court room is for the deliberation of the law for the purpose of serving justice. The court room ought not be a forum that allows the exercise of ego and arrogance that may possibly subvert the course of justice and bring into disrepute the practice of the law.
Lighten up princess. People shouldn’t take work including their time in court so seriously. Plus it’s the moen man and the moen man can…
I’d throw him in remand for contempt. Three days in jail married to Bubba will certainly make him rethink the concept of marriage!