Surge in criticism of courts prompts Law Society to defend justice system

The controversy was sparked by a suspended sentence recently being handed to a woman who assaulted a police officer with a bottle, prompting senior members of the state’s police force and the Police Association to publicly condemn the ruling.

Tensions escalated further when the head of the South Australian Police Union suggested judges should be “put under some sort of heat” by the media.

Amid the growing public debate, the Law Society of South Australia stepped in to defend the integrity of the courts and reaffirm the fairness of their processes.

While acknowledging that the offence was “serious” and emphasising that no emergency worker should face such violence, the Law Society warned it is vital that court matters are presented “as objectively and holistically as possible” to ensure public critiques of the justice system are fair and well-informed.

The Law Society acknowledged that courts sometimes do “get it wrong” in handling cases, but stressed that this is precisely why the justice system has built-in mechanisms to correct such decisions.

It highlighted that if a party believes a judge has erred – whether due to a mistake during the trial, a miscarriage of justice, or insufficient evidence to support a guilty verdict – they have the right to appeal.

VIEW ALL

The Law Society also noted that both defendants and prosecutors can appeal sentences, but stressed that these appeal rights come with important limitations that must be strictly observed.

In the police assault case that sparked public criticism of the courts, the Law Society highlighted that Chief Justice Chris Kourakis recently noted on the radio that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) made no submission opposing the suspended sentence at the time of sentencing.

This, the society explained, suggests that both the defence and the prosecution – fully aware of the evidence and surrounding circumstances – did not contest the outcome.

The Law Society also underscored the immense pressure and “complex task” judges face when sentencing a guilty person, describing it as far more than a single decision but one that must carefully balance a range of competing factors and carry the full weight of justice.

While the principle of open justice means courts “shouldn’t be shielded from criticism” and must remain “transparent and open to critique”, the Law Society stressed that such scrutiny must always be responsible and measured.

The Law Society argued that the judiciary should not be criticised based on “incomplete, inaccurate, or selectively presented facts” and that critiques should be balanced, with court matters presented holistically to ensure assessments of the justice system are fully informed.

Crucially, in a system founded on the separation of powers, the Law Society underlined that the state or executive must never attempt to influence how judges apply or interpret the law.