The eroded prestige of the justice system must be restored

Monday 26 December 2011

Spyros Bazinas

Following the general outcry, and, in particular, the statements by the Holy Community of the Holy Mountain, His Beatitude the Archbishop of Athens, their Eminences the Metropolitans of Thessaloniki, Peiraia, Patra, Fthiotida, Nafpaktos, Siatista, Konitsa, Mesogaia, and Prikonisos,  by so many other eminent citizens, such as Messrs. Mitsotakis, Loulis and Konidaris, by political parties, such as LA.O.S. and by organizations even from abroad, such as the Saint Andrew Foundation, it is apparent that the unjustifiable decision on the part of the Appeals Council to order the preventative detention of Archimandrite Efraim, the Abbot of the Holy and Great Monastery of Vatopaidi, has sorely damaged the people’s trust in the justice system and has greatly harmed the prestige of this system and of those who work within it.

The warrant is said to have stated that temporary detention had been ordered to prevent the accused carrying out further punishable actions. As incidents in his past life or as particular features of his actions which support this judgement, the warrant mentions:

a) the exploitation of his capacity as abbot of an Athonite monastery of world-wide renown in order to influence political persons and state functionaries; b) the repeated performance of actions in conflict with the monastic way of life and his spiritual mission; and c) causing huge losses to the public purse.

 It is, however, highly doubtful whether these allegations justify the extreme measure of preventative detention and, to all intents and purposes, the abolition of the assumption of innocence.

Since when has it been a criminal offence to influence people in politics (even if it results in a crime, which has yet to be shown)? Since when have the criminal courts taken over the jurisdiction of the Bishop of the Holy Mountain, i.e. the Ecumenical Patriarch, and have been able to bring charges against a monk for not conforming to the monastic life and his spiritual mission? And since when has the actual crux of the trial, viz. losses to the public, been considered proven, even before the verdict of the court responsible is issued?

Two actions need to be taken as a matter of urgency. In the first place, the Prosecutor of the Supreme Court, who is the only person with the right to  do so, should exercise an appeal to law against the order which has caused the disagreement between the Investigator and Prosecutor over the preventative detention.

In this way, the Supreme Court will have saved the prestige of the justice system by giving a justified account of whether the conditions for preventative detention were actually met: i.e. whether the monk in question had no known place of abode; whether he was liable to flee the country or commit other infringements of the law; and whether the above reasons were sufficient.

Conflating this matter with the core of the issue, that is the soundness of the proofs of guilt or the gravity of the actions attributed to the accused, has resulted (regardless of intentions) in misrepresentation and obfuscation of the question of whether the terms of detention have been met.

Secondly, the President of the Council for the Inspection of Civil and Criminal Justice and Vice-President of the Supreme Court should exercise her authority to investigate whether a disciplinary misdemeanour has been perpetrated.

The essential question, in the case at hand, is whether the specific statements referred to above, all made by eminent personages with no particular link either to the accused hieromonk or to wider  matters but which express the concern of a large sector of the people, would justify the  launch of a preliminary investigation into whether the judicial officials who collaborated on issuing the warrant: a) did not act impartially, but were either motivated by expediency or were influenced by third parties or obsolete press articles based on information about people or things which did not arise from the criminal charge sheet; b) exceeded, in their formulation of the judicial opinion, the furthest bounds of reason, being unable to justify it fully or in detail; and c) by their feckless behaviour, cast aspersions not only on the prestige of the justice system  and themselves, but also on that of all their colleagues who are sworn to do their duty.

The leadership of the justice system needs to act immediately and decisively in order to restore people’s trust  in the system, in its eroded prestige and in that of its officials, so that ordinary people may once again believe that “there are judges in Athens” and respect for the rule of law. Otherwise we shall find ourselves living under the stress of lawlessness and of the popular feeling that those truly responsible for pillaging public property have escaped scot-free (while others are being made scapegoats). People will be encouraged to take the law into their own hands and this might even end in revolution. This episode has, in an unacceptable fashion, undermined the unity of the Greek people and increased the already formidable task facing the government.