Loading summary
Transcript109 lines
- [00:00]
A
Before we begin today's episode of Australian True Crime, I want to tell you about a new project we've been working on behind the scenes. It's called she Matters. It's a new podcast from award winning journalist and femicide researcher Sherrelle Moody. Each week Sherrelle speaks with families of women and children killed in Australia, sharing who they were, the joy they brought, and the love they left behind. She Matters isn't a true crime podcast, but it's about lives lived, lives loved, and lives lost. She Matters is produced by Dash made Podcasts in association with bravecasting Media. She Matters is available wherever you get your podcasts. We've witnessed two major murder trials in Victoria over the last couple of years. For six weeks in May and June of 2024, the Supreme Court dealt with the deaths of the so called high country campers. And in the end the jury found former Jetstar pilot Greg Lynn guilty of murdering Carol Clay. But they also found there was insufficient evidence to convict him of murdering her companion, Russell Hill. Exactly a year later, in May 2025, the trial of Erin Patterson began. I know we're all well aware of the outcome, but just in case you're listening to this sometime in the very distant future. It was a mammoth 10 week trial and Patterson was convicted of murdering her parents in law Don and Gail Patterson. She was also convicted of attempting to murder Heather's husband, Ian Wilkinson. If you are listening in the future you'll know the outcome of the appeals that both Erin Patterson and Greg Lynn are launching. As I record this, all of this to say that I've had the opportunity to observe these trials in a way that I never have before and they've left me with questions. Fortunately, we have a friend who is rather an expert in the workings of the Australian Supreme Courts and that is Justice Lex Lasry. He graciously agreed to join us again on Australian True Crime to answer some of those questions. This is Australian True Crime. We acknowledge the traditional owners of the land on which this podcast is created, the Wurundjeri Woi Wurrung People of the Kulin Nation and a Warning. This episode of the podcast contains graphic descriptions of violence.
- [02:26]
B
When the police commence a homicide investigation, they go out and they speak to witnesses and they take statements. And those statements usually are the entirety of the witness's recollection. Everything they remember, what somebody said, what they think they might have seen, their opinions about things, it's just all compiled into a witness statement and those statements wind up as part of the prosecution brief so then the question is, when the trial starts jumping over the committal, what are the issues in the trial? If the issue is a lack of intent, which I think it was in the mushroom case, then the question is, does the particular piece of evidence that the witness is going to give, is it relevant and probative on the issue of the intent of the accused to commit the crime? If it's not, then it probably doesn't go in. I mean, the starting point is the evidence has to be relevant and admissible. And being relevant and admissible means that it's going to help the jury resolve the issues that have been put before them. It doesn't mean that because it's in the brief and because someone's given information to the police about stuff they know, perhaps secondhand, perhaps they've heard, perhaps they have an opinion, none of that stuff is prima facie admissible. It's gotta come within the rules of evidence. So what will have happened, I'm sure, is that Justice Beale will have been confronted with a series of applications before the trial started saying, you, Honor should not admit this evidence or that evidence. The jury shouldn't be allowed to know this, that or the other thing because it's not relevant or it's. Although relevant, it's overwhelmingly prejudicial. And step by step, a trial judge will have to make rulings about that. And at the end of it, you should have a set of evidence that is compliant with the legal principles, the laws of evidence, and that's what the jury gets to decide the case on.
- [04:19]
A
Okay, so I'm still confused, because if a person, Erin Patterson, in this instance, is accused of poisoning food, poisoning people through food that she has prepared for them, I don't understand why it's not relevant that there were three or four instances prior to that event in which her husband got very, very ill after eating her food.
- [04:42]
B
It's not relevant because she's entitled to be tried on the incident that actually caused the death and nothing else. Now, there are exceptions to that, which the prosecution obviously didn't pursue. It arises more particularly in sexual offences. There is a rule called the tenancy rule, and in some cases, that kind of evidence might be admitted to show that she had a tendency towards this sort of conduct. But that will only be really relevant if the issue was whether or not she did it. Here, there was no question that she put the mushrooms in the beef Wellington. The only question is whether she intended to kill. So what she did on another occasion really doesn't make much contribution apart from Obviously create a prejudice against her, but it doesn't help the jury to decide what happened on this occasion.
- [05:33]
A
Why wasn't there an option for Patterson to be found guilty of manslaughter? And whose role is it to decide that? Because it seemed to me like, well, why doesn't she just say that? She. Yep. I pick mushrooms. I made a mistake on this occasion. I feel terrible. I've accidentally killed these people I love. That sounds like manslaughter to me.
- [05:51]
B
Well, it could be. I'm not. I'm sure there was a debate about that. The judge told the jury manslaughter wasn't an option. It was either going to be guilty of murder or not guilty of murder. That was it. I think because of the way the prosecution put the case in, the way she defended it, that was the only logical outcome. But I suppose theoretically, at the start of the trial, if she'd wanted to do that, regardless of what the judge said when she was arraigned, she could have said, I'm not guilty of murder, but I am guilty of manslaughter. That would have completely changed the way the trial was run. But that didn't happen.
- [06:26]
A
Dr. Nanette Rogers developed quite a fandom during the Erin Patterson trial.
- [06:31]
B
Yeah, I bet she did.
- [06:33]
A
She had some exchanges with Erin Patterson that to the rest of us seemed like woo, girl. Do you think it's positive to have a woman cross examining a woman? Would it have felt different if a man was sort of having. Cause it was always going to be a highly charged cross examination. Is it different?
- [06:50]
B
Yeah, it's better to have the woman be the cross examiner. If it had been a man, not that that could have been avoided, but if it had been a man, inevitably people would have complained of a sort of power imbalance. So I think that combination was the right combination.
- [07:06]
A
It was quite something. The other question, I suppose I have is, everyone I spoke to during the jury deliberation in Erin Patterson's trial, which was lengthy, said the same thing to me. This is ladies at the hairdresser. This is everybody. I think she did it, but I think she'll get off. There's another disconnect I'm interested in your thoughts on.
- [07:23]
B
I should be acquitted too.
- [07:25]
A
Did you. I mean, your perspective's different though, I think, because aren't you. You're looking at. Have they proven the case? Have they done enough?
- [07:32]
B
I thought it was going to be difficult for the Crown because they specifically said, we don't claim to know the.
- [07:37]
A
Motive, but they don't have to prove that.
- [07:39]
B
Right. They don't have to prove it, but motive is, you know, a piece of circumstantial evidence that can be very powerful. If someone's got a very strong motive to kill someone, then it's evidence that a jury can rely on to come to a conclusion of guilty. It's not an element of the offense. That's right. They don't have to prove it, but it's pretty powerful stuff in the right case. And there was no motive. Alleged. I thought that was going to be a problem anyhow. It wasn't. I was wrong about that.
- [08:06]
A
A lot of people think that Erin Patterson taking the stand was actually what tipped it against her because she was deeply unlikable.
- [08:15]
B
Yeah.
- [08:16]
A
You didn't watch the trial, so I'm not asking you for your opinion on her evidence, but can that happen? And also people say, well, usually a person accused of murder doesn't take the stand. Why did she?
- [08:26]
B
Well, there's a couple of things about that. Firstly, you can avoid giving evidence because of the risks involved in doing it. If you've put a coherent story to the police in a record of interview so that your defense is in the evidence without the need for you to.
- [08:42]
A
Give evidence to add to it.
- [08:44]
B
Basically, yeah. But there are some cases where the gaping holes are so dramatic that one says to one's client, you've probably got to give evidence because you've got to explain A, B, C and D. The client has to make the choice. No doubt, Colin, Mandy gave her good advice and with that advice on board, she chose to do it. But yeah, it's a. One of the. At one moment in a trial that is always uncomfortable for the defense is when you've let evidence in, Chief, from your client sit down and the cross examiner prosecutor gets to their feet and starts. And sometimes you just sit there and watch it fall apart. You just want to be under the table sometimes.
- [09:26]
A
And we also know in this case that initially there were four charges of attempted murder against Simon Patterson that were included or that I guess the prosecution sought to include in the trial and they were excluded before the trial. How do you think that affects a jury's thoughts when they are aware, they don't know what the charges were theoretically, but they're aware that there were other charges and they've been dropped. That's confusing. Why. Why were they dropped and how does that affect a jury?
- [09:52]
B
Well, it shouldn't affect them at all. I mean, they. And they're told. This is. They're not told in these terms that it's none of their business. Yeah, but really what they're told is you've got to concentrate on what you see and hear in this courtroom. And what else happened outside this courtroom in relation to other matters is irrelevant for your purposes. They've just got to be told that. I'm sure they were told that by the judge and by and large, juries understand why that is. So I don't know why that happened. I'm not surprised that the original indictment was severed. That is, the attempted murder charges were separated from the murder charges. But I gather in the end the Crown determined not to proceed with them at all. None of that is relevant for the jury and they would be told if they asked a question about it. I'm sorry, I can't tell you the answer to that because it's not relevant for your deliberation, so please put it out of your mind.
- [10:43]
A
Yeah. Do you think, though, it adds to a feeling of there being information that they don't have access to, and is that as frustrating for a jury, do you think, as it is sometimes for the public?
- [10:53]
B
No, it shouldn't be frustrating for anybody. What it should be is a sign of a judge is doing his or her job properly and that the trial is being conducted in accordance with the law. And that's what a judge will tell a jury at the start. You're the judges of the facts, but I'm the judge of the law. And one of the things I have to make sure is if this trial is conducted in accordance with the law and in accordance with various principles which I've applied, people just simply have to accept that if the judge is wrong, well, there's a court of appeal. You can say so. But I just think they're the wrong things to dwell on. They don't help. It's clearly the way the system works that people ought to accept that judges know what they're doing. Sometimes I suspect they struggle with that concept.
- [11:35]
A
Yeah, it is. And I think probably I'm coming at it from a media perspective, too.
- [11:40]
B
It must drive the media nuts. Yeah, I understand it. I mean, it probably drives the public nuts, too, because they're yelling at their screens. But, you know, she's charged with attempted murder as well. Shouldn't they know that?
- [11:53]
A
Yeah. And that case in particular went on for so long, the trial went on for so long that I think a lot of us thought, in the end, thank God they didn't include those other indictments because this has been such an intense process.
- [12:03]
B
This case was always going to be a lengthy Difficult, complicated trial. So he would be conscious of the fact that he doesn't want to get to the end of whatever it was, a six week trial, and then suddenly find that some error has been made by him or something else has gone wrong, which would require the jury to be discharged and the trial to have to start again. So where judges are being cautious, that's a consideration.
- [12:28]
A
I felt like he was super cautious. And I'm not overly familiar with his work in the past, but a lot of other people were talking about that too, particularly when he delivered his charge, which was I think a day and a half. And people were even complaining, God, let's get on with it. But he was meticulous in this case.
- [12:46]
B
Well, that's good. I mean, that's what you're supposed to do. I always, I still say to juries at the end, as I start my charge, you are about to hear the least interesting of the free speeches at the end of the case. I'm just gonna have to stick with it. Cause it's important.
- [13:02]
A
Yeah, I know. There was one day where there was a concern raised about a juror nodding off during evidence. It is. It's a lot to ask a human being, isn't it?
- [13:11]
B
Yes, it is, it is. It's very difficult. And I mean, these days in this modern age of social media and technology, people are not used to having to sit in a suit and be lectured at for two or three hours at a time. No one does that anymore. Even at university, the system is different. So it's a new and boring experience for a lot of them.
- [13:31]
A
And in both trials, this one and the high country trial, there was a lot of phone evidence, a lot of phone tower evidence. And in both cases, we as spectators or jurors had quite a lengthy lecture on the technology, the development of the technology. I get that it's essential, but it's a lot before you get to the meat on the bones of the case.
- [13:51]
B
Well, look, with that sort of evidence, the question always is, does it prove where a particular person was at a particular time? And that's a complicated answer.
- [14:00]
A
Yeah. And it's an important answer for both sides.
- [14:03]
B
Yeah, it is.
- [14:05]
A
I tell you what I was not prepared for. That was the environment of the sentencing hearing. The environment of the trial is one thing. And certainly there's a lot of respect given to the accused during the trial, I think, and the judge is very serious about that. This person is still considered innocent, but when it comes to sentencing, wow. The heaviness of the atmosphere of shame. There's a room full of people sitting around listening to a judge condemn literally this person who is standing in the middle of all of us.
- [14:40]
C
Your offending, which resulted in the death of three people and near death of another, involved substantial premeditation. I am satisfied that by 16 July 23, when you unusually invited Simon, his parents and his aunt and aunt uncle to a lunch without the children to discuss your non existent medical issues, you did so with the intention of killing them all. After learning from Simon on Sunday 30th July 23rd that some or all of your lunch guests had been hospitalised, you showed no pity for your victims.
- [15:17]
A
Do you know what I'm talking about and how shocking that is to witness?
- [15:20]
B
I think most judges who conduct criminal trials would say it's the hardest part of it, the hardest part of the process. When you sentence someone in a high profile case like that and you know it's going to be a big sentence. Yeah, it's, it's very stressful. And we have this process where the judge looks at the accused and addresses the accused directly.
- [15:44]
A
Yeah, well, the rest of us watch. It's so intense while everyone watches.
- [15:49]
B
That's right. Whereas in some places the judge will just speak in the, in the third person. But here in Melden, and certainly in Darwin, the same. We address the accused and talk to them and look them in the eye as we are saying what we're saying and it's very difficult. And you know, as you're speaking to them, at the end of this process, there's going to be a very, very long sentence that they're not going to be wanting to hear about.
- [16:13]
A
It's really hard to watch, honestly. It's really hard to be part of. And prior to that I was planning on going and watching the victim impact statements, but in the end I didn't go because I felt like, oh, I can't actually, I can't go and be a spectator while these people give these speeches. That felt heavy enough, but then to watch the sentencing and I'll never forget as long as I live, the only sound after the sentence had been handed down was the sound of the chinking of the handcuffs and things as Aaron Patterson left the court.
- [16:49]
B
Yeah, I agree with you.
- [16:51]
A
It's profoundly heavy.
- [16:52]
B
It's a very difficult moment and I don't think any judge enjoys doing it. But you have to. Obviously.
- [17:10]
A
If you'd like to talk to someone about abuse that's taken place in your life, no matter how long ago it happened, your GP is always A good place to start. If that's not going to work for you, you can contact 1-800-Respect on 1-800-737-732 or via their website, 1-800-Respect.org au. Or you can call Lifeline's 24 hour phone counselling service on 13, 11, 14. This is not a true crime podcast. She Matters is a Lives Lived, Lives Loved and Lives Lost podcast. I'm Sherrelle Moody, an award winning journalist, the founder of the Red Heart campaign and Australian Femicide watch. Each episode, I talk to the families and friends left behind. I made a promise to try and get justice and I've been trying for 20 years and you're the first person that would listen. We cannot change their stories, but their stories can change her story. Why do you think we latch onto some trials and not others? Why? Why are other people being convicted every day of terrible crimes? And yet this one had the BBC were there, American media were there. It was the circus. Why?
- [18:34]
B
Because it was so unusual. The circumstances were so unusual. I mean, there are murder trials going on every day in the Supreme Court, usually in a domestic setting. Someone's lost the plot, killed someone else and then says, I didn't intend to kill them and there's a trial that takes five days and the jury say guilty and that's that. This had all sorts of intrigued, pray.
- [18:55]
A
This never happens to either of us or anyone who's listening to us. But let's say one day I'm in the situation where I have been charged with murder and I am going to trial. What advice do you give to prevent it becoming so exciting for the media? How do I prevent this circus from happening?
- [19:14]
B
You can't. And there are dozens of cases over the years. I mean, look at the Chamberlain trial.
- [19:18]
D
It was 1980 when Lindy and Michael Chamberlain took their nine week old daughter Azaria and her two brothers on holiday to the Northern Territory and made the fateful decision to pitch their tent at the base of the rock. It was to set off a devastating chain of events.
- [19:35]
A
He just might have damaged or mauled the baby.
- [19:40]
B
And I ran towards the tent.
- [19:42]
A
I was only five yards away from it, perhaps west, and I looked in.
- [19:47]
B
A carry basket and she wasn't there.
- [19:49]
D
Lindy Chamberlain was charged and tried for murder. The Crown's case relied heavily on scientific evidence, much of which the defence discredited. The jury, however, agreed with the prosecution, finding Lindy Chamberlain had cut Azaria's throat in the front seat of the family car and disposed of the body. She was sentenced to life in jail. But there was still a dramatic twist to come. The Chamberlains had always insisted that on the night she disappeared, baby Azaria had been wearing a matinee jacket. The prosecution said that was a lie. In 1986, the matinee jacket was found near a dingo lair at Uluru. The NT government ordered Mrs. Chamberlain's immediate release. A year later, a royal commission cleared the couple of all guilt.
- [20:38]
B
That was an allegation of a mother killing her child. This was an allegation of also a mother killing three of her relatives and trying to kill a fourth. Potentially, you know, people just get really interested in that sort of stuff. It's intriguing, but Chamberlain, I mean Chamberlain was a stain on our system. Kathleen phobic, another one. Just because of the magnitude of what she was alleged to have done. Women who do these things attracted probably more attention than men.
- [21:10]
A
Oh, definitely, don't they? And I just realised that as you were talking too, I thought, okay, well, what's the common denominator here? Women accused of murder, women accused of violence. It's like we're a bit desensitised to male violence in our culture, but still, when a woman commits a crime, it's fascinating. So the sentence was 33 years minimum. There was a lot of argument about that. Obviously the prosecution said, well, this is the most serious category of crimes. Three people have been murdered. The judge himself mentioned the amount of solitary confinement that Patterson has been subjected to already and probably will be. And he told the prosecution that he felt it was inhumane to give a non parole period. Tell us about that, about the humanity that is offered to an offender when it feels like the crimes are so incredibly inhumane. Because a lot of us, I think, think, who cares? Yeah, it's inhumane. Who cares?
- [22:03]
B
Yeah, yeah. But we do live in a civilized community. I mean, if we took that to its logical extension, we bring back the death penalty. And I suppose there are some people who would like to see that happen. But whoever it is is still entitled to be treated as a human being and treated humanely in custody. And I don't think anyone who pays attention to this has any concept of what serving a sentence in virtual solitary confinement would be like, Particularly if it's going to be for an extended period, decades. I mean, it won't be the whole 33 years, but it will be a very substantial part of the early stage of it.
- [22:38]
A
And that's not the intention of the court, is it? That's a matter of the circumstances.
- [22:41]
B
The court doesn't control how she's incarcerated. All the court does is nominate the figures and that's a sign of a compassionate judge, which you won't be surprised to know. I applaud.
- [22:52]
A
Yeah. Over the course of your sentencing, you know you gave Robert Farquharson 33 year non parole period. He murdered his three children.
- [23:00]
B
I was criticised for that non parole period.
- [23:03]
A
I bet.
- [23:04]
D
But first, Father's Day killer Robert Farquharson could serve just 11 years jail for each of the three young sons he drowned in a Winchelsea dam. He's been given life in jail with a 33 year minimum. A sentence rejected by his shattered ex wife.
- [23:19]
A
It's never going to be enough. It's a life sentence for me. It shouldn't be a life sentence for him. Sean Price, who murdered Marce Vukotic. Sean Price's severe mental health issues, but nonetheless he did murder a woman he'd never met as she was taking a walk in a park. A young woman, 38 years minimum. But Beau Madigan for the rape and murder of 11 year old Zoe Buttigieg, did you not give him a minimum?
- [23:50]
B
I did give him a minimum. I carried him. There was a man in Wangaratta that murdered his next door neighbour in the most brutal of circumstances that I did not give a minimum to.
- [24:03]
A
So what's the difference in your mind between these offenders? To me, to my primitive mind, I think they're all terrible people we don't want in the community ever.
- [24:11]
B
No, that's. And the first thing to consider is that when the time comes in 33 years, the parole board of the day might decide not to release them on parole. They have a complete discretion not to let them out. So the time that's fixed is a time before which you will not be eligible to apply for parole. After that time you can apply and that application may be refused. But the fellow in Wangaratta had murdered his next door neighbour in the most brutal of circumstances.
- [24:40]
E
It was a murder described by the judge as so horrific, so depraved and callous, that it called for killer Michael Cardamoni to be sentenced to life in prison, never to be released. Justice Lex Lazari imposed the maximum penalty, finding this case so exceptionally vicious that he could not fix a minimum term. Meaning Cardamomi will never be able to apply for parole. Like Karen's family, Justice Lasari said he was overwhelmed by what Cardamony did did to the mother of two. Torturing the 49 year old for hours, bound and gagged, he subjected her to blows to the head, injected her with animal tranquiliser, methylamphetamine and battery acid before taking her to bushland near Lake Buffalo and burning her alive. He continued to drive over her body once Karen had died, then discarded her on the side of a track.
- [25:28]
B
It was a shocking murder. He was a man in his 50s and he was on parole for rape. And I took the view was totally irredeemable. I said, life with no minimum term. And he appealed and failed. And so he'll. He'll die in jail. But they're exceptional. And the way in which the sentence is to be served, as Justice Beale considered in Patterson, I think is a significant. A significant factor, bearing in mind she's what, in her. She in her 50s?
- [25:57]
A
I think she's just 50. Yeah.
- [25:58]
B
And I'm deprived effectively of the contact with her children. She's lost everything. She's been significantly vilified in the public press and she's in solitary confinement. I mean, you know, you get to a point where you say, well, how much more do you want? You know, how much. Is there no compassion at all? Or are these people just to be thrown on the trash heap and forgotten about?
- [26:24]
A
Yep. And a lot of the community says.
- [26:26]
B
Yes, Lex and I've had endless arguments and we'll have, no doubt, many more. My view is there are some people, and Michael Kotamoni in Wangaratta was one of them, who I think remained a danger to the community, and the community is entitled to be protected. I doubt very much that erin Patterson, after 33 years in Dame Phyllis Frost, will be a danger to the community. So that's another factor.
- [26:52]
A
Did your sentencing change over the course of your career? I mean, I know that there are legislative changes to sentencing over a period of time, but that notwithstanding, most human beings seem to become more conservative as we get older. Do you think that we would have been happier with a sentence handed down by Lex Lasri 30 years ago than one more recently, or vice versa?
- [27:12]
B
I think I'll probably. I don't know that it's more conservative, but I think in many respects the nature and quality of criminal cases has changed a bit over the time that I was a judge. And so I think a result of that was that the sentences had become harsher. I mean, the violence of the crimes seems to be increasing. And I think in those circumstances, it's hard not to sentence more heavily in those particular. Because the first thing you have to consider is the nature and quality of the act that. That you're sentencing for and the moral culpability of the person who's committed the act and a graph seems to be going up. I think so.
- [27:51]
A
Are you saying you think Australia is becoming a more violent society?
- [27:54]
B
I don't know that. It's a society wide. I've said a couple of times in public, in sentences, and I continue to be amazed, despite my age, at the way people can find more and more vicious means to hurt people.
- [28:08]
A
Do you have a theory as to why is it social media, Are we becoming desensitised to violence?
- [28:14]
B
Yeah, I would say we are becoming inured to it, sadly. I think that's in a sense part of what's behind the youth crime problem, that these kids are just becoming adapted and addicted to violence for the sake of it. And something obviously has to be done about that.
- [28:43]
A
Your social media, by the way, continues to be a wild ride. It's not bad at all. It's just, it's such a fascinating insight into what you're into, into what you're paying attention to. In the last seven days, you have tweeted about an execution that was carried out in Singapore. Obviously, we know that you are not an advocate of the death penalty, so you've talked a bit about that cruel and unlawful drug related execution. This is when you've retweeted something from Amnesty International. Then in the middle of that, you have also posted I Stand with Bad Bunny.
- [29:17]
B
I just thought that was hysterical.
- [29:19]
A
It is hysterical.
- [29:20]
B
I don't know anything about that Bunny, but Bad Bunny is going to perform at the Super Bowl, I think, and apparently he's a big critic of Trump. That's good enough for me.
- [29:30]
A
Me too. But the other part of that story is that ICE is threatening to arrest him if he sets foot in America to do the gig.
- [29:37]
B
Well, don't get me started on the United States, Michelle. It's.
- [29:40]
A
Well, I kind of need to, because I want to ask you if you feel as though. Because I often think I'm part of this hyperbolic side of life where I'm. Am I overreacting? Are they losing the rule of law? Are they devolving into fascism and autocracy?
- [29:54]
B
They are. I mean, just look at what's happening. The lack of due process, blowing a boatload of people out of the water because you suspect they're carrying drugs, just completely ignoring the Constitution, planning a third term for Trump, sending American troops into cities to conduct effectively a war against American citizens. There's a start. Never mind Trump's history of criminal activity and his misogynism, what worries me about that from here is that the way in which the rule of law has just been consigned to the rubbish bin by the White House. Potentially gets people in other countries thinking, well, if they can do it, we should do it too.
- [30:34]
A
Yeah. We've seen the take up in Australia of extreme right wing views in the last couple of years. Is that really something we need to be concerned about or are these fringe dwelling kind of idiots who'll wander off?
- [30:46]
B
I think they are, but we ought to be watching it pretty carefully. But I mean, we're not anything like what's happening in the US because we don't have a government that's wanting to basically withdraw people's rights.
- [31:00]
A
Also, their judicial system is queer to my eyes, isn't it? Because the presidents appoint high Court judges and that skews the judiciary politically. Are we immune from a lot of this because of the way our system works?
- [31:14]
B
No. Our government appoints the High Court judges in the same way that the US Executive appoints them.
- [31:20]
A
Are they political in the same way?
- [31:21]
B
I don't see appointments. There are some. There are some. I mean, we've had High Court judges like Garfield Barwick, who was a former Liberal Foreign Affairs Minister. We've had Lionel Murphy, who was a former Labor Attorney General. So occasionally it happens that people with political affiliations wind up on the High Court. But I think unlike Americans who I've have very little reason to be proud of the Supreme Court, I think we have every reason to be proud of our High Court. I think it's got a fantastic record and I think judges who get to the High Court always wind up taking their oath as High Court judges seriously and applying the law vigorously. So I'm not worried about our High Court. I think they're terrific.
- [32:02]
A
Tell us about the latest issue in Singapore that you're passionate about.
- [32:05]
B
So I have a link with Elios justice at Monash and they are with people on the ground in Singapore. They are doing what they can to assist death row people deal with their impending execution. So this year in Singapore, they've executed 11 inmates from Changi Prison. The last one was for 45 grams of Hero, would you believe? 45 grams. And on the day that he was executed, he was told, or his family were told earlier in the day that the execution would be stayed because they wanted the President of Singapore to consider an effective mercy plea. Two hours later they were told that had happened and the President had decided that he should hang. So having been given two hours of hope, he was executed in the afternoon. I just. The things that amaze me is that people still think the death penalty deters people? There's any amount of research to demonstrate that that's just not so, and that people don't realize how the death penalty in a community completely undermines the civilization of that community. I mean, Singapore pretends to be a Western democracy, although I think that's open to question. But they're a wealthy Western place where there's a great deal of trade and they pride themselves in what they've achieved and for good reason. And to be hanging onto the antiquity of hanging people. I just don't understand it, frankly.
- [33:36]
A
It's incongruous, isn't it? But it's also incongruous. It seems that what we think will be a deterrent in terms of sentencing, in terms of all sorts of aspects of law enforcement and what works and what doesn't. You're making me think about the sex offender registry. There's any amount of evidence from the United States that a registry in a jurisdiction actually doesn't lower the rate of sex offences, but it does increase the rate of, you know, people taking the law into their own hands, all of those things. Mistaken identity attacks and all those things. Where's the disconnect, do you think, between reality and our perception of the way criminality should be treated?
- [34:15]
B
Well, that's a big question. A lot of criminality, if it's going to be dealt with properly, needs to be treated not just as a legal problem, but as a social problem. In recent years in Scotland, they've carried out various programs to the point now where they don't have any juveniles in custody in Scotland, really, they've undertaken a fairly radical program to persuade kids not to do what the kids in Victoria are doing.
- [34:44]
C
Scottish city Glasgow once held a grim title the murder capital of Europe. But homicides in the city have fallen by 60% in just over a decade, all thanks to a radical approach treating violence as a disease. In 2000, Slutkin created a pilot project on the west side of Chicago which controlled outbreaks of violence in a similar way to health epidemics and focuses on three key areas. First, to find the cause of an outbreak and interrupt its transmission to other people. Second is to identify people who might be at risk of developing violent behaviour and try to prevent it from happening. This is done by offering alternatives to gang membership through employment, housing and health support. Finally, an important step is to change attitudes towards violence, making communities understand that it's something preventable, not inevitable.
- [35:36]
B
That sort of thing is what's gotta happen. As people kept saying, if you think you're gonna prosecute your way out of a criminal problem. You're kidding yourself if you really think that, you know, life sentences without parole are gonna be a deterrent. You're also kidding yourself because when people commit crimes of passion, they're not thinking about getting caught and they're certainly not thinking about the sentence. They're just thinking about what they're doing.
- [35:59]
A
Or not thinking about it or, you know, acting on instinct, what they've grown up with, what they've seen, what they believe. But I think the problem is that as taxpayers, we get very unhappy when our tax dollars go on social services go on the soft approach and much happier when our taxes go to building more jails.
- [36:20]
B
Yes, well, that's hard to understand. Yeah, I don't want my tax dollars building more prisons. It's in part because I don't think the community knows enough. I don't think they get enough information. I'm not saying they're stupid. I'm just saying they don't get enough information about how alternative approaches can work. And maybe if they had some more information, they would feel differently.
- [36:47]
A
Thank you to the ever patient Justice Lex Lasry. If you need support after listening to this podcast, you can call Lifeline on 131114 or contact 1-800-Respect on 1-800-737-732 or 1-800Respect.org au Indigenous Australians can contact 13Yarn on 139276 or 13yarn.org a.
- [37:23]
B
The producers of this podcast recognise the traditional owners of the land on which it's recorded.
- [37:32]
A
They pay respect to the Aboriginal elders.
- [37:35]
B
Past, present and those emerging.