Check out Grumpy's IBin Laughin Humour Page

To read past columns visit The Grumpy Files

Judges should not hide from public scrutiny

Are my old and cauliflowered ears hearing things? Can they believe what they are hearing and my eyes reading?

Are judges so important in our society that they are above scrutiny?

Are they so perfect they never make mistakes?

Are they so self-righteous that in having their sentences questioned they forget that they are there for the people, to serve the people?

Well, in light of the comments flying about over the three-year jail term for Pauline Hanson, it seems the Beaks have got their noses out of joint.

One senior legal figure has even accused the Prime Monster of eroding public faith in the justice system by saying he thought the jail term was harsh.

Is he serious?

One would have thought that a three-year sentence for a technical case of fraud (in Queensland) - when more serious crimes of violence get three-tenths of bugger-all - is too much.

In Queensland the Director of Public Prosecutions has warned against excessive public criticism - and I'm not surprised about that seeing it is her region that is copping the flak.

Leanne Clare reckons that because the case was settled by a jury everything is fair and hunky-dory.

But who set the sentence Ms Clare? Was it the jury, or the judge?

Now I know that judges are not elected officials, but they are still accountable to the public and they have to cop criticism when it comes their way.

No-one in a democracy has the right to say "don't look at our decisions" and certainly any public official must be ready for the glare of the spotlight if they do something that sends such a wave of discontent through the community.

And let us remember that 87 per cent of Australians - that's three times more than ever voted for her One Nation Party - believe Pauline Hanson has copped a brute of a decision.

If there is something that has really got up your nose, let Grumpy Old Coot know at grumpy@webwombat.com