Justice
(Image: Wikimedia Commons/Lonpicman)

Should your alumni status determine whether you’re punished for committing an assault? One judge appears to think so. 

Nicholas Drummond, 21, was acquitted earlier this month of assault after NSW District Court judge Robert Sutherland ruled his behaviour was a result of a tough year and too much alcohol on a night out on Sydney’s north shore in December last year.

The victim’s clothing “might have been perceived by a former student of Knox to be provocative”, Sutherland said, noting his public violence was an “aberration” and telling Drummond to thank his “lucky stars” in his ruling.

The public has been left wondering how exactly Drummond’s Knox alumni status justifies him punching a woman. Was Sutherland acknowledging that elite boys’ schools foster an environment that enables misogyny and violence against women? Or was he excusing Drummond’s behaviour by deflecting blame on to the woman he assaulted? 

Late last night Drummond issued an “unconditional apology”.

The justification

Drummond had set out on a night out with his mates. After arriving at the Greengate Hotel in Killara he approached a young woman he had never met, began sexually harassing her over her outfit and calling her derogatory phrases when confronted. 

Later he went on a violent rampage after being evicted by security from the Ocean Hotel in Chatswood. He turned to the first person in his path — a man waiting in line at the bar — and punched him in the back of the head. 

The woman he had harassed earlier approached him to take a photo, presumably to gather evidence to report him for harassment. Drummond punched her in the face with enough force to knock her into the ground and then stomped on her phone.

In Australia, assault occasioning actual bodily harm attracts a maximum penalty of five years. Drummond was initially convicted for the assault on July 21, 2021, but in an appeal decision on September 16 the conviction was quashed and Drummond was released on a good behaviour bond.

Sutherland noted Drummond’s “difficult year”: his dog died, a relationship had broken down, and a family member was ill. He told the court that convictions would affect his working with children’s check, essential for his work as a junior soccer coach.

The relatable narrative

Despite years of feminist activism and anti-discrimination laws, we can rest assured that the “boys’ club” culture in Australia is alive and thriving.

The legal profession is no exception. In 2019, SBS reported that 15% of NSW Supreme Court judges attended Riverview College, a prestigious boys’ school on the north shore. Of the 58 judges in the Supreme Court, just 13 are women. Should we be surprised that a row of Australia’s most elite judges reinstate standards that privilege masculinity, whiteness and the upper class?

First Nations people are imprisoned at a rate 12.5 times higher than non-Indigenous Australians, often for trivial offences such as unpaid fines. Where is this leniency when the defendant is not white and cushioned by class privilege?  

The narrative of a young man with a promising future having his life ruined by one foolish “mistake” is all too familiar. Drummond’s barrister, a highly regarded senior criminal lawyer, carefully crafted a tale of “a foolish boy acting out of character”. Drawing attention to Drummond’s work as a children’s soccer coach and noting that he returned home in a “hysterical” state conveys remorse and allows for redemption. 

Research has found a defendant’s conviction is largely dependent on their ability to successfully convey remorse. Social location and access to expert legal representation influence the accused’s ability to narrativise their actions as a single mistake. 

A brutal slap in the face for victims

One in three Australian women over 15 have experienced physical or sexual violence. Despite the prevalence of gendered violence, women face many barriers in disclosing abuse and achieving justice. As illustrated in this case, widely held victim-blaming attitudes are often used to discredit survivors and alleviate responsibility from perpetrators.

That Drummond punched two people, verbally abused a woman, and received no record of a conviction infers that our criminal justice system is underpinned by deep-rooted misogyny and class bias. Drummond reaped the benefits of this bias, capitalising on victim-blaming myths which led the judge to conclude that he was understandably provoked by his victim’s clothing. 

The outcome of this case is a brutal slap in the face for victims. The Judge missed an opportunity to send a vital message to the community that violence against women is never tolerated and never the victim’s fault. Sadly, the case will likely serve as a further deterrent for victims looking to come forward. 

Drummond should be receiving court-mandated men’s behaviour change therapy, emotional intelligence counselling and anger management support. Perpetrators need to be equipped with the tools to interrogate their misogynistic beliefs in order to work towards reform. Accountability is a crucial aspect of this process. 

At the end of the trial, Sutherland wished Drummond luck with his coaching career and told him to thank his “lucky stars” for the outcome. Luck had nothing to do with it.

If you or someone you know is impacted by sexual assault or violence, call 1800RESPECT on 1800 737 732 or visit 1800RESPECT.org.au.