Killing Time Page 18

  In my case the only way I overcame my drug problem was that I stopped using, and that was it. What rehabilitation did jail offer me? All I was offered was further medication! In other words, I had the chance to replace one drug with another – a one-way street to oblivion.

  In any event, how do we ascertain that somebody is rehabilitated? Is it the sheer effluxion brought about by having to serve a very long term of imprisonment? Is it, like with Read, a matter of them indicating that they have equipped themselves adequately for the life awaiting them outside jail? Is it a result of intensive assessment by counsellors, psychiatrists and psychologists? If the latter, then this system is fundamentally flawed, because people like Dupas, Camilleri and Read are veterans of having been assessed and interviewed by such health professionals. They know the questions they are going to be asked, and they know precisely how to answer those questions so as to be seen in a most favourable light.

  The problem with psychiatry and psychology is that it is all based on psychological assessments, and conclusions are all based on what you are told by the person you are assessing or interviewing. There are few, if any, objective physical symptoms on which to base a diagnosis.

  A mate of mine who has a psychiatric qualification is of the opinion that, if psychiatry is all smoke and mirrors, where does that leave the practice of psychology? It logically follows that if somebody knows the ropes, and is devious, as most of these blokes are, then you will get the answer that will require you to give the go ahead to release the prisoner on parole. Unfortunately, the proof of the pudding as to the honesty of those answers, is well and truly in the eating, and no amount of speculation or guesswork by a health professional can change that.

  Take, for instance, Paul Haig, who has recently made an application for a minimum term to be fixed by the Supreme Court in Victoria. Haig is serving life with no minimum for a number of murders. I served time with Paul Haig. He is mad, dangerous and has a very short fuse. If he were ever released into the community he is sure to wreak havoc. He is still at Port Phillip, not in protection, but in a unit where the better behaved prisoners are put. Everybody tiptoes around Haig like they are walking on eggshells, and that’s because he is likely to go off at the drop of a hat. The worst of Haig’s murders was when he shot a mother in front of her child – I think the boy was about ten years of age – a life-shattering experience by any account, but this child didn’t have to worry about that, because Haig then comforted the boy before murdering him as well. His reason for murdering the child was that the child could potentially identify him. Anybody who is prepared to murder a child in cold blood like that, has in my view, forfeited the right not only to live in our society but to live at all.

  The next contentious aspect of this is what categories of offences should carry capital punishment. In my view the first and most obvious category that should not carry capital punishment, and probably the one that elicits more hysterical and uninformed opinions than any other (both for and against), is that of drug offences. And no, this is not because I was a drug offender. I hold this view because prohibition never has worked and never will work. Like it or not, the drug war is lost, and it was lost before it even started. Drugs are here to stay. What are you going to do? Swing every second person in Victoria? I don’t think so. Drugs are a health issue, and must be treated as such. If drugs were treated as a health issue, the constant squawking by politicians, police and other do-gooders that the police are undermanned would stop overnight.

  At the time of writing this book the biggest ecstasy haul in the world took place in Australia. The electronic and print media were awash with customs agents and coppers, even the Customs Minister, all grinning like Cheshire cats at this momentous achievement. What precisely was achieved? Within days of this blow to the forces of darkness, drug experts and social workers were saying the bust had made no difference to availability on the streets or cost. The resources wasted and the corruption generated by police trying to enforce unenforceable drug laws make the whole thing absurd.

  I call on the law makers in the parliaments and courts to look at this issue in a clear, cold, calculating manner and draw the inescapable conclusion: drugs are health issues and need to be properly addressed. We need to concentrate on proper education for the children coming through, and on rehabilitation and ongoing treatment, not jail, for those that will inevitably fall through the cracks.

  I spoke recently about the issue of capital punishment with Peter Farris QC, a controversial Melbourne barrister, Peter’s view was that four categories of offences should attract the death penalty. They are: terrorists, cop killers, rapist/murderers and paedophile/murderers. I would add another category: child murderers such as Paul Haig.

  If convicted after due process, those people have, in my view, forfeited their right to live and ought to be executed.

  The view opposing capital punishment is that nobody in our society has the right to take the life of another. But the recidivist murderers that I am suggesting ought to be eliminated have no thought for the life of their innocent victim. Now, this argument is as old as the hills. The bible says we should turn the other cheek, but it also says “an eye for an eye”. So whichever way you want to look at this argument, there are two sides, and both have pluses and minuses in their favour.

  The opinion expressed here is my view, and my view alone, and I know that it will draw a lot of criticism.

  This is a debate we must have. I think there is a huge groundswell of opinion in favour of the death penalty in extreme cases, but I also know that no government will have the guts to run a referendum for fear of getting the answer they don’t want: Bring back the death penalty!

  Chapter 15

  In for a Penny, In for a Pound

  The history of our race, and each individual’s experience, are sown thick with evidences that a truth is not hard to kill and that a lie told well is immortal.

  – MARK TWAIN, ADVICE TO YOUTH

  The Western philosophy of life is to begin your life, establish yourself and then ascend in a steady graph of accomplishment and fulfilment until, as a successful person, you grow old and ultimately shuffle off this mortal coil. Such is our philosophy that we do not entertain the slings and arrows of failure or mediocrity. I prefer, after the journey I have taken, to view life more as the Hindus do: the wheel of life keeps turning, ever so slowly, and during our lifetimes we suffer all types of success and failure, for nothing is certain. You enjoy the highs and endure the low points of your time on Earth, and how you behave and what you achieve as a person dictates how you return when you are reincarnated.

  While I do not believe in reincarnation I do believe that life inevitably delivers highs and lows, joy and sorrows, in varying proportions, and that nothing can be taken for granted. Failure is always an option and can hit without warning at any time.

  I have enjoyed the highs that a successful career delivers, together with all the trappings by which our society measures that success. In equal measure I have endured the mightiest lows that life can dish out: I copped five years in the slammer! My fall from grace was swift and brutal, ending with me losing everything that I had worked all my life to achieve. All the trappings of success are gone. On the other hand, I feel I am blessed because for reasons that are not immediately apparent to me. I have been given another chance.

  No more Mercedes-Benz, big house or penthouse at the snow. I have even been taken off the dole by the powers that be because I was earning too much! Meanwhile, as this book goes to print, the Australian Federal Police continue to “investigate” me, allegedly for “proceeds of crime”, in that I had the temerity to write Court in the Middle about my experiences and criticise the establishment. The investigating officer, Mr Gleeson would be better served investigating the perjured evidence that was given at my committal proceedings and which no one wants to know about.

  The logical conclusion of the investigation is that if, some time down the track, an order is made for me to come up with
a proportion of the income lawfully derived from writing, I will be in a negative financial position in that I would not even have had the safety net of the unemployment benefit to fall back on. It was conceded by the Crown in my case that I made no money from the sale of a few grams of cocaine to Tim Watson-Munro and that my offending cost me literally everything. How long do the Crown intend to pursue me? Do they want me to be on the dole for the rest of my life or am I to be given an opportunity to publicly demonstrate my rehabilitation?

  When the search warrant on my publishers was executed I rang Gleeson and asked why he did not merely ask me for a copy of the manuscript rather than indulge in all his grandstanding. His answer beggars belief. The reason Gleeson gave for not asking me for a copy was that he feared I would destroy the manuscript. Can you believe such logic? I had taken a year to write a book, for which I had been contracted. To suggest that I would then destroy the manuscript left me gobsmacked. I suppose I should not have been surprised; I have dealt with the Federal Police often over the years.

  While on the topic of my conviction, I have not spoken to my co-accused, Andrea Mohr, since I scored from her the day before my arrest. Recently my publishers rang and asked how long it was since I had spoken to Andrea and I told them. Much to my surprise I was advised that an email from Andrea was at their office. I ought attend; there was nothing to worry about. Needless to say, I hotfooted it to Hardie Grant for a look at this email. I was staggered to read that Andrea has written a book and it is being translated into English (her native language is German) for publication by Hardie Grant. The matter of greatest interest to me was Andrea’s total exhoneration of me and my alleged criminal activities. I wonder if she addresses further questions of a large amount of cocaine being taken by corrupt police from a safe house at 33 Grey Street, St Kilda, and which subsequently disappeared without a trace. Ethical Standards of the Victoria Police supposedly investigated this complaint previously, to no avail.

  The police involved in that disappearance were none other than Detective Senior Sergeant Wayne Strawhorn and his cohorts Detective Sergeant Malcolm Rozens and Senior Detective Steven Paton, all of whom have been jailed for corrupt activities. And still the newly formed Office of Police Integrity appears to have done nothing further to investigate this and other complaints against Strawhorn et al.

  When I wrote of Strawhorn and his activities in Court in the Middle, it was not known to me that Strawhorn had an appeal on foot. The behaviour of Strawhorn’s lawyer Paul Galbally and counsel Peter Morrisey was extraordinary to say the least, threatening all and sundry with dire consequences if the book was not withdrawn from circulation pronto (my publishers were not intimidated; CEO Sandy Grant knows the law in this regard). Strawhorn’s appeal was subsequently dismissed by the Court of Criminal Appeal and I can once again write about his activities.

  The Office of Police Integrity was established by the Victorian Government a couple of years ago to try to deal with the burgeoning police corruption in the state. It does not have the powers of a Royal Commission or a permanent Anti Corruption Commission as they exist in New South Wales and Queensland. I am able to say, from first-hand experience appearing for clients before both the New South Wales and Queensland bodies, that they are formidable indeed. The governing legislation is so tough and tight that you rarely have anywhere to go and the result is usually swift and devastating. This is what the voting public wants but the politicians will go to any lengths to avoid. Why? The answer is simple: if the lid is lifted on police corruption in Victoria, that corruption will be shown to be present even in the highest echelons of the state’s force, present chief commissioner excluded.

  Police who get wind that they are, or may be, in strife retire with their fat pensions or prevaricate to such a degree that any investigation is ultimately stymied.

  As I write this last chapter, a classic example of disgraceful police and political behaviour reared its ugly head again in the form of the case of Corinna Horvath, a woman who was bashed by police in her own home in the outer Melbourne suburb of Somerville in March of 1996 – yes, twelve years ago. The police officers who used what the original trial judge described as “unnecessary and grossly excessive violence” have never been charged. The state government was able to say it was not responsible for the misconduct of police who ‘miscarry in their discretion’. The result of this disaster is that Miss Horvath has no damages or closure. Her solicitor, who underwrote the case, could not refund the costs he received after the win in the first instance and was consequently suspended from practice.

  What happened to the coppers? Nothing. Yes, that’s right. Not a sausage! Three are still serving members and have suffered no sanctions whatsoever. This is about the greatest travesty I can imagine. What message does this send to the public?

  I am pleased to say Miss Horvath has now taken this matter to the United Nations Human Rights Commission, where it is my bet she that will win hands-down. All parties in this state who have contributed in any way to this extraordinary travesty should hang their heads in shame. This, after all, is Australia, not Communist Russia!

  My life continues to be more than interesting.

  When word got out that I was writing Court in the Middle the reaction from certain quarters was interesting indeed. For instance, my former legal partner, Brian Rolfe, rang my publishers and threatened Sandy Grant that he would sue if I said anything uncomplimentary about him. I had no intention of writing, nor did I write, anything about Rolfe.

  Since my release the question most often asked of me by males is about sex in jail. I have reported that I managed to avoid any such advance. Sex in jail is rife and the authorities still ignore it and refuse to issue condoms. Apparently it is better to allow prisoners to cross-infect each other with HIV, or more particularly hepatitis, than address the issue and offend the lunatic fringe by allowing condoms to be provided. This problem is real: address it!

  I know that I have rattled on for quite a portion of both books about the total lack of rehabilitation in jail. I read in the Sunday West Australian a short while ago that there was no rehabilitation in jails in Western Australia and that the system was in danger of imploding. Then, on 12 August 2008, a politician by the name of Stephen Wade from South Australia exposed the fact that in that state there are approximately 136 sex offenders in custody and that only twenty of that number have access to offenders’ programs. Therefore the overwhelming majority of sentenced sex offenders in South Australia are released at the conclusion of their sentences without any, or any proper, rehabilitation. Believe it or not, in the same week as the South Australian minister made his findings, a Queensland politician added to the call to action by stating that Aboriginal prisoners in that state were being released without proper rehabilitation, which caused them to reoffend almost immediately because they lacked the educational tools for them to make their way in society.

  On it goes in every state and territory of this wide brown land – no rehabilitation. The point of difference between Victoria and what appears to be a common theme in all the other states is the complete denial by Victoria that there is a problem. If you don’t own up to the problem, then how the hell can you fix it? It is about time all concerned – the courts, the Parole Board, the Office of Corrections and the politicians – pulled their collective fingers out and addressed the inescapable: there is no rehabilitation in prisons in Victoria.

  As I said, working my way back to a normal existence has been a very interesting exercise indeed. People I knew before the wheels fell off, while they may have been ambivalent then, now fall into two distinct camps. There is no grey area, their attitudes are black or white: they are for me or against me. I have always polarised opinion but never has the divide been so stark. Some people who would talk to me previously have walked past me almost on a daily basis since my release and totally ignored me or looked straight through me.

  I had a very wide circle of friends before I went to jail but that circle shrank dramatically and qu
ickly upon my being charged and it shrank even further once I went to jail. Those who stuck have stuck like glue, and they were one of the main reasons I was able to get through my sentence. Without the support of all those friends, I would not have survived. They have bent over backwards to do whatever they can to help me get back on my feet in every conceivable way. Some of the help has come from the most surprising and unexpected quarters. My heartfelt thanks to all those people – most of whom have been quite direct with me in insisting that I make no formal recognition of them, so I won’t.

  Giving evidence in the Halvagis case was easily the most challenging thing I have ever done but at the same time enormously satisfying: it meant that at least some good had come from my incarceration. When I finished giving my evidence Mersina Halvagis’s brother again approached Victor Susman, my manager, and asked that the family’s heartfelt thanks be extended to me. Their view – win, lose or draw – was that at least the family now had closure, they knew who had killed their daughter and sister and could draw a line under their awful ordeal. The jury verdict was almost secondary; they now knew for certain.

  At the time of writing this book, the matter was still subject to appeal, and so I have still not spoken to the Halvagis family. I do wish them well and I hope that what I have done has given them some comfort, to at least know that their daughter’s murderer has been brought to justice.