Justice for all surely requires a single system of law for all

I have always thought that the notion of any sort of separate court system for any ethnic group within our society is wrong, and wrong headed thus I have objected to any suggestion that sharia law should be recognised or observed in this country. Justice for all surely requires one system of law for all. By the same token I thought the idea that there should be separate and distinct ways of addressing offences committed by indigenous people is just plain wrong. Now we find that the reality is that the special court system for indigenous offenders does not work any more effectively at reducing recidivism than the courts that every other person may face.

“You cannot downgrade assaults on women and say it’s just a minor matter – that is an outrage,” Professor Langton said.

She questioned why violent Aboriginal men were offered alternative court proceedings.

“It’s saying we have to go easy on these blokes who bash their wives because they’re intimidated by the court system,” she said. “Well, they weren’t feeling intimidated when they were bashing a woman around. But for some reason these men are regarded as victims who need to be treated gently and mollycoddled by the court system.”

Her comments were echoed by other indigenous activists, including Kyllie Cripps, a law lecturer at the University of NSW, and Leanne Miller, former chair of the Indigenous Women’s Legal Resource Group in Victoria.

Dr Cripps said she was shocked by the recent case of an Aboriginal man in Victoria who imprisoned and violently assaulted a 15-year-old girl with whom he was sexually involved. In February, the Court of Appeal released the man from prison, ruling he was entitled to a lesser sentence in part because his “shaming” in the Koori Court constituted an additional customary Aboriginal punishment.

That decision appeared to contradict official assurances that Koori Courts had nothing to do with customary law and were not designed to be more lenient.

“From what I have heard in the community, there has been a lot of furore about that case,” Dr Cripps said. “We aim as a society to have zero tolerance for family violence but I just don’t know that that message is being clearly spelt out in the current system – particularly if cases like this can get through.”

Since 1999, more than 50 indigenous courts have been established around the country in an attempt to reduce Aboriginal reoffending. Hearings in these courts are informal and often involve magistrates sitting beside Aboriginal elders, who admonish defendants and offer guidance on sentencing. The courts have been welcomed by many indigenous communities and the NSW and Victorian governments initially claimed they greatly reduced reoffending.

Research over the past two years has contradicted this. In 2008, the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research found that circle-sentencing defendants reoffended at the same rate – about 40 per cent – as Aboriginal defendants in mainstream courts. A study of the Children’s Koori Court in Victoria came to a similar conclusion last year. The West Australian government revealed in May that the reoffending rate in its Kalgoorlie Community Court was 83 per cent.

Frankly the special courts for indigenous people offend against the principle of a universal system of law in this country and if they don’t even do what their proponents claimed that they would is there any reason to allow them to continue?  I think not.

Finally is something to be said for formality in the way that that the law is administered. Ceremonial robes and even the old fashioned horse hair wigs all have their place in the very necessary theatre of justice. It adds to the gravitas of the players on that very special stage that are our courts, it may be less “friendly” than the sort of informality favoured by our latte sipping comrades but I think that its more effective. In the end isn’t it results that we want from our courts rather than empty gestures?

 

Cheers Comrades