Enforcing the Law !

We ordinary citizens often disagree with laws that are passed by parliament and put into effect, but we ignore them at our peril    This week a judge in the district court at Broken Hill chose to ignore a protocol that was legally put in place by the New South Wales parliament and agreed by the Chief Magistrate and senior judges.

Police are now required to wear their holstered firearms when they are attending court and this protocol was put in place because of perceived risks from terrorists and outlaw motorcycle gangs when court cases draw their interest.  Some judges and magistrates opposed this change of custom and while they have wide discretion in many matters within their courtroom - they are expected to obey the law.

In this instance the judge refused entry to an armed officer and insisted that evidence given be by a video visual link from another room in the courthouse.  This drew a comment from the President of the Police Association that "It beggars belief that a judge is not abiding by protocol that ... is there for ( her ) safety ".

This opens an interesting subject of discipline when a judge refuses to accept the protocols that apply to the courts.  It would be expected that this would come within the power of the Chief Magistrate to intervene - and if necessary stand down a judge who refuses to mend his or her ways - and obey the rules that apply.   There are laws in place to remove the judiciary from office but they are complex and require a joint sitting of state parliament and an overwhelming majority vote in favour.

At this same time the DPP is being criticised for "dragging it's feet " and impeding the inquest into the Lindt Cafe siege.  The Silk leading claims that the DPP are being "uncooperative " and have not provided a single brief on time ", and that they are opposing providing evidence on the bail status of Man Monis on "privilege " grounds.

This siege resulted in the death of two innocent people and the shooting of the gunman.  It is essential that all the facts are known so that we are better equipped to deal with future  terrorism when it washes up on our shores.  It is deplorable that the DPP should hide behind privilege and refuse to shed light on how a man with a lot of criminal history was able to get bail when he was already facing court on very serious charges.

Law and order seems to be in disrepute on a wide scale.  ICAC is still smarting over it's reverses in the Margaret Cunneen debacle.    It has been disciplined by no less a body than the High Court and yet it seems to be persisting with the inference that it's actions were valid.  There are no indications of an attitudinal change.

Within the very body tasked with implementing the law there is disquiet that the police bugging saga seems no nearer to settlement - and this is now heading towards two decades of investigation and enquiry.

The perception held by the average New South Wales citizen is that those who administer and sit in judgement on matters of law have far too much freedom to apply the rules according to their own definition of justice.   The law is that enacted by the parliament and overseen at it's peak by the High Court, and yet personal fiefdoms and power factions come into play which distort outcomes and introduce personal prejudice.

Few would now believe that justice will always prevail !