Rita Panahi: Cheers for judge who won’t stand for nonsense
LAWYERS and judges unhappy with public criticism might look at the example of a NSW judge who refused to allow a woman conceal her face while giving evidence, writes Rita Panahi.
Rita Panahi
Don't miss out on the headlines from Rita Panahi. Followed categories will be added to My News.
LAWYERS can be proof that academic results are not necessarily a reflection of intelligence.
You may need top grades to get into law school but a perfect ATAR score clearly isn’t indicative of common sense, judging by some of the nonsense spouted by members of the legal profession such as human rights lawyers and other “social justice” activists.
The real problems arise when those types, divorced as they can be from reality, are appointed to the bench, a role they can fulfil until the age of 70, and in some cases even older. Victorians have grown used to having their faith in the justice system tested by decisions that appear to defy logic.
FED-UP JUDGE TAKES A VEILED STAND
So when NSW District Court judge Audrey Balla responded in an entirely sensible manner in dealing with an incendiary issue late last month it was applauded far and wide. Judge Balla was hearing a case brought forward by Moutia Elzahed, one of the wives of convicted Islamic State recruiter Hamdi Alqudsi, who is suing police over a 2014 counter-terrorism raid.
Burqa-clad Elzahed wanted her face concealed while she was giving evidence.
The judge wasn’t having it.
Judge Balla: Are you proposing that she would have her face covered while she’s giving evidence and being cross-examined?
Ms Elzahed’s lawyer, Clive Evatt: I’m afraid so, yes. It’s not very satisfactory, your Honour, but it’s something we have to live with.
Judge Balla: It’s not something I have to live with.
Evatt persevered but Judge Balla wouldn’t compromise for the sake of convenience or cultural diversity. How can a judge determine a witness’s truthfulness without seeing her face and reading the facial cues that form a crucial part of human communication?
Judge Balla: Are you telling me from the Bar table that she’s going to refuse to remove her face covering?
Mr Evatt: They’re my instructions, your Honour.
Judge Balla: Then there’s no point in calling her. I’m not going to start having a tussle with your client about the issue.
Mr Evatt: I need to say I am instructed that for religious reasons —
Judge Balla: I understand the reason and I’ve told you my reason.
Judge Balla again showed she wouldn’t tolerate nonsense when Elzahed refused to stand when the judge entered or left the court.
Elzahed’s counsel tried to explain that it was behaviour motivated by religious beliefs.
“She is a strict Muslim and according to my instructions she won’t stand for anyone except Allah, which I am not particularly happy with,” he said.
Judge Balla reminded Elzahed that it was an offence in NSW and that she could be fined for each occasion that she failed to stand.
We normally hear from judges when they pass a sentence that the community deems manifestly inadequate.
In recent weeks we’ve seen the measly 20-month jail term given to former Multicultural Affairs commissioner Joseph Wakim, who pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting a boy, reduced on appeal to 18 months.
“An offender who commits an isolated sexual offence involving a child is not to be doubly punished by a court treating their breach of trust as an aggravating circumstance while also diminishing the mitigatory weight to be given to previous good character,” the court found.
Last week an 18-year-old wannabe jihadi was sentenced to only seven years, with a five-year, three-month minimum, for the Mother’s Day terror plot.
And hardly a week passes without a case in which a violent offender is given a slap on the wrist, leaving the victim further traumatised and the community less safe.
The legal fraternity don’t take too kindly to their influence being reduced by laws that mandate minimum terms that are in line with community expectations.
Any suggestion of statutory or mandatory sentencing is met with a hyperbolic response — but that is precisely what is needed to restore public faith in the judiciary.
You can’t mandate common sense but you can mandate minimum terms.
Judges should still determine the severity of the punishment but should be obliged to give a minimum term for defined offences.
If the Coalition wants to be different from Labor and show it is serious about law and order, it must forget about baseline sentencing and adopt mandatory minimum terms for violent offences.
RITA PANAHI IS A HERALD SUN COLUMNIST
Human cost of pandemic goes much further than virus
Whether you are pro or anti-lockdown the grim, unintended consequences of the fixation on coronavirus are undeniable, as other diseases — including cancer and heart disease — go unchecked, and despair from joblessness, poverty and financial stress rises, writes Rita Panahi.
Will buck really stop with Dan after disastrous decisions?
While Daniel Andrews repeats the “we’re all in this together” mantra, the reality is only the private sector is making huge financial sacrifices as he refuses to face up to scrutiny over the hotel quarantine fiasco and contact tracing chaos, writes Rita Panahi.