A reply to Tom Bathurst

In response to the media attention that has focused on the pending release of Phillip Choon Tee Lim, one of Dr Victor Chang's killers, Tom Bathurst QC, Senior Vice-President of the NSW Bar Association, sent these letters to newspapers published in Sydney.

I replied as follows:

Dear Sir

PHILLIP CHOON TEE LIM: LETTER TO THE EDITOR

I refer to the above matter and to your letter to the editor of the Daily Telegraph published on 30 October 2009.

I agree with everything you wrote and the importance of saying it. It is important there are sensible criteria for determining parole and, more fundamentally, for determining sentence.

There is something, though, that was not said and appears not to be frequently (if ever) acknowledged by the Bar Association and it is this:

1. The criteria used to determine sentence or parole are not themselves objective criteria. These criteria are the product of a more fundamental penal philosophy. Neither the criteria nor the more fundamental philosophy are somehow sacred.

2. Some penal philosophies focus on retributive justice, others remedial. Some treat certain crimes as being particularly serious and worthy of harsh retributive justice, others do not. Some make allowance for corporate punishment, others consider that barbaric.

3. The media reports what is news-worthy. It is very mundane that there are thousands of people in prison and that there is a parole system. When we hear about a particular case, it is usually because the victim or criminal is famous (or infamous).

4. It is through being informed of particular or individual cases by the media that the general public express their views about the justice or injustice of outcomes. These cases are the back-drop of the discussion.

5. While it is true that the vast majority of people are uninformed about sentencing guidelines or how a particular person has behaved himself in prison, the community outrage can be interpreted as being towards something more fundamental, namely the criteria by which sentence or parole is determined and the underlying penal philosophy.

6. It might be that rapists and murderers are all being treated very uniformly, precisely according to precedent, sentencing guidelines and parole procedures, but that is no answer at all to those who feel as though those precedents, sentencing guidelines and parole procedures do not yield just results; to those who feel the whole penal philosophy is askew or too light a touch; to those who feel it does not honour victims or treat their plight with the seriousness it deserves.