Magistrate Brett Sonnett, as reported in the Herald Sun, has strongly criticized the Police for  charging offenders accused of serious offences on summons. This practice could potentially impact the safety and security of the public.

However, the current revolving door in relation to bail in some courts poses a far greater safety risk for the public.

His Honours blast was misplaced.

We have no knowledge of any organised stance or policy within VicPol to use summons more widely. Still, it must be remembered that the Constables’ decision in this process is exercising their Common Law right of discretion.

Police constables are not soldiers working to the beat of the Courts or anybody else’s drum, and the Courts must be more careful when challenging the right of a ‘constable of police’. Common law discretion is territory the courts may find has a sting in its tail.

The issue of bail has been contentious, with the community expressing significant concern about the courts’ interpretations. The public is disturbed by the frequent release of violent offenders on bail, to the extent that the chances of a prisoner being remanded in custody are akin to winning Tatslotto.

The most current example of a seventeen-year-old allegedly responsible for the death of a young doctor was granted bail and within hours breached the bail conditions and, then returned to court, was inexplicably granted bail yet again. Apparently, allegedly killing somebody is insufficient reason to refuse bail.

As much as some in the judiciary see the hierarchy of courts as boundaries not to be crossed, the public sees the Courts as one entity. If one jurisdiction develops unacceptable practices in the community, all court jurisdictions are tarred with the same brush.

His honour should have a good look at the performance of Magistrates and Judges relating to the bail issue across the Court system. Where there is a propensity to bail violent or other serious offenders in a high proportion of the matters before that jurisdiction, take action, and then the Police may have more confidence in bringing them before a Court by arrest.

The police’s propensity to use a Summons rather than apply to a Court for remand is a symptom of the court’s failure to read the public’s concern.

The government blames the Courts, and the Courts blame the Government, but like the Police, the Courts have discretion in interpreting the legislation.

Mr Sonnett should show more respect for the police, as they deal with these offenders and their victims on a daily basis. This contrasts with the judiciary, which only sees perpetrators in the sterile Court, and even then, the defendants are represented by their Lawyers.

The judiciary is generally shielded from the public, and they are not generally exposed to the community outrage over the bailing processes currently in vogue.

Therefore, it is inevitable that the police will continue to exercise their discretion to proceed by summons until the Court’s do not so readily bail recidivist and violent offenders.

It is clear that the Police have lost confidence in the Courts. In the collective years of experience of the former Police members of the CAA, amounting to some four hundred years, this is the first time in memory that the Courts, by their actions, have caused Police to lose confidence, not so much in individual Judicial officers, but in the broader court function.

The police’s lack of trust in the Courts reflects the community’s attitude as a whole; the police are just opening the window.

Mr Sonnett could do well directing his energy toward rebuilding the long-term trust the Police used to have in the Courts; repairing that will go a long way to rebuilding community trust.

The current media discussion of placing cameras in all courtrooms to remove the judiciary’s anonymity and create accountability for their work has some merit.

Letting the light in is sometimes the best sanitiser.