Marcus Einfeld, according to his peers, copped a fair sentence from Justice Bruce James last Friday when he was sentenced in the New South Wales Supreme Court to three years’ imprisonment, with a minimum of two to be served before he is eligible for parole, for perjury and perverting the course of justice.
But did he? Or is this just the lawyers club seeking yet again to distance themselves as far as possible from one of their own who has fallen foul of the law?
The New South Wales Bar Association’s Robert Goot told the ABC’s PM program last Friday, “I believe that given the seriousness of the offence, the sentence is not surprising.” His colleague at the New South Wales Society, Jo Catanzariti, went even further and welcomed the sentence because it shows “the legal profession did not protect its own”.
The courts hate perjury and perverting the course of justice — such offences go directly to the heart of a system that is, theoretically and hopefully in practice, built on the concept of the truth and nothing but the truth. As recently as 2004, the New South Wales Court of Appeal said of offences of the type committed by Einfeld, “the principle is well established in our administration of the system of justice that a false statement on oath or affirmation given before a court is regarded a serious offence, which ordinarily should result in a significant penalty of full-time imprisonment.”
But for how long do people generally go to jail for perjury and perverting the course of justice in New South Wales? Here are some recent examples.
In 2004, an individual who gave false evidence in a criminal trial was given by the State’s Court of Criminal Appeal, a jail term of two years, with 12 months to be served before the individual was eligible for parole.
Two police officers who gave false evidence to the Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Force were, in 2002, given sentences of 20 months’ imprisonment with a minimum of six months to be served as a minimum, and 22 months imprisonment with 14 months to be served as a minimum respectively. In a related case, another police officer who gave false evidence at a criminal trial received a two year jail term, with a minimum period of nine months.
In 2002, the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal reduced a sentence for perjury at a criminal trial by a 21-year-old man to a term of three years’ imprisonment, with a minimum term of 18 months.
Each case is different, depends on its own facts and the personal circumstances of the accused person, but recent experience in New South Wales suggests that Einfeld’s sentence was at the upper end of the range.
The legal profession, despite what the community might believe, never spares its own when they have been found guilty of serious criminal offences and is paranoid about being seen to do so. Mr Goot and Mr Catanzariti’s responses are testament to this. This is why they could do nothing else but support the sentence handed down in Einfeld’s case.
As a justice, there can be no refuge from perjury, especially when it is repeated and calculated, such as in the present matter. He did not plead guilty, but chose to be judged. There are few ameliorating factors about this case as it has been portrayed in the press. The former justice can consider himself lucky indeed that he didn’t end up with a maximum sentence of about 14 years and a non-parole period of ten.
This is not a situation where comparison with minor criminals’ thrashing about is relevant. This man attempted to use his high offices as a judge and a QC in order to browbeat those who sought the truth. In doing so, he abused the very court he had derived his income from and to which he had pledged his honour on many occasions.
This is also a case where punishment must be seen as a deterrent to the general public.
It is not a matter of the legal profession supporting or not supporting its own.
This has been a case of justice being done, despite steadfast interference in the process of justice by a knowledgeable and very capable insider who shows no remorse.
I am not a lawyer but I do believe the sentence was fair. This gentleman was not just a lawyer but a Federal Court judge. Perjury and perverting the course, as you say, go right to the heart of our system of justice. I also believe that the more you are acquainted with, and earn a living from within, that system there is a greater responsibility to ensure its integrity. Therefore police would have a greater responsibility than the average punter, lawyers more so and judges even more. It is also not like he just forgot, or in a moment of madness lied. He kept on lying and trying to prove the lie. With each considered step he must have been aware of his responsibility. He didn’t just ‘drop the ball’ for a moment, he systematically, deliberately, on a number of occasions over a period of time made ‘mistakes’. The real shame is that he, not the courts, will have sullied his name and diminished, in the eyes of some, all the good work he has done.
The sentence was grossly unfair and poltically driven with the media having a say as well
If Marcus Einfield’s career as a judge was taken into account in sentencing then his history and career of good works should have also been considered.
This wasn’t a case of Einfield “perverting the course of justice” in a criminal enterprise-it was to avoid a speeding fine. A shorter sentence with a suspended period would have been adequate.
Consider the disgraceful actions of the AFP, a prosecutor and a government minister in their lies over the Dr Haneef affair-a clear case of “perverting the course of justice” with a deliberate aim to illegally incarcerate an innocent man. All escaped scot free. How many police who lie in court are charged ?
Still-as long as Derryn Hinch and Paul Sheehan are satisfied, that’s OK then.
They do spare their own, actually. Why doesn’t a concerned Law practitioner pursue Einfeld over the serial offender aspect – as reported by Four Corners tonight.
Einfeld was a complete FAIL on Four Corners – ‘I don’t know why’; I don’t remember’; didn’t have my diary with me’. Would you record your crimes in a diary?
A respected judge and supposed upholder of the law – and moral principal – can’t remember the (apparently) few times he broke the law? Only a liar would say that.
[Paraphrased] Interviewer: “So you told more lies to validate the original lie”
Einfeld: “No, it was the original lie with some embellishments”.
His attempt to obfuscate with “I don’t know why I did it – it was some unexplainable abberation” shows he is only remorseful for the crimes identified. When it was put to him that there were earlier recorded instances of submitting false declarations to avoid traffic offences he was like a trapped rabbit. He acknowledged that “maybe” he would admit two of those – if they were proven in a court of Law, of course – but would deny the third… Pulleasese!!!
He was a judge over others – I just can’t believe the hypocrisy – but am not at all surprised by him.
A liar through and through.
I’ll bet Marcus Einfeld wished he had been a politician, then he really would have been above the law.