by Piers Akerman
PROMINENT activist barrister Robert Richter QC says he will refuse to undergo the security check that may now be required of lawyers representing alleged terrorists.
He says the Federal Government's new guidelines, which link security clearances for lawyers in terrorism cases with their ability to access legal aid, is "blackmail".
Richter claims to speak for the 50-plus defence counsel representing 22 alleged terror suspects picked up by state and federal police during the Operation Pandanus raids, which began last November.
Under the National Security and Information Act, the Attorney-General may require barristers to earn a security clearance before they are allowed to participate in a case.
Richter says the barristers will not consent to a security check but will give the usual undertaking not to disclose confidential information.
1 comment:
He told a Melbourne Magistrate's Court last week "we have said we will not do it", and "this is blackmail". He said requiring barristers to undergo security checks was unacceptable.
"We don't trust the Attorney-General," he said.
"Barristers do not trust the Attorney-General when he says the [private] information is not going to be abused because he has already said ... barristers shouldn't be afraid to get security clearances unless they are avoiding tax.
"The bar as a whole is against this notion that officers of the court can't be trusted."
The past conduct of some members of the legal profession has led most people to believe that numerous lawyers, Richter excluded, are pompous fools with no greater claim to the moral high ground than those in any other profession.
Former Sydney barrister Stephen Archer, who lost his practising certificate in 2001 over his failure to pay taxes for 14 years and was convicted of 20 offences of not filing tax returns and has now been bankrupt three times, comes to mind, as does Melbourne barrister Anthony Edward Hooper, who neglected to pay his taxes from 1993 to 2000, claiming that he found his tax papers so confusing he took tranquillisers every time he looked at them.
Nor is there a lack of precedent when it comes to lawyers interacting improperly with their clients, here and abroad.
Indeed, New York lawyer Lynne Stewart was last year convicted on five counts of aiding a terrorist gang called the Islamic Group.
She was running messages for her client, the imprisoned blind mullah Omar Abdel Rahman, who is serving a life sentence on charges including his involvement in the 1993 attempt to blow up the World Trade Centre Towers and plots to blow up the UN, an FBI building, two tunnels and a bridge in New York City.
Not surprisingly, addled anti-West crusader Cindy Sheehan is one of her biggest supporters, as is drug promoter George Soros, who backed her unsuccessful defence.
Stewart, whose clients have
included gangland figures and a peace corps of political radicals, claims she was prosecuted because she is an outspoken lawyer and that she never intended to promote terrorism.
Richter has enjoyed a not dissimilar clientele, and last December made the outrageous accusation that it was "a lie" for Prime Minister John Howard, Justice Minister Senator Ellison, Foreign Minister Alexander Downer, and the Attorney-General, to say the Australian Government had done everything it could to prevent the execution of convicted drug smuggler Nguyen Tuong Van in Singapore.
He later apologised for describing the execution as worse than the wartime atrocities perpetrated upon Allied prisoners of war in Changi prison but failed to withdraw his other disgraceful remark.
His tantrum over his perceived right not to undergo a security clearance now threatens the actual right of the alleged terror suspects to legal representation, as Magistrate Paul Smith has said he will not proceed with a preliminary hearing next Wednesday unless the accused men are represented.
In this, Richter places his protest against the anti-terror legislation before the real needs of individuals facing serious charges but he, and the as-yet-unidentified barristers
he claims to speak for, are only being asked to submit to clearance checks that are routine for members of the Director of Public Prosecutions staff, or the AFP or state police,
and everyone else involved in the trial process.
Nor has the necessity for the security requirement been sprung upon him, the DPP advised defence representatives early in proceedings that clearances may be required because extremely sensitive information to do with our national security and that of other nations in our region could be discussed.
In choosing not to seek a clearance he not only risks prejudicing the interests of his clients, he is placing his status as a barrister and officer of the court above theirs and also showing contempt for the unseen others in terrorism cases.
He is being disrespectful of the rights of those who have, often at risk to their lives, provided secret evidence, the people who are human intelligence resources, those brave enough to go into the mosques and meeting places where jihad against Australians and the rest of the West are discussed.
The various state law societies of Australia and bar associations and their national bodies should condemn Richter for this pompous posturing.
He would do well to disabuse himself of the absolutely dopey notion that lawyers enjoy an exalted status in our society.
That's far from reality -- as a result of their own shenanigans and the duplicity of some.
The sooner Richter, QC, realises that, the better it will be for him and his hapless clients.
akermanp@dailytelegraph.com.au
Post a Comment