austcoatofarmsSome of the garbage that comes out of the Australian legal system never ceases to amaze me.

If judges aren’t handing out lollipop sentences then we’ve got judges blaming judges for being influenced by “populist views”.

Western Australia chief justice, Wayne Martin, seemingly disturbed by the recent rise in jailing by the courts is urging judges to “show leadership in deciding how to respond.”

This of course being code for listening to the fabric of society and then doing the complete opposite when sentencing.

I believe that if one place needs populism then it’s the legal system. If judges are to ignore societal opinion, what else are they supposed to gauge sentencing upon?

As a layman member of society to me there is something fundamentally wrong when the general consensus in society is that Crime A is severe and deserves at least 5 years in jail (mind you societal opinion is never this specific but it’s relatively easy to gauge a general idea), and then some clown judge gives someone found guilty of Crime A a 3 day suspended sentence.

For no other reason then they don’t want to be seen as sympathetic to populism.

Earlier this year I wrote about a week of garbage in the Australian courts and highlighted three cases I believe are the height of judges sentencing so as to appear anti-populist gone wrong.

Case 1 saw Sharon and Blake Ward deliver a successful theatrical performance which convinced a judge to postpone sentencing for starving their daughter to death.

Case 2 saw Donna Filchett give her kids a cocktail of drugs and then strangle or suffocate them to death. She was found not guilty at an appeal because the judge felt the jury hadn’t been adequately informed of the consequences of finding her guilty the first time.

Apparently the jury were of the impression that a guilty verdict to murder meant the accused was granted an all expenses paid trip around the world and a million dollar cash prize.

Finally case 3 saw Cameron Thomas awarded $853,396 for falling off a bunk bed whilst at a sleepover when he was ten years old.

This is exactly the type of nonsense that judges who think they are upholding justice in the name of anti-populism are continually responsible for.

Want a more recent populist vs. non-populist example?

Take the two cases of females that raped underage males recently.

Both cases involved a history of alcohol abuse, middle aged females and two underage boys.

Michelle Lynn Dennis “was drinking heavily during the 2007 offending and had kept a water bottle full of red wine in her car.” She had sex with two underage boys and was appropriately sentenced to four years and three months in jail, with a minimum of two years and ten months.

Jenny Lee Mitchell had a “background of horrific abuse and alcohol dependency.” She bought a slab of cruisers and shared it with a 17 year old and his younger friend who were staying with her at the time. She later had sex with both of them.

The judge who sentenced Mitchell labelled her a victim and gave her a two year suspended sentence.

One woman goes to jail and one gets off scott free. Female rape cases in particular seem to elicit a high level of anti-populism judge responses.

On one hand you have uniformly tough sentences handed out to males convicted of underage rape (248 years jail for looking at someone’s facebook page, saying hi to a young girl on the street, or telling someone you hug your daughter etc.) and then wildly different sentences being handed out to females found guilty of the same thing.

Ask random members of society what the hell the difference was to warrant a four year jail term vs. a two year suspended sentence and I imagine most will struggle to put up an argument. The sentencing in Mitchell’s case is clearly the result of a judge trying to buck social opinion on child rape and instead suggest that the rapist was indeed the victim in the case.

Chief justice Wayne Martin however would have you believe that this wildly difference in sentencing is a good thing.

dismissed the impact of tougher laws or perceived changes in offending rates for causing the growing prison gridlock.”It seems distinctly possible that the greater impact on prison numbers comes from courts sending a greater number of offenders to prison, and for longer,” he said.

Chief Justice Martin said the human and financial cost of the change in sentencing was huge and Aboriginal people had been the worst-affected.


What the hell are judges worrying about the prison population for? Does it make any sense to not give someone an appropriate sentence because they might have to share a cell with a fellow inmate?

Housing criminals should not be a part of the sentencing procedure, nor should it ever be taken into consideration when sentencing either. Similarly the cost of keeping someone in jail shouldn’t come under consideration either.

We as a country spend millions housing illegal immigrants in detention to process them but are worried about the cost of jailing criminals? Gee, better hand out some more suspended sentences this week then just to be safe.

And as for Aboriginals, perhaps if they weren’t, you know sniffing petrol, drinking themselves silly, abusing  children and stealing Freddo Frogs (tongue planted firmly in my cheek), then they wouldn’t wind up in the courts to begin with.

If Aboriginals are indeed the worst affected by the introduction of more appropriate sentencing then it is the Aboriginals themselves who have to change and abide by the laws of this country, not vice-versa.

Frankly I’m sick of judges being afraid to be seen as populist. Judges aren’t publicly elected and cannot be removed from office by the general public. If not via public opinion than how else are they to have any sort of gauge on whether the sentences they are handing out are appropriate or not?

As a society we should have some influence via opinion on the frequent rubbish sentences we see come out of the Australian court system. Removing this input is the final alienation of the public from a legal system that is supposedly there to protect and serve us.

Sorry Wayne but I for one would prefer to keep the doors of justice open and accessible.



Related posts that might interest you:
  1. Aussie judges need to learn what a PUNISHment is again