A magistrate with no special lane for politicians

Dear Editor,

What exactly should a magistrate do differently because the person standing before the court is the Leader of the Opposition?

That question sits at the centre of the criticism directed at Magistrate Abigail Gibbs following her decision to refuse bail to Azruddin Mohamed.

If the answer is that his political standing should have secured his release, then those advancing that argument are demanding preferential treatment.

An ordinary citizen cannot arrive at court with supporters and expect their enthusiasm to determine the outcome. Neither should a politician. Public popularity is no substitute for a legal argument, and political office cannot become an exemption from decisions other defendants must face.

I support Magistrate Gibbs’s willingness to make a decision that would predictably attract controversy. She heard both sides and explained her concern about the likelihood of further offending. Her reasoning can be challenged through the courts. Her refusal to deliver the outcome his supporters wanted does not establish misconduct.

There is a requirement needed from the politically powerful and that is the acceptance that the courts may make decisions against them.

Those who speak so loudly about justice should consider what their demands would mean for the citizen without a political party, a public platform or an army of fake online defenders. Would that person deserve the same treatment they are demanding for Mr. Mohamed?

The credibility of our justice system depends on that answer being yes.

Magistrate Gibbs should not be vilified for declining to create a special lane through the courts for a political leader.