Much-maligned Judges Get It Right On Terror

Sun Herald

Sunday September 3, 2006

Miranda Devine

JUDGES get a bad rap these days. Once inscrutable pillars of virtue, you only really hear about them if someone is criticising their decisions. They are accused of everything from being political plants to falling asleep on the bench. And then along comes Justice Marcus Einfeld, with his dodgy doctorates and unusual excuses for traffic violations, bringing the reputation of the judiciary lower still.

But there are lots of good judges, who every day quietly hand down wise and eloquent decisions. In this age of terrorism, they are often operating in new territory, and their reflections are building a framework for how we treat terrorists to come and how our society balances the need for security with the requirement for justice.

Take NSW Supreme Court Justice Anthony Whealy, who last month sentenced Lakemba architect Faheem Lodhi to 20 years' jail for planning a terrorist attack in Sydney.

Whealy made no bones about Lodhi's aim in bombing the electrical system: his plan was to "advance the cause of violent jihad and . . . intimidate the Government of Australia and the Australian public".

The judge did not beat around the bush when describing Lodhi as a previously respectable man with "a deeply fanatical, but sincerely held, religious and world view . . . a person who has, in recent years, been essentially informed by the concept of violent jihad and the glorification of Muslim heroes who have fought and died for jihad".

Whealy laid out the seriousness of Lodhi's actions, saying: "If carried out, [his plan] would instil terror into members of the public so that they could, never again, feel free from the threat of bombing attacks within Australia . . .

"One has only to think of the consequences on the national psyche of a tragedy such as the Port Arthur massacre to realise how a major terrorist bombing would or could impact on the security, the stability and wellbeing of the citizens of this country."

And he clearly defined why tough penalties were needed to protect the community from terrorism: "Such crimes are hard to detect; they are likely to be committed by members of our own community and often by persons of prior good character and favourable background . . . Moreover, terrorism is an increasing evil in our world and a country like Australia, with its very openness and trusting nature, is likely to fall easy prey to the horrors of terrorist activities.

". . . The obligation of the court is to denounce terrorism and voice its stern disapproval of activities such as those contemplated by the offender here. It may be argued that the imposition of stern penalties, in the context of firm denunciatory statements, will not in fact deter those whose religious and political ideologies are extreme and fanatical. But a stand must be taken. The community is owed this protection even if the obstinacy and madness of extreme views may mean that the protection is a fragile or uncertain one."

It is important to know that our judges understand the threat terrorism poses and are interpreting the new laws accordingly.