Image: Yuri Ostromentsky
Journalists sometimes get things wrong or adopt questionable methods. Courts - and the law in general - do likewise, with police, judges and lawyers sharing the responsibility, though their risk of being investigated over many months by Lord Justice Leveson is slight.
The despicable two-year sentences inflicted on members of the Russian punk trio Pussy Riot uphold a dishonourable tradition that knows no international boundaries. In the UK, think Timothy Evans, the Guildford Four, Maguires, Birmingham Six, extraditions. Overseas? Mickey Mouse sentencing in multiples of life expectancy in the US and more recently The Hague, IRA kangaroo courts (not so long ago), alleged adulterers stoned to death in Mali (now).
There are many, many more examples of miscarriages of justice or scandalous sentences passed. And just as there are examples - Judge Timothy Workman in the Lotfi Raissi case - of judges and lawyers striving to prevent or remedy them, journalists often play their part in putting these aberrations right.
Of course you would have known nothing of the disproportionate punishment of Pussy Riot's conduct, offensive to some, maybe many, but no more, without the existence of a free-ish press in its different forms.
And in another Salut! exclusive, following our disclosure of the draft Leveson recommendations in favour of strengthening press freedom, Judge Marina Syrova now explains Vladimir Putin's decision, sorry her decision, that Maria Alyokhina, 24, Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, 22, and Yekaterina Samutsevich, 30, should be carted off to a harsh gulag for staging a protest in a Russian Orthodox cathedral against the church's support for Putin.
In the interest of balance, this is the judge's statement to Salut! in full:
"I wish all those around the world who choose to criticise my judgment to bear in mind that I reached it in strict observance of the law. I cannot comment on insolent suggestions that our esteemed and bountiful president contacted me, directly or otherwise, with express instructions as to the outcome. What I can say is that I am perfectly capably of reaching idiotic decisions all on my own.
During the trial, I listened carefully to all the arguments and evidence presented on behalf of, er, the prosecution. Indeed, I would have given the same respect and attention to defence witness and submissions had I not ruled that the court had no need to hear them.
I recognise that the supposed criminal offences would, in most mature, tolerant democracies, be seen as no worse that minor misdemeanour worthy, say, of small fines. But who is to say that mature, tolerant democracies are the best way of ordering society? The wondrous Soviet Union did very nicely thank you under Uncle Joe Stalin and its remnants could do with a spot of the authority, discipline and sheer nastiness that also brought five-year plans and visions of plenty.
We love our people but it is and must be a tough love. I gave full credit to the accused for their youth, unblemished records and - in the cases or two of the three - the fact that they are mothers of small children, but steeled myself to allow these factors to make not the slightest different to my findings.
It may be true that nothing these ghastly women did merited more than the passing disapproval of those who took offence.Yet it is my considered view, whatever the provenance of that view, that in sparing them the taste of the knout they so richly deserved, I discharged my duty to apply the law fairly and humanely. It is open to an appeal court to reduce the sentence from two years in a labour camp to one, which some may feel turns an evil into half an evil, but be thankful for small mercies.
The international furore is a western plot to discredit our great nation and make it seem an entirely unwholesome and inappropriate place to stage a World Cup tournament."
A message from Judge Syrova, received just after Salut! went to press, pointed out that everything that appears in her name above is a "wicked fabrication". The court's sentence is awaited.
Recent Comments