Hi there folks...

While I generally agree with the overt pragmatism of HASBEEN in many of his arguments and opinions, on this specific issue 'that we elect our judiciary', is not a view that I'd share with him ?

I acknowledge it's the individual presiding on the bench who's completely appraised of ALL the facts in evidence, and as such it's within his or her purview alone, to determine the relative 'weight' those facts in issue are given, during the sentencing stage ?

I acknowledge most criminal process, is subject to appeal. Particularly if it's found the presiding judge has erred in law; or his sentencing preamble has placed insufficient 'weight' on matters that are present in evidence; including other material that might prove inculpatory but NOT presented in evidence; or he'd failed to scrupulously adhere to usual sentencing precedent. There are other areas in procedure, that a presiding justice might get wrong, subsequently might well be appealed.

Further I accept all strata of the judiciary have a tough gig ? That said, surely there comes a time when there is sufficient public disquiet, to moderate their usual sentencing protocols, and step up to the plate, and in some measure, try to meet the community's expectations ?

As a working detective almost right up until I retired, I cannot emphasize enough, how damned demoralized you get, when you and your squad members put hundreds of hours (often unpaid) into a good brief of evidence. Though a conviction might never be in question, the punishment just doesn't go anywhere near fitting the crime ? Just the look on a victims face, does make you question whether it's worth all the time and (personal) energy you put into it ?

Hi there DAVID F...

I'm sorry to have been so slow in responding to your thread, but as you can see, I've been overcome with the many responses I've received on this topic ? Perhaps therein lies a message ?

I agree with much of what you've said, the judiciary must remain independent from any other influences whatsoever, in order they may dispense justice fairly, and without any political intrusion or influence, from any quarter.

I will say something that I have observed, concerning whispers of political interference even meddling with members of the judiciary ? During the last 15,20 years or so, I've noticed many of those presiding in our lower courts (the Magistracy), seem to have a much greater reluctance to incarcerate an individual if it's at all possible ?

(Unfortunately, once the media gets wind of any irregularity, and the circumstances for NOT gaoling someone is very compelling, well justice becomes just another circus?)

Anyway, due in part to some subtle reminders that are quietly given to the Chief Magistrate, concerning the spiralling costs associated with imprisoning someone, rather than first examining other punitive measures initially ? One doesn't need a PhD in political skulduggery, to appreciate who exactly gives the CM the 'heads up', other than some influential politician ? Personally I don't have a (particular) problem with that DAVID F ? After all our correctional responsibilities need to include sound fiscal management as well. Nothing wrong with a well-timed reminder is it ?

My only reservation being, advising the Chief 'beak' of some fiscal imperative, is just a very short step away, from attempting to influence a member of the judiciary, in other less acceptable ways ?

Anyway DAVID F, I believe you and I are 'basically' on the same page here, if not we're nevertheless pretty close ?

Dear o sung wu,

I agree. Justice should always be done. Unfortunately, it isn't always either in the government or in the private sector. A few years ago in the United States Sears and Roebuck, selling through mail order and retail outlets, was plagued by employee pilfering. After a study it was found that the cost of the security system which would prevent employee pilfering was greater than the amount pilfered. To do nothing was cheaper. In effect the honest employees continued to get less than the thieves.

To be realistic justice is never free of cost, and we're not always willing to pay it.

Hi (again) DAVID F...

You're so right, we would all like to believe in this somewhat esoteric ideal, that in a developed nation such as ours, justice is available and accessible to us all ? A magnificent concept in theory, but far from the truth unfortunately ?

In this grand State of ours NSW, many hours are wasted while we all loiter in and around outside Court, while waiting to be summoned to give our evidence. Naturally while many people are loosely assembled in and about the public areas and it's environs, you tend to over hear the low murmurs of a dozen conversations going on, most remonstrating about how expensive it is for legal representation.

Police are lucky ? In each Court House there's this diminutive (suffocating) little room, for the benefit of police to quietly review their 'evidence in chief'. Stencilled on the door to this room, are the words 'Police Only' can be seen. Lets face it, no living thing, would ever seek to venture (willingly) through that door once they'd seen what lay beyond ! Imagine if you will, half a dozen large coppers all trying to move around in a room so tiny, that it would probably designated 'too small' as an official phone box ? The State's police are well cared for, in NSW Court Houses ?

Back to the topic though, initially you first need to seek out a solicitor, one dealing in criminal procedures, he in turn recommends and briefs a barrister to represent you in court. All the while, the old 'cash register' ringing away happily, ever couple of minutes or so ! Both Barrister's and his instructing solicitor cost plenty, in any civil or criminal matter being defended !

This notion of justice for all, is all well and good, provided of course you can pay for it ? Oh you're so right DAVID F, quality justice is strictly within the dominion of the wealthy, not for your average working Joe ? And getting assistance from the public solicitor, does work provided you meet their strict 'means testing' ?

o sung wu,

No doubt you remember Judge Camron-Smith and other of his ilk in the "Quarter Sessions".
There wasn't a crim in Sydney that didn't crap themselves when they fronted for repeat offenses especially where the "Key" (Habitual Criminals Act) was mentioned.
God I loved that Act. The moment you mentioned it the crims confessed to dozens on the 'back of the sheet'

G'day there CHRISGAFF1000...

Always good to hear from you mate ! The old 'Quarter Sessions', you'd remember the presiding Judge was not known by the appellation 'Judge', rather they were referred to as the 'Chairman of Quarter Sessions' ! Go figure ? Your memory is amazing Chris, I honestly don't remember him by that name, unless he's the bloke they often referred to somewhat affectionately as, old Judge 'Two Fathers' ?

The Key, who'd forget it ! Once a crook got declared by the Court as an 'Habitual Criminal' it had a great impact upon his remission while in boob. Further his parole was much much tougher to obtain, plus other judicial (punitive) impositions were applied.

Extraordinarily, once a crook got 'the Key' many lesser crims, treated it as a 'badge of honour' ! Sure it is ?? Being declared, a 'habitual loser', is a badge of honour, go figure ??

Another silly admin. decision which many of us greatly lamented, was the disbandment of the Consorting Squad, consequently the repeal of the Act ? Another useful tool for detectives to legitimately stir 'em up, whenever the mood took them !

Chris, I'm very glad I'm out, I don't think I could survive in the job now, with all the PC and other entrapment strategies that are carefully set, for some poor unwitting copper trying to do his job ? I'm not the only one who shares this view, you'd be of a similar mind I'd bet ?