Mendacious Magistrate

A presumption of innocence is the bedrock upon which Australia's judicial system is founded. The trial process is predicated on a requirement for sufficient proof to be gathered to prove, usually, beyond a reasonable doubt, that an accused is guilty of the crime. Recent reported comments from a NSW Justice seem to indicate that the concept of guilt of an accused is a foregone conclusion.

A Supreme Court judge has delivered a rebuke to the media and NSW government over new anti-riot laws, freeing a man who had previously been refused bail on charges of riot and affray. Justice Brian Sully said Mitchell John Newby, who was charged over the racial violence in Cronulla on December 11, would "not answer to a kangaroo court of the media or anyone else".

Justice Sully said he strongly objected to the "draconian form of incarceration" which Newby had to endure, being locked down in his Silverwater Prison cell for 22 hours a day. "Virtual solitary confinement is not something to be imposed upon a 20-year-old," he said. While stressing that his decision did not condone Newby's alleged actions, Justice Sully said the legislative amendments did not remove a person's right to bail. He accepted that Newby's alleged behaviour was out of character, and that he seemed to have been "caught up in the vortex" of a volatile situation. "In due course he will answer for what he has done," Justice Sully said.


I respectfully suggest, Your Worthless, that in due course he will face the court to be defended by a representative that will outline a case for his defence. The last thing the courts need is a justice pre-disposed to social engineering and against the concept of solitary confinement, waffling on about the chances of acquittal of an accused prior to trial. I wonder what age Justice Sully believes is suitable for solitary confinement? Whilst we are on the topic of judicial jackanapes, Australian Grand Poobah, Justice Michael Kirby of the High Court, is of the opinion that democratic policy is a wonderful thing, if taken out of the hands of the government and placed in the care of their intellectual superiors.

However, High Court Justice Michael Kirby made it clear recently that any challenge in Australia would be likely to fail. In a speech in December last year he said it seemed to him to be unjust to deprive prisoners of the vote.

"They have lost their liberty for a time; but they have not lost their dignity and basic human rights as citizens." Kirby added, "However, parliament can make such laws. There is nothing it seems that the courts can do about it."


If you take it upon yourself to act against societies laws, you should have your rights to elect the creator of those laws removed. If the will of the public is such that they endorse this position in the majority, that is to say, the elected government of the day creates and passes such a piece of legislation, there is not one scrap of evidence to suggest that a lone judge's personal view should be deemed any more important than the remainder. If Kirby wishes to constantly put himself onto the dissenters bench, he would be better served to raise his own political party and have his own policies and platforms, and not attempt to enforce his own views on the rest of society. Regardless of the level of judicial activism present on various benches around Australia, the only bodies who should be legally allowed to create laws are those elected, not appointed.

Crossposted@Bastards Inc.

No comments:

Post a Comment

All comments containing Chinese characters will not be published as I do not understand them