By Kevin Glancy

When a judge makes a decision in a court case it is hoped that the judge makes an objective decision. This decision can only be arrived at in consideration of all the facts surrounding that case.

If all evidence is not considered then it must surely be a subjective decision. It might still be the right decision but it’s based on partial representation of evidence backed by intuition, instinct, observation and judicial experience.

In an ideal world an objective decision would appear to be the fairest outcome but Australia’s adversarial judicial system is not necessarily about the truth or the facts of the case for that matter. Unfortunately, that kind of justice is reserved for the movies and is not evident in the real world of court room practice.

Never the less, when a judge issues his or her verdict and in doing so justifies an action based on only hearing, for the most part, one side of the argument it seems an odd way to arrive at justice.

Far be it for me to hold any judge up for examination but there is something troubling about the decision made by Federal Court Judge, Steven Rares to throw out the case against Peter Slipper.

The judgment was not about the merits of the sexual harassment complaint it didn’t get that far.  Despite claims of vindication we still don’t know whether Slipper has a case to answer as the matter has not been tested. In fairness to Mr Slipper, legally at this point but subject to the appeal process, Slipper has slipped off the hook.   

In simple terms the judge found that James Ashby, Malcolm Brough and Karen Doane had conspired to inflict political damage on Peter Slipper and that negated the need to take the matter any further.  Judge Rares described it in his summation as ‘a political attack’.

Whether I think that his decision is well founded matters not but it seems that he arrived at that conclusion without hearing from Malcolm Brough or Karen Doane in person. They were not asked to present their side of the story yet were heavily criticised by the judge in his summation. So given his harsh words what evidence did he base that decision on?

Now my knowledge of legal procedure is extremely limited but the judge’s decision seems to set a dangerous precedent.  Without allowing the parties, who he has accused of having an agenda to defend that charge and bearing in mind they were not the accused, he has presumed that they are guilty. Furthermore, that because of that presumed guilt that there was no sexual harassment case to answer regardless of its merits.

Based on that outcome his judgment suggests that if you are a victim of a workplace injustice and you seek consultation and support from say a union then it would be fair for the employer to use ‘the union has an agenda against me’ defence. Same would apply to a rape victim who may seek help from what might be considered – a ‘man-hating’ women’s support group.

Why wouldn’t Ashby, given that he was working within the political machine and his career was at stake, consult with a fellow staff member, Karen Doane  or an  experienced former Federal Member like Mal Brough who knows how the machine works? Seems like a sensible thing to do prior to putting your career on the line by taking action against Peter Slipper, not only your employer but the Speaker, which is a very powerful position in the House of Representatives.

As someone who has worked within the political machine it is certainly something I would have done in such a situation. I would have consulted colleagues that I trusted and certainly the more experienced kind.  I would not have assumed that such discussion would be held against me in a court of law.

To declare that I had a political agenda, so to speak would suggest a certain amount of supposition and of reading between the lines. I would like to be given a chance to defend the accusation. Ashby was not given that chance nor were his colleagues.   

If you work in politics – the nature of politics and all its ramifications cannot be avoided. At the end of the day, regardless of any ‘politics’, I would have assumed that the court would decide on the merits of the actual complaint.

Let’s say Ashby was motivated politically so what? Was he sexually harassed by his employer or not?

I would have assumed that the court’s duty was to wade through any matters of distraction, such as political agenda and arrive at the heart of the matter. In this instance the court did not go the distance and pulled up short. Has justice really been served?

The role of the media also came under attack by Judge Rares.

The use of the media by Kristy Kirk Fraser didn’t affect her cause when she brought the sexual harassment case against David Jones yet in the case of male, James Ashby the role of the media has come under fire.

One matter about to appear before the courts is the case against former ‘Hey Dad’ star Robert Hughes. Without suggesting guilt or innocence in the matter, Mr Hughes has been pretty much found guilty by the media already and he has endured a very long media campaign against him particularly on Channel Nine’s Current Affair and other similar television shows. What would be Judge Rare’s take on that one?

The judge’s reference to ‘a political attack’ by James Ashby and his colleagues is somewhat obvious but it seems to indicate that he has taken sides.

The Slipper case was always political on both the defence and the prosecution sides. That is the industry that Slipper and Ashby work in.  It could be considered as ‘an automotive attack’ if they were in the car industry and a union was in support of Ashby.

The Slipper defence was funded by Labor with the use of taxpayers’ money. Labor’s objective was not about whether their man had sexually harrassed anyone but to keep their man so they could remain in power and they were prepared to go to any expense. They did it purely for political gain. Their hypocrisy following the judge’s decision is breathtaking.

The defence used ‘a political attack’ as their defence to halt the case and their argument was accepted seemingly without question. No evidence was allowed to be heard to the contrary.

Nicola Roxon’s political agenda has been obvious from the outset and not befitting her supposed independent, neutral role as Attorney General.

Roxon was aware of the lurid Slipper text messages back in April 2012 yet still hired 21 lawyers at taxpayers’ expense to defend the man before paying out $50k to James Ashby in settlement.

This suggests that despite her constant media rhetoric against Ashby she must have thought that Slipper had a case to answer.  Publicly, Roxon showed an extreme amount of bias in favour of Slipper and her comments and position on the matter would appear to have been reflected on favourably by the judge, who gave no opportunity for the accused conspirators to speak for themselves in defence of Roxon’s outbursts.

Roxon’s agenda was also clearly political. It was in her interest to retain Slipper at any costs for the sake of Gillard and staying in power.

Slipper’s appointment by Gillard as Speaker was certainly a political move, so to talk of ‘a political attack’ by the judge seems to ignore the overall political nature of the Slipper defence and Labor’s expensive 21 lawyer assistance, which was driven by the motive of political survival.

Why was one side’s politics a game changer and not the other? Surely, both should have been ignored for the sake of balance?

Yet again, Labor can’t hold its counsel. Despite the fact, that the matter is still before the courts due to the appeal process, Gillard, Roxon, Emerson, Carr, Dreyfus and other Labor identities are continuing to show contempt for the legal process and have no qualms about continuing their own political attack and agenda against Tony Abbott.

Despite Labor’s and Slipper’s claims of vindication, the appeal process which is about to commence will be very interesting to watch.

Judge Rares may have arrived at a just decision but if I were Labor I would tread carefully.  The champagne corks may yet pop back to smack them in the face.