Andrew L. Urban
Phillip Boulten, a criminal barrister elevated to the NSW Supreme Court despite a history of criticism of Zionists and police, will primarily handle common law and murder cases, NSW Attorney-General Michael Daley says, in an effort to avoid any “apprehension of bias” in matters related to pro-Palestine protests or demonstration laws. That’s the flimsy defence for Boulten’s elevation.
Daley said he had discussed with NSW Chief Justice Andrew Bell which matters Boulten would handle in the Supreme Court, given his strident online criticism of Israel and police. Criticism of Israel? What, like Jewish people?
“The Chief Justice has assured me that he will manage any conflicts of interest with Mr Boulten … in the first instance it would be the responsibility of the Chief Justice of NSW to make sure that he doesn’t sit, or is not allocated or rostered on to a case where there might be an apprehension of bias,” Daley said. “He’ll be sitting in the common law division … a lot of the work of the common law division is murder trials.” Daley pointed to Mr Boulten’s experience in criminal trials as another reason he was backed for the job.
On January 6, 2024, Boulten wrote on social media: “Albo, it’s time for Australia to distance ourselves from Israel.” Worse was to come: on April 2, 2025, he wrote: “Israel has been committing a range of offences in Gaza for many months. Genocide is just one.”
Given this man is a judge it is deeply troubling that he can publicly express such opinions without evidence. (As the late Christopher Hitchens would say, “That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”)
I am not at all assured by the Attorney-General’s assurances, given the unbridled hate Boulten has demonstrated for both Israel and police. Below is from his social media feed, a rendering of a policeman with a nasty caption.
Posted by Boulten
How would his biases sit in murder trials where of course police investigations are primary sources? (Not that I have endless faith in such investigations, I’ll admit. But I’m not a judge.) And what if the accused is Jewish? Or if a witness is Jewish? Or the defence barrister is Jewish?