Croatian Six – suffer yet another disgraceful hit from the justice system

The Croatian Six Photo:ABC

The Croatian Six Photo:ABC

In his announced book on Balkan intelligence intrigue (Agents Provocateurs: Terrorism, Espionage and the Secret Struggle for Yugoslavia 1945 – 1990), the former US National Security Agency expert, John R Schindler, now a professor at the US Naval War College, said former top UDBA (Yugoslav Secret Police) officials cited the Croatian Six case as their most successful example of agent provocateur operations.

A year ago it seemed that Ellis Peters’ words from The Potter’s Field, “… But God’s justice, if it makes no haste, makes no mistakes”, would finally apply to decades old criminal verdicts for the Australian Croatia Six, in that the verdicts would be investigated in light of new revelations about corrupt police at the time and the very likely scenario that evidence in their case was fabricated and/or tampered with.

But this it seems is not yet to be as far as exonerating the Croatian Six might be concerned. For now it seems that “justice” smiles upon unwillingness to delve officially into the history of Secret Services laundry, especially any dirty one.

In August 2012, Australia’s Attorney-General (now ex-Attorney-General) Nicola Roxon had decided not to start an inquiry into allegations by a former senior federal government lawyer that Canberra intelligence and police officials suppressed information that would have resulted in a not guilty verdict in what became known as the Croatian Six case.

Three of the five surviving men from Croatian Six had also applied to the NSW Chief Justice, Tom Bathurst, for a judicial review of their convictions in 1982 (a judicial review of the same case was refused in 1994!), which resulted in 15-year jail terms that all served, with remissions for good behaviour. They lodged this application as the Sydney Morning Herald (Hamish McDonald) investigation turned up new material supporting long-held suspicions that the former Yugoslav intelligence agency UDBA set up the six Croatian-Australian activists in a faked plot to plant bombs around Sydney in February 1979. Tom Bathurst then appointed Acting Justice Graham Barr of NSW Supreme Court to advise him on whether a judicial review should go ahead.

This week in NSW Supreme Court – the curtain has been shut, once again to a judicial review – to justice!

“… Like the appeal court in 1982, Barr thus comes back to the police evidence. But he sees only the same partial view as did the jury, complaining that the transcripts of the trial and arguments over admissibility of evidence are ‘presumably now lost’. They are not. The Supreme Court registry can get them out for him, and they are illuminating”, writes Hamish McDonald in his article – an absolute MUST READ!

What is most frightening in this case, where Justice Barr acted as a court, is that he actually went ahead and gave Roger Rogerson’s words unquestionable “credibility”.  Yes, you read right: it’s the same Roger Rogerson who had led one of the Sydney raids and arrested three of the Croatian Six. It’s the same Roger Rogerson who was dismissed from the police force. The same Roger Rogerson who is also known for his association with other NSW detectives who are reputed to have been corrupt. The same Roger Rogerson heavily present as a subject in the 1996 Wood royal commission (in Australia), which found ”systemic” corruption in the NSW Police and led to disbandment of the squads involved in the Croatian Six raids. The same Roger Rogerson who was convicted of perverting the course of justice and lying to the 1999 NSW Police Integrity Commission.

So, where are we now with any prospect for the testing independently (and meaningfully) of the new discoveries that strongly suggest Croatian Six were set up by the Yugoslav Secret Police (UDBA), working in concert with individuals from the Australian Secret Service (ASIO) and police?  Justice Barr’s decision to shut that door remains a final administrative decision on the matter.  But given that the new discoveries include a statement by a former senior legal officer in the Department of Australia’s Prime Minister and Cabinet, Ian Cunliffe, that intelligence material which would have led to ”not guilty” verdicts had been withheld by Canberra officials in a virtual ”conspiracy to pervert the course of justice”, an inquiry could certainly be initiated by Australia’s Attorney-General or the head of ASIO.

A political pressure from Croatia (acting in the interests of its ex-patriots on issues that affect not only justice but also the reputation of Croatians) and the Croatian community for a review the Croatian Six legal case could perhaps bring positive results – at least for the world to see that when there are grave, objective, concerns for a miscarriage of justice, there are also those in power willing to investigate the matter in a deserved and fair fashion rather than raising more suspicion and disgrace of the justice system by leaning heavily on what a convicted criminal, involved with the case originally, has to say.

As Martin Luther King Jr. once said: “Human progress is neither automatic nor inevitable… Every step toward the goal of justice requires sacrifice, suffering, and struggle; the tireless exertions and passionate concern of dedicated individuals”.

Ina Vukic, Prof. (Zgb); B.A., M.A.Ps. (Syd)

Comments

  1. Reblogged this on HDZ 2012./13. and commented:
    svakako pročitati

    Like

  2. This case is being ignored in the Croatian media so why would the Australian government feel any pressure when even Croats aren’t raising their voices in their own country?
    This must be made public and Croats need to spread the word trough well known Croatian Australians!

    Like

  3. The NSW Supreme Court’s judgment is similar in effect to a number of judgements since the Commission into Corruption in the 1990’s. In each application, the Court keeps going back to the trial evidence and continues to ask: is there enough for a jury to have found guilt? This rather false position persists generally, regardless of what new material is offered. If one part of a case is disintegrated by new material (as happened when the Croatian Six team recently showed UDBA frame-up) , the Court siimply returns its mind to another part of the evidence. It has done this – in part – to avoid opening inquiries where the claim is made of police unreliability stemming from the Commission’s view of other cases. That was the obvious claim over the evidence of the police in the Croatian Six case. The Court will not otherwise take a holistic view of a given case and regster any “sense of disquiet” as the Act puts it and order an inquiry. wIn those cases, what is needed is a ‘Royal Commission’.

    I think the Croatian Six advocates need to look at the clear paralllels that exist in four cases run in new South Wales. Each involves political police (ASIO / Special Branch): the Ananda Marga Case, the Croatian Six case, the Hilton Bomb case and the process directed at me (over two cases run one upon the other) In each set, witnesses who were memntally unstable were used, with fabricated statements, and intelligence material and evidence of state activity suppressed from the process. The Ananda Marga were lucky even if the final findings did not indict the police and Anderson was acquitted of the Hilton Bomb even if it is still ‘official’ that a madman probably did it. Currently, I have matter before the Attorney General over the madness of a state witness.

    A concerted effort to open all cases again may have as much value as on-going activity into the Croatian Six frame-up. The resistance shown in my matter to find the truth, let alone the massive resistance shown in the Croatian Six case suggests that there are those with much to lose.

    Lastly I ‘know’ Justice Barr who ruled in the recent Craotian Six inquiry application. He was the Crown Advocate in the second of my matters. In submissions to the Court of Criminal fAppeal he said that my attitude “reflected an obsession with spies and spying”. In view of what was in front of him recently, he probably still reasons the same.

    For your interest:
    http://www.alphalink.com.au/~radnat/pardonme/index.html
    http://www.alphalink.com.au/~radnat/evidencesuppression.html
    http://www.alphalink.com.au/~radnat/fundetrial.html

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Disclaimer, Terms and Conditions:

All content on “Croatia, the War, and the Future” blog is for informational purposes only. “Croatia, the War, and the Future” blog is not responsible for and expressly disclaims all liability for the interpretations and subsequent reactions of visitors or commenters either to this site or its associate Twitter account, @IVukic or its Facebook account. Comments on this website are the sole responsibility of their writers and the writer will take full responsibility, liability, and blame for any libel or litigation that results from something written in or as a direct result of something written in a comment. The nature of information provided on this website may be transitional and, therefore, accuracy, completeness, veracity, honesty, exactitude, factuality and politeness of comments are not guaranteed. This blog may contain hypertext links to other websites or webpages. “Croatia, the War, and the Future” does not control or guarantee the accuracy, relevance, timeliness or completeness of information on any other website or webpage. We do not endorse or accept any responsibility for any views expressed or products or services offered on outside sites, or the organisations sponsoring those sites, or the safety of linking to those sites. Comment Policy: Everyone is welcome and encouraged to voice their opinion regardless of identity, politics, ideology, religion or agreement with the subject in posts or other commentators. Personal or other criticism is acceptable as long as it is justified by facts, arguments or discussions of key issues. Comments that include profanity, offensive language and insults will be moderated.
%d bloggers like this: