As mentioned recently when I uploaded the opening salvo to this chapter of my upcoming financial disaster of a book (early cover design below), I declared myself a totally undeserved evaluator of judicial findings.

And come this chapter’s end, I remain confident some of you will agree with the FAIL! I’ve given the District Court judge’s findings in chucking out my notice of appeal against a lower-court traffic conviction.

I know that pride comes before a fall but can I modestly admit I’m quite proud of what I hope is the logic and clear thinking, honed in a half-century-plus career in the craft of journalism, behind what follows. It’s of some comfort that Ned Ryerson agrees.

So let’s rip with…

DRAFT CHAPTER #xx TRYING TO MAKE SENSE OF IT ALL!
Sub-section: Well, recuse me for asking!

But firstly, consider this. You’re on a panel for jury service and it turns out that you know the defendant well enough to have formed the opinion over time that s/he is a fine and upstanding person. One of integrity, with a diligent work ethic and with a proud history of honest dealing with all others. All-round nice person, really.

So when it comes to juror-suitability questions asked from the bar table, you’d obviously stand up immediately and recuse yourself, right? Or do you wait until the prosecutor asks such questions and you are then rightly forcibly recused rather than you doing that right and honourable thing first. Left to the prosecutor he’ll probably use fac te celeriter hinc absit! while, should I ever be given the chance to prosecute a real case instead of this one, I would probably just shout “On your fucking bike, sunshine!”

Before we finish this, let’s all be reminded that sometimes potential jurors wilfully hide such opinions in the hope of being selected to put them in a position to push for acquittal or, as it’s known in Latin, lukeiata shawanus.

So, back to the District Court judge’s reasons for hosing me out of the law precinct on George Street. And let’s repeat the top image that stressed just one little phrase from that judgment.

.I believe we are all entitled to ponder how and when Acting District Court Judge Haddrick came to form such a glowing opinion of Magistrate Shepherd’s character and her professionalism. In other areas of his ruling, he writes that “Magistrate Shepherd conducted herself in an exemplary fashion” and in “a business-like way”. She “didn’t go searching for proof” even though anyone with a logical, thinking brain would know that is exactly what she did.

Does anyone seriously believe Judge Haddrick has placed SM Shepherd on such a noble pedestal solely on reading a transcript of the lower-court trial in 2025? Would that have not needed an assessment made over a reasonable timeframe? Has he studied her decisions over the years and found them a reading pleasure? And if so, why did he not recuse himself when given the appeal job? Going into such a role with such strong positive feelings towards the magistrate doesn’t sound at all right to this bush lawyer’s mind. Did someone just say “perceived or apprehended bias”?

The very idea that he’s formed that high-and-mighty view of her wonderful attributes only during the 14 weeks since the appeal hearing since April 13 is stercus tauri.

Judge Haddrick boasted or, as they say in Latin, non stercus sherlockster – that he had carefully read the lower-court transcript. That was his major and probably first task. He may as well have told us he puts on underpants each morning.

Maybe he didn’t put on his reading glasses until after the bit where the SM admitted she did not know that some school zones had “all-day” 40km/hr speed zones? Was that a mistake of law or mistake of fact on her part, your honour? Or both? He does not say if he also listened to the audio version, but my guess is no seeing he appears to have missed the bizarre exchange where the not-quite-as-learned-as-we-might-have-hoped-for magistrate tore strips off me for pleading with her to ask the police prosecutor about the missing camera operator’s certificate. Still trying to get to grips with her heated “I don’t answer questions!” response to my plea for her to ask one.

We should be thankful Judge Haddrick didn’t pour over any CCTV footage from last year; otherwise he might not have been able to refrain from saying how nice she looked in her very business-like and serious outfit. Or that her hair looked lovely.

Okay, enough of bitter sarcasm. My family, friends and work colleagues have never, ever, accused me of that.

Don Gordon-Brown
The Bug‘s lifetime-appointed court reporter and ranter-in-residence

Want to be alerted immediately a new blog hits Australia’s longest running and most offensive satire site? Simply click on the Follow sign to be emailed new yarns the moment they are uploaded! The very second we go far too far – and trust us we will – you can then quickly unfollow via the three dots!