Chief Justice Doyle is wrong

An interview with South Australia's Chief Justice John Doyle in Adelaide's Sunday Mail this week has stirred mixed feelings in me.

Talking about the problems we face when trying to deal appropriately with individual judge's non-approved actions, Doyle said a formal complaints system has been suggested a few times in the last decade, but the suggestion has yet to be acted upon, leaving him, in his position as Chief Justice in Adelaide, unable to do anything except give the misbehaving judge a good talking-to.

This seems wrong to me. Judges are human, therefore they are not perfect, so some sort of procedure allowing for complaints, at the very least, or, better yet, punishment of bar offenders seems necessary to me.

On other matters, Doyle said:

Government interference could lead to a system where judges were continually being told what to do by political leaders or powerful institutions.

True. The government is run by politicians, with power and greed often being motivating factors. Some will seek out this power at any cost, with lying not out of the question. Whatever gets the votes. In general, politicians are not people we should be blindly trusting.

Judges, on the other hand, have studied the law, and this is their job -- to know that law, our laws, and ensure they are applied fairly and as is right. Listening to a bunch of power-hungry vote chasers is obviously not something judges should be doing.

Cool. I'm with Doyle up to that point, but unfortunately some of his other comments indicate he, too, is unduly influenced by the media.

Take this quote:

Schapelle Corby had received overwhelming media attention because she is photogenic.

Bah! What garbage. Look at Michelle "Instant-Islam" Lee. She's a model, therefore gorgeous by definition, and her case isn't generating anywhere near the attention Schapelle's did (and for good reason).

Look, too, at the last big drugs case that rocked Australia -- Chambers & Barlow, almost 20 years ago now. They were male; they were not "photogenic"; they were guilty. Yet Australians reacted to their death sentences with overwhelming force, all the same.

Schapelle is not getting sympathy because she is pretty. Nor is she getting sympathy because her family make good copy.

Schapelle Corby is getting sympathy because it is patently obvious she is not guilty, yet 20 years of her life have been taken from her. Originally, there was the very real possibility she would lose her life. Thankfully, this did not happen, yet her situation is still appalling.

When an average Australian who has scrimped & saved for a holiday abroad takes said holiday, only to be locked up the moment she gets off the plane, then, Justice Doyle, there will always be sympathy and empassioned support. We are Australian, this person is one of us, she is a mate.

Looks have nothing to do with it -- but even if, for a moment, we look at that part of the story, where has the most information & sensationalism about her beauty come from?

The Indonesian press, not the Australian. Reporting from the two sides has been vastly different, one calling her the "Ganja Queen", the other calling for her freedom. There is a world of difference between the printed perspectives there.