Lawyers court controversy with demand to bypass metal detectors

LAWYERS have complained that metal-detector screening in Sydney courts makes them late for sessions because they must undergo multiple tests if they set off the scanner.

Security guards working at Downing Centre court complex, Sydney. Picture: Tim Pascoe

IT’S the plot of many a good western: highfalutin bigwigs being brought into line by long-suffering local sheriffs.

Only this time it’s playing out in Sydney courts, where the sheriffs have been staring down the state’s barristers over security checks.

The wig-wearing lawyers have complained that metal-detector screening is making them late for court because they must undergo multiple tests if they set off the scanner.

A number of barristers at Parramatta Court, the Downing Centre, and John Maddison Tower in the CBD want to be exempted from the process, which subjects lawyers to the same checks as accused criminals, media and the public.

MORE CRIME AND COURT NEWS AND HEADLINES

They say the sheriffs aren’t using common sense and don’t treat them with courtesy, ­resulting in long lines and making them late for court.

The issue came to a head last week when NSW Bar ­Association president Arthur Moses SC called a meeting with sheriff boss Tracey Hall to defuse the tension.

A spokesman for the NSW Department of Justice dec­lined to respond directly to the allegations, issuing a statement that said: “All people entering the public entrance of a courthouse with perimeter security are scanned by the Sheriff’s Office, with the exception of police officers.”

Mr Moses said he called the meeting with Ms Hall after ­receiving several complaints from barristers.

IN OTHER NEWS:

“Whilst the Bar completely supports security screening, such screening needs to take place in a commonsense and courteous manner,” he said.

“After all, the courts are the workplaces of lawyers.”

All electronic and metal items must be removed from bags, which are then X-rayed. The person must walk through an airport-style metal detector.

Failure to clear the checkpoint results in either repeated ­attempts or a body scan with a handheld wand.

“A fundamental concern of the Bar Asso­ciation is to ensure that court proceedings are not ­adversely affected because of extensive delays which prac­titioners are ­experiencing when entering certain buildings,” Mr Moses said.

Arthur Moses called the meeting after receiving complaints.

“This leads to unnecessary time and cost being wasted, which is not fair to the public.”

One barrister, who declined to be named, said it was a source of frustration among lawyers that they were subjected to rigorous screening.

“There was a situation recently where a crown prosecutor dressed in a wig and gown, who the sheriffs knew by sight ­because he had been to that court for most of his eight-year ­career, was forced to take his shoes off to prove he wasn’t a security threat,” the barrister said.

“It is deeply resented by the profession that we have to be exposed to that.”

The result of the meeting is that barristers now have a complaint mechanism.

Lawyer Stephen Hopper took action in the NSW ­Supreme Court last year after sheriffs at the Parramatta court complex refused to let him enter unless he removed his belt before walking through the metal detectors.

The matter was thrown out, with the judge ruling he should have just taken off his belt.