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?
A comment upon Israel and its actions is not a comment upon all those who are Jewish. I cannot believe, Andrew you could make such an error unintentionally. Are you suggesting that all those of Russian extraction who live throughout the world also support Putin’s invasion of the Ukraine.
This is a slur on a man who has every right to decry the actions of Israel in Gaza. Actions many Australians are appalled by.
Lisbeth, I strongly disagree with the premise of your comment. The A-G and the Chief Justice both expressed a fear of bias affecting Boulton’s decisions, which is precisely why they want to keep him away from “pro-Palestine protests or demonstration” cases. That’s a pretty clear indication of recognised bias.
And my other concern is that the bias so exhibited seems to have affected his judgement: there has never been any evidence that Israel committed or wants to commit genocide. That is a misinformed, biased and ugly smear, ignorant of the facts. It flies in the face of the deep-seated Jewish love of life and Israel’s well documented efforts to avoid civilian deaths. By its actions, it was Hamas that showed the face of genocide on October 7.
Many Australians are appalled by that atrocity.
You seem to misunderstand the difference between “bias” and an “apprehension of “bias”. Or are you again doing this on purpose?
Apologies if I wasn’t clear. I do understand the difference. Bias is what is evident from his actions/comments. Apprehension of his bias is …well….recognition of that bias…
Further to my previous reply:
As Professor Philip Mendes, director of the social inclusion and social policy research unit at Monash University, told The Australian recently, attacks on Zionism were “code” for attacks on Jews. When pro-Palestinian groups or individuals in Australia abused or demonised ‘‘Zionists”, most Jews viewed that discourse not as an attack on the Israeli government or even most Israeli Jews, but as an attack on Jews in Australia: “They view a direct connection between this hateful ‘coded’ rhetoric and the anti-Jewish violence of the past 27 months, culminating in the Bondi terror attack.”