The NSW bar has complained about attacks on character referees for a convicted rapist … Minister condemns references as “appalling” … A rerun of the Patrick Power case … Contempt … Sticking-up for the offender versus sticking-up for the victim
ARTHUR Moses, NSW bar ‘n’ grill’s Junior Vice, got a poke in the eye with one of Bernard Keane’s blunt sticks.
For those not in the orbit, Bernard is Crikey’s scribbler in Canberra and is always quick with a fiery opinion.
We have to go back a step to when newly installed Minister for the Prevention of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, Pru Goward, was trying out her wings with an attack on a handful of people who provided character evidence for the sentencing of a nasty rapist, one Luke Andrew Lazarus.
Lazarus lured a 20-year-old woman from the Soho Bar in Kings Cross, partly owned by his father, and anally raped her in the laneway outside. He then proceeded to boast about it as a “conquest”.
Judge Sarah Huggett sentenced him to five years in prison with three years of non-parole after receiving character testimony from prominent eastern suburbs types, including the mayor of Waverley Sally Betts and South Sydney Rabbitohs rugby league club chairman Nick Pappas.
This echoed the sentiments of the young rapist’s father, Andrew Lazarus, who said:
“It was our intention and hope that the incident could remain quiet to protect Luke’s good reputation.”
According to one report, his father intends that Luke will be supported to move overseas, change his name and begin again.
Apparently, young Luke must have missed that part of his upbringing when you are supposed to comprehend that you don’t pin strange women to the ground and take them by force.
As other worthies have pointed out, “An Aboriginal man from Whoop Whoop who commits the same crime cannot command those sorts of references …”
Goward as the new minister for prevention of rape and violence, thought this was her moment:
“This terrible case should serve as a salutary reminder to all of us, but especially those with apparent standing in the community, that they should carefully consider just how willing they are to lend their support to a criminal.
Not only does this diminish their standing, it can shatter the confidence of the victim and often discourages them from seeking justice.”
Moses didn’t think that much of Goward’s standing in the community, and said he disapproved of her “ill-advised” criticism of people providing references for a sentencing.
“In certain circumstances it may constitute a contempt of court to humiliate or victimise individuals for being witnesses.”
It could interfere with the administration of justice, etc, etc.
It was stacks on the mill, with Keane from Canberra leaping onboard with a wild piece whose point was difficult to grasp. He thought that by threatening contempt, Moses was trying to shut down “debate”.
At the same time, by giving her character evidence and urging the court not to jail the offender he thought Betts’ position was untenable:
“No ratepayer in the Waverley Council area can have confidence that the council takes the safety of women seriously if its mayor genuinely believes the perpetrator of a sexual assault should not be jailed.”
On the other hand, the Junior Vice was trying to protect the lawyers’ patch, which entails discouraging public criticism in order to encourage evidence-givers.
It’s not easy to see a clear pathway through these conflicting contentions.
Anyway, the local suburban paper around Mayor Betts’ way, the Wentworth Courier, had her on the cover plaintively declaring, “I’ve done nothing wrong”, while inside readers shrieked for her head.
This is not the first time the NSW bar has used the “contempt” word. In 2007 it commenced action against The Daily Smellograph for a series of articles that attacked character referees for crown prosecutor Patrick Power who pleaded guilty to possessing on his computer images and videos of child pornography.
In that case the prosecutor was Jeremy Rapke, from Victoria, who told the court that Power had collected in excess of 29,000 pornographic images, including 433 pictures and 31 videos depicting children. He said, they were of “the worst and highest grade pornography” involving “humiliation and sadistic bestiality”.
Eighty-four citizens gave character evidence for Power, many of whom were lawyers. The Smello went to town with page one vilification of the referees, The pervert and his 59 mates.
The list of referees was secret until News Ltd was granted access by Chief Madge Graeme Henson.
Whey-faced attorney general Philip Ruddock pronounced at the time:
“I caution people that if they’re giving references, they need to check very carefully that they are fully aware of all of the matters that are being dealt with before a court … People ought to have the courage to put that information into the public arena so it can be tested.”
The paper settled with everyone for $480,000 and grovelled. Roddy Meagher trousered $30,000.
Following the apology the bar withdrew its contempt case against the publisher.
Here we find a turf war. Is it contempt of court to criticise character referees, or an exercise in openly “debating” the rights and wrongs of offenders and victims?
Probably a bit of both, but in today’s world the old walls protecting the “proper administration of justice” have for some time been crumbling in the face of an online barrage.
As for the Soho Bar, the promotion it ran shortly after the rape case shows that the penny hasn’t dropped.