Mandatory sentencing poisonous: Cowdery

Alison Savage | ABC Online | 29 July 2011

One of Australia's most high-profile prosecutors has launched a scathing attack on the Victorian Government's approach to sentencing.

The former New South Wales chief prosecutor Nicholas Cowdery QC has told a Law Institute conference in Melbourne, that the Baillieu Government is pushing for mandatory sentences for juvenile offences to achieve short-term political gains.

"We've digested it. We have found it to be poisonous and we've regurgitated it," he said.

Mr Cowdery says he can see why it is an attractive idea for politicians.

"Talking about punishing people for the wrongs that they do us makes them feel good and makes their voters feel good," he said.

"They think that these are going to be reflected in votes at the next election, which is really all that they're interested in."

Mr Cowdery says the principle of sentencing law is that the penalties must reflect the offence and the circumstances of the offender.

He says it has been proven that mandatory sentencing does not work.

"The electors need to know that what they're proposing and what they are doing doesn't produce the results that they hope it will," he said.

He says it makes even less sense when it comes mandatory sentences for teenagers who commit acts of violence.

"We know from experience that the best way of addressing criminality in juveniles is to remove the causes."

He has also labelled the Government's public survey on sentencing reform "bizarre."

Juvenile sentencing plan draws fire

Simon Lauder | ABC The World Today | 29 July 2011

Audio here

ASHLEY HALL: The Victorian Government has hit back at critics of its plan to introduce a form of mandatory sentencing for the perpetrators of violent crimes.

A retired Supreme Court judge has told The World Today the Government's plan is dangerous and could lead to unjust penalties especially for juveniles.

It comes as the former New South Wales Director of Public Prosecutions Nicholas Cowdery also weighs in, calling the plan misconceived.

The Victorian Government says it's just delivering what the people want.

Simon Lauder reports.

SIMON LAUDER: The Coalition won government in Victoria with its promise to be tough on crime.

The Attorney-General Robert Clark says he plans to keep that promise. The Government is even inviting public input on its overhaul of sentencing laws through an online survey.

ROBERT CLARK: While the advice of experts and the opinions of interest groups are important the views of all Victorians are also important and we're giving Victorians the opportunity to have their say.

SIMON LAUDER: The plan to introduce minimum jail terms of two years for 16 and 17 year olds who are convicted of violent crimes has been slammed by social justice and law groups. Now it's attracting criticism from interstate.

The former New South Wales Director of Public Prosecutions Nicholas Cowdery QC told a conference in Melbourne this morning the policy is an attempt to buy votes.

NICHOLAS COWDERY: Talking about punishing people for the wrongs that they do to us makes them feel good and it makes their voters feel good. And they think that these are going to be reflected in votes at the next election which is really all that they are interested in.

SIMON LAUDER: As a Supreme Court judge Frank Vincent QC heard evidence about some of Victoria's most heinous crimes over more than two decades until his retirement two years ago.

FRANK VINCENT: The fixing of arbitrary minimums in any situation is an extremely dangerous course to adopt.

SIMON LAUDER: Mr Vincent says courts try to balance the seriousness of an offence and the circumstances of the offender when sentencing. He says without discretion a judge is in a very difficult position.

FRANK VINCENT: In relation to young people in particular the emphasis has generally been placed upon their immaturity at that time and the prospects of rehabilitation and so forth. It's a very difficult balance to strike in any situation.

Fixing of arbitrary minimum terms has about it a very serious potential for inappropriate sentencing and unjust sentencing.

SIMON LAUDER: Would it change some, not just sentences, do you think it would change judgements?

FRANK VINCENT: It would be very difficult. It would be hard to accommodate doing something that you as a judge had felt or felt was inherently wrong and socially destructive rather than being advantageous to the community and the individual concerned.

SIMON LAUDER: The Government also plans to introduce minimum sentences of four years for adults who commit violent crimes.

The Attorney-General Robert Clark says the mandatory periods will apply to all unless there are exceptional circumstances and they're yet to be determined.

ROBERT CLARK: Clearly you don't want to put anyone behind bars. But there are circumstances where people engage in violence that is so gross both in terms of its culpability and the degree of injuries inflicted that you need to put people behind bars both for effective deterrence and for the effect of protecting the community. And that's what the Government has committed to do.

SIMON LAUDER: But wouldn't your plan remove that discretion from a judge who is best placed having heard all the evidence?

ROBERT CLARK: Well as I say the offence is going to be carefully targeted to those examples of gross violence for which effectively there is no excuse - the deliberately planned attack, the stomping on incapacitated victims, the marauding gangs.

And then there will on top of that will be the option for genuinely exception circumstances.

But we've seen in Victoria in the past when the previous government legislated to allow unspecified exceptional circumstances when they have purported to abolish suspended sentences for serious crimes, that what was intended to be the exception became the rule. And that's what we are determined to ensure does not occur with this offence.

SIMON LAUDER: And why don't you believe that children, those under 18, should have their youth, immaturity and of course their positive potential taken into account?

ROBERT CLARK: Well that is already being taken into account in the fact that juveniles will be subject to a maximum period of two years detention compared with adults who will be subject to a maximum of four years, a minimum of four years detention.

But as I've said Magistrates Court, the Children's Court is already imposing sentences of between one and two years detention in more than half of the cases of juveniles convicted of intentionally causing serious injury. And that's not even having regard to the fact that our offence will be confined to instances of gross violence.

SIMON LAUDER: Victoria's Sentencing Advisory Council is due to deliver a report to government in September.

ASHLEY HALL: Simon Lauder.

Murder of Police Officers Bill: an eye for an eye?

Last week, Michael Gallacher finally got the opportunity to fulfill one of his longest-held promises: the introduction of the Crimes Amendment (Murder of Police Officers) Bill. In his second reading speech, the Police Minister, himself a former police officer and 31 year member of the NSW Police Association, spoke of being "delighted" and "extremely proud" to provide for mandatory life sentences to be imposed on persons convicted of murdering police officers.

He commenced by correctly observing that:

Murder currently carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. 

Where the victims are police officers, however, the status quo has long got up Gallacher's nose, because in 2011 it remains the case that:

under section 21 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act courts retain the discretion to impose a shorter sentence. 

Unashamedly, he announced that the purpose of the the bill was to close this outrageous loop-hole, and:

remove the current discretion of the court in circumstances where a police officer is murdered.

The need for such an amendment was clear:

... the fact that we have had 12 officers killed while undertaking their duty since 1971 just shows us that something finally needs to be done to deter those who would even consider committing such an offence.

Gallacher apparently believes that these 12 police officers were killed by the type who contemplate a 20 to 40 year sentence, figure that if they're caught they'll sit the sentence out easy, and then go ahead with it. These sorts of considerations need to be stopped, according to Gallacher, who like all good politicians, has the solution:

Making sure that those who murder an officer are imprisoned for the term of their natural life is the most effective deterrent.

Because those who would scoff at a sentence taking away the majority, if not the best years, of their adult life would surely not proceed if they had to serve more jail time in their old age.

Gallacher's conclusion was backed up by the citation of several expert studies, which demonstrate the increased effectiveness of natural life sentences as a deterrent. He also cited examples of other jurisdictions where the introduction of mandatory life penalties had reduced the commission of certain offences.

Actually I was dreaming: he did neither of those things. In fact, all he did before the introduction of this bill was consult his gut feeling, and that of his mates in the Police Association. That's right: he looked it up in his gut.

And where has Attorney-General Greg Smith SC been during this process? We might have expected him as the Government's chief spokesman for what is, after all, a major amendment of the criminal law. Perhaps the kind of rhetoric he espoused ahead of the election, including labeling proponents of mandatory sentencing "rednecks", disqualified him from the role. What is now clear is that he no longer opposes the mandatory sentencing rednecks, and has instead joined their rank. Or at least has made an exception in the case of Police. He told the Legislative Assembly that he prosecuted the killers of Constable David Carty, and:

gave my blood, sweat and tears to that case in honour of that policeman.

Smith rebuked Labor's spokesman on Legal Affairs, Paul Lynch, who he said was:

reported as having said that the Government's proposed policy to impose life imprisonment for those who deliberately kill police officers is:

... flawed and failed policy ... We think that [it] is likely to lead to fewer convictions. It would also give no incentive to plead guilty and put families of victims through even more heartache.

Did he ask David Carty's father, John, what he thought? Did he ask his mother, Lorraine, what she thought? 

Ask them what? Whether, in their expert opinion, it was good policy? Whether it would lead to less pleas of guilty and less convictions? Whether it would prevent cops getting killed? Or should we just ask them whether a sentence of life would give them the satisfaction they sought for the loss of their son?

You can fairly guess what most family members would say. In 2006, after the Parole Board released Thaier Sako (who had been convicted only of grievous bodily harm upon David Carty), Lorraine Carty said "how do we appeal our sentence of grief?"

You would understand if Lorraine gave nil consideration to the mitigating factors of those who bashed and killed her son. That's not what one tends to do after a loved one has been deliberately killed. I imagine it could be difficult for a surviving family to want other than to take the life of the murderer. It is for that precise reason, many centuries ago, we took the job out of their hands and left the task of sentencing to Courts.

This bill is rightly called a retrograde move by Nick Cowdery QC, for if we accept, as the Coalition appear to, that the penalty for a crime can rightly be fixed at the maximum short of death, with reference only to the wishes of the victim, their families, or a professional association, we may as well not have Courts at all.

When we remove the veneer, this bill amounts to the Liberal/National Party, in the name of Police and families, taking the law into their own hands. It amounts to a Government hijacking the sentencing process to satisfy a desire for retribution, without any reference to the Courts.

In this instance, Courts will be contracted - no obliged - to carry out the hit, at the directive of government, on behalf of those who seek revenge. As highlighted by Richard Ackland's article last week, the upcoming case of Mahmud will seek to test the constitutional validity of this process. Mahmud's submissions to the High Court, as well as those in response, can be found here.

Gallacher's assertion that the mandatory life penalty provides a more effective deterrent than say a 34 year sentence (Penisini: killer of Constable Glen McEnally) or a 28 year sentence (Gilbert Adam: killer of Carty) is is an attempt to provide a reasonable justification for the bill, but it is no more than an attempt.

His talk of extra protection for Police might pep up the troops, but surely even they know this bill won't matter to a person crazy or determined enough to kill a cop in the first place. What Police do understand is the very basic language their man in Macquarie St speaks to them, namely 'an eye for an eye' for slain cops.  They might well be happy with that. The problem is the next group that want to feel the same way.

Judgment day for the DPP

Geoff Chambers and Lisa Davies | The Daily Telegraph | May 26, 2011 

ATTORNEY-General Greg Smith has moved to change laws so he can nominate a judge to become the state's top prosecutor.

Mr Smith is expected to snub Sydney's leading barristers and install a senior judicial identity as the Director of Public Prosecutions.

The No.1 candidate on Mr Smith's wish list is believed to be District Court Judge Martin Blackmore, a former Crown prosecutor and deputy DPP.

Sources said Mr Blackmore, who declined to comment on the speculation, had intended to apply but was concerned about not taking his pension with him.

Mr Smith tagged an amendment to the Director of Public Prosecutions Act as part of the Courts and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011.

"The Bill amends the Act to make it clear that if a judge or former judge is appointed as DPP, then his or her prior judicial service counts towards any judicial pension to which the DPP would be entitled," Mr Smith said.

"The amendment makes it certain that prior service as a judge counts toward service as DPP for the purposes of determining eligibility for the DPP's judicial pension."

Veteran solicitors and barristers said Mr Blackmore would be a "sound and welcome" appointment.

But there was speculation last night that other Crown prosecutors turned judges - including Judges David Frearson and Richard Cogswell - were also in the mix.

Judge Paul Conlon did not apply for the job.

The remuneration package for a District Court judge is $331,690, compared with the DPP salary of $368,550.

Leading barristers Chris Maxwell QC, Margaret Cunneen SC and Lloyd Babb SC are understood to have applied for the DPP job.

Nick Cowdery, who retired as DPP in March after a 16-year tenure, said the legislative change would clear the path for a judge to replace him.

The legislation would also allow Mr Cowdery to be offered a spot on the bench without any impact on his retirement benefits.

Mr Cowdery, who said he was enjoying his retirement working with universities and international agencies, has not been offered a judicial job by Mr Smith. But he did not rule out stepping up if his former DPP deputy offered him a job.

"It is a practical move and there are obvious implications if you don't do it," Mr Cowdery said. "No judge would nominate because they would lose their judicial entitlements. There may be a number of judges who wish to put their hand up for DPP. That has definitely happened in other jurisdictions."

Mr Smith's spokesman would not comment on his choice for DPP.

Life sentences won't do justice

Editorial | SMH | May 24, 2011

THE O'Farrell government's pursuit of mandatory life sentences for those convicted of murdering police makes no sense. Like most serious crimes, the offence has many gradations - from cold-blooded premeditated execution through to irrational, spur-of-the-moment violence. No one suggests the state does not owe police a high duty of care or that the taking of a police officer's life should not be harshly punished. But exempting the murder of a police officer from the application of judicial discretion goes beyond enshrining police in a privileged legal status that holds a police officer's life is more precious than that of other citizens, including those called on occasionally to put themselves in harm's way so that others can be safer.

The exemption goes to the issue of legal effectiveness. If the murder of police does not warrant a judge's cool and wise weighing of factors of criminal severity and circumstance, why should we bother with judicial discretion in sentencing for any offence? Simply apply a mandated punishment to fit crime categories across the board, as was tried in NSW with such spectacular failure in the 1890s. Indeed, that initiative was promptly revoked when colonials came to recognise that punishments exceeded the crimes.

The government suggests none of us should be surprised by its announcement of legislation this week to ensure future convicted murderers of police are never released from jail. The Premier said it had been Coalition policy since 2002. But that is only one element of public expectation because the Attorney-General, Greg Smith, promised before the election, and seemingly authoritatively, to end the law-and-order auction that traditionally preceded NSW state polls.

Like his former boss Nick Cowdery, Smith must know that the singling out of murdered police is little more than a sop to the police union and others whose antagonism to judicial discretion appears predicated on the strange notion that being locked away in a jail for several years is a cakewalk, that any sentence short of ''never to be released'' is an incentive to do evil, that the dead are dishonoured and justice is denied if their killers do not cop an eye for an eye.

Smith served as a deputy to Cowdery when the latter was the NSW director of public prosecutions. Now the master admonishes the apprentice. ''It is surprising that a lawyer with Greg Smith's experience would support a retrograde move towards mandatory sentencing knowing that it produces injustice and has no effect in preventing crime,'' Cowdery said.

Welcome to the realpolitik, Mr Smith.

Critics say proposed laws won't stop cop killings

Sarah Dingle | ABC Online | 23 May, 2011

A New South Wales Government plan to make life sentences compulsory for people who murder police officers has worried the state's former director of public prosecutions and civil liberties advocates.

The Government will this week introduce legislation that says anyone convicted of murdering a police officer would automatically be sentenced to life in jail. At the moment there are mandatory 25-year sentences for people convicted of murdering police officers or other public officials.

Australian police unions have welcomed the move, saying officers in other states should get the same protection.

But the former NSW director of public prosecutions, Nicholas Cowdery QC, says there is no evidence this will deter criminals and that it takes away courts' independence.

"This kind of offence [is] going to be committed in the heat of the moment in an atmosphere of great drama and tension," he said.

"People aren't going to stop and think, 'oh dear, if I do this and if I'm caught and if these circumstances are satisfied I will end up with a life sentence, I'd better not to do it'."

Brett Collins, spokesman for civil rights group Justice Action, agrees the move will not work.

"You wouldn't save a single policeman," he said.

"To suggest that people wouldn't be killing policemen because they would think carefully beforehand and think 'oh I've got a mandatory life sentence' is not what happens."

Mr Collins says judges should be free to sentence as they see fit. He says the murder of officers does not happen often, but when it does it tends to be harshly dealt with by the judiciary.

"This is putting wrong values on the values of life. The values of life, of course every person's life, is a sacred thing," he said.

"And to suggest a policeman's life is of more value than another public servant's or someone else who is very vulnerable is wrong."

The Australian Lawyers Alliance says mandatory life sentencing has not acted as a deterrent to police killings overseas. Its director Greg Barns says he will be writing to NSW Attorney-General Greg Smith over the lack of discretion for the courts.

"Mr O'Farrell has said that this will act a deterrence. It has proved to be no deterrence in the United States where mandatory life sentences for police killers has been in place since the 1970s," he said.

"In five of the past 10 years in the United States, the FBI says we've had high rates of killing."

Cowdery lashes mandatory life for police killers

Anna Patty | SMH | May 23, 2011

NICK COWDERY, who retired as the state's chief prosecutor last month, has accused the NSW Attorney-General, Greg Smith, of reneging on his pre-election promise to end the ''law and order auction'' - the political tradition of promising to increase punishments and fill jails.

His comment was in response to the announcement by the Premier, Barry O'Farrell, yesterday that the government would introduce a bill this week to make life sentences compulsory for people who murder police.

Mr O'Farrell said the Coalition had been committed to the policy since 2002.

Mr Cowdery, who was Mr Smith's boss at the Department of Public Prosecutions, said the law would lead to injustice.

''It is surprising that a lawyer with Greg Smith's experience would support a retrograde move towards mandatory sentencing knowing that it produces injustice and has no effect in preventing crime,'' he said.

Mr Cowdery, who retired as head of the DPP last month, said judges needed discretion in sentencing to ensure the punishment fitted the circumstances of the crime and the criminal. Mandatory sentencing could result in a penalty outweighing the crime.

''When you move to serious offences, the principles of sentencing require that in any particular case a wide range of factors must be taken into account to get a just penalty,'' he said. ''The prescription of mandatory sentences in advance … makes the doing of justice … impossible.''

Mr Cowdery said a mandatory sentencing law was contrary to Mr Smith's pre-election promise to end the law and order auction.

Learned friends keep mum about DPP job as critics advocate change

Geesche Jacobsen | SMH | April 29, 2011

THE office of the Director of Public Prosecutions needs a shake-up, some senior Sydney lawyers said, as applications for the office's top job were about to close.

One lawyer described the office as a ''sheltered workshop''; another said ''it would be a challenge to improve the standard of the place''.

Some potential candidates appear to have been put off by the terms and conditions of the $368,550 job, the perceived amount of administration, or the task of reforming the office.

Despite a handful of candidates rumoured to be applying, no firm favourite has emerged and the government has engaged consultants to canvass candidates nationwide.

Applications close today, and the Attorney-General's Department will draw up a shortlist, from which the Attorney-General, Greg Smith, will select a candidate to propose to the cabinet. This can be vetoed by a parliamentary committee.

Two early favourites whose names had been doing the rounds of legal circles for months - the senior crown prosecutor Mark Tedeschi, QC, and the District Court judge Martin Blackmore - are now understood not to be applying.

The successful candidate is likely to be a silk with extensive criminal experience.

The previous DPP, Nicholas Cowdery, resigned in March after nearly 17 years, and Ian Temby, QC, is acting in the position until mid-May.

After changes to the law the next DPP can serve only one 10-year term, which might suit someone near the end of their career.

Senior lawyers say the office needs to be reformed. One said many prosecutors were ''precious'' and refused to work outside of the city.

Another lamented that many of the staff ''haven't had much experience in life'' and were ''zealots''.

One senior barrister suggested more cases should be contracted out to the private bar to allow prosecutors to be assigned to a case and follow it through, preventing changes in the indictments just before a trial.

Staff inside the office are understood to be anxious about the pending appointment, and senior current and former prosecutors were lobbied at the recent prosecutors' conferences to apply for the job.

Among the names circulating as potential candidates are the crown prosecutor Margaret Cunneen, SC, who had not decided yesterday if she would apply, and her colleague Chris Maxwell, QC.

The current Commonwealth DPP, Chris Craigie, SC, and former South Australian deputy DPP, Wendy Abraham, QC, were also named as potential candidates along with crown advocate Lloyd Babb, SC, and Mark Ierace, SC. Mr Babb did not wish to comment and Ms Abraham did not take the Herald's call. Mr Craigie said his current role was ''fulfilling''.

The position is believed to be less attractive for senior private barristers who would take a pay cut to accept it.

Two experienced barristers, John Agius, SC, and Peter Hastings, QC, were rumoured to be interested, but neither would comment on the suggestions yesterday.

Last act for Hatzistergos before axe falls

By Richard Ackland, SMH, March 18, 2011:

Attorney-General John Hatzistergos has performed what we can only hope is his final act of bastardry before he is flung out of office. As long as Hatzistergos had breath in his body he was going to see the end of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Nicholas Cowdery - and his final play in the battle was the appointment of Ian Temby, QC, as acting DPP for two months.

Today is Cowdery's last day in office. He turns 65 tomorrow and to keep the full extent of his pension benefits he has to go right now. There's a certain amount of government deliberation in that situation - more of that in a moment.

The Attorney-General put out a statement on Wednesday lauding Temby's capacities and achievements. Labor governments have been in and out of love with Temby ever since federal attorney-general Gareth Evans plucked him from the Perth bar to be the first Commonwealth DPP.

There was a two-sentence mention of Cowdery at the bottom of the announcement, thanking him for his service and noting the government ''valued the integrity of his prosecutorial decisions''. In any language it was a singularly icy farewell.

Cowdery had advised the government that he was available to serve as acting DPP from tomorrow so that the functions of the office could continue seamlessly until the incoming government found a replacement. About 11.05am on Wednesday, Hatzistergos phoned Cowdery to say his resignation had been accepted. He added he had taken advice from the Solicitor-General and would not agree to Cowdery's suggestion that he continue in an acting capacity.

Further, he would not even appoint the current deputy DPP, Lou Lamprati, SC, as acting director. Temby would take the job for two months - full stop. However, if the incoming government had not filled the position within Temby's tenure, Lamprati might be able to be acting director. How's that for tortured jockeying?

The reality is that Cowdery was perfectly entitled and eligible to be appointed for a term as acting director. It would have been the most efficient and cost-effective thing to do but under this regime memories are long and unforgiving.

Take No Prisoners

Australian Story, ABC1, 7 March 2011:

On the eve of his retirement from public office, the nation's longest serving Director of Public Prosecutions, Nicholas Cowdery, reflects exclusively on his sixteen years in the top job.

Cowdery's reign encompasses some of the nation's most notorious criminal prosecutions including the cases of Ivan Milat, Gordon Wood, Keli Lane, and the moral outcry over Bill Henson's photographs of children.

Loved by many in the legal profession, but loathed by some in the political arena, Nicholas Cowdery is acknowledged as a fierce defender of the DPP's independence. His decision from the outset not to 'curry favour' with his political masters led to a 'take no prisoners' leadership style that's divided friends and foes alike.

In a rare insight, Nicholas Cowdery reveals the stories behind some of his most difficult decisions - and finally explains what the gift of two olives in a jar from one of his biggest opponents really stood for.

Watch the Australian Story episode here

Hatzistergos v Cowdery - final round

By Theodora, Justinian, March 17, 2011:

The appointment of Ian Temby as acting NSW DPP was unnecessary, expensive and an act of vindictiveness, according to Theodora 

Attorney General John Hatzistergos phoned outgoing DPP Nicholas Cowdery on Wednesday (March 16) and told him Temby would be taking over for two months as acting DPP, until the incoming government found a replacement.

He rejected Cowdery's offer to stay on as acting director. Cowdery ends his 17-year stint as NSW DPP today (Friday, March 18), one day before his 65th birthday on Saturday.

Hatzistergos' explanation for the rejection of Cowdery's offer was that the legislation doesn't allow him to extend his appointment, even in an acting capacity.

Curiously, he told the DPP this was the advice he had from the Solicitor General, but according to Cowdery's version of the conversation with the AG, the SG said the situation "might be open to other interpretations".

Indeed it might, because the saving and transitional provisions of the DPP Act say that the amendments of 2007, which removed Cowdery's life tenure (till age 72) and made him ineligible for reappointment ("including reappointment after the end of the director's term"), do not apply to any senior officer of the DPP who held office immediately before the commencement of the amendments. See s.36(4) DPP Act. 

It was sheer bloody mindedness on the part of Hatzistergos that prevented Cowdery being extended for a few more months.

All the more so because having Cowdery as acting DPP would have saved the state money. Temby is to be paid at least the DPP's salary - at the rate of $354,030 p.a. plus $22,000 by way of a "conveyance allowance".

Had Cowdery been permitted to stay on, his pay would be the difference between his pension and his salary - a saving to the state of 40 percent of the usual DPP's purse.

Hatzistergos would not even appoint the deputy DPP, Lou Lamprati SC, as acting director. Temby is it.

Hatzistergos effectively forced Cowdery out of the job before the expiry of his tenure by refusing to amend an anomaly in the provisions which require the DPP to take his pension at 65, even though he could serve as director to the age of 72.

Small mindedness is never attractive, but at least Hatzistergos is not among those ALP characters who would have kept Ian Temby on a black list for what he did to Labor icon Lionel Keith Murphy.