At the very end of last I year I blogged about Carnita Matthews the burqa-clad mother of seven who claimed she was the victim of mistaken identity has been jailed for six months for making a false complaint against a police officer. You can read the story at that stage on my blog, including the video that saved the policeman from censure.
Unfortunately I now read that:
Unfortunately I now read that:
'THE Muslim woman accused of lying about police trying to tear her burqa off has avoided jail – because her identity could not be proven.Now I begin to see why wearing the burqa is so popular; it's a 'get out of jail free' card. I hope the Australian courts realise what they have left themselves open to...
Carnita Matthews, 47, from Woodbine, in Sydney’s southwest, had been sentenced to six months in jail for making a deliberately false statement that a policeman tried to forcibly remove her burqa because he was a racist.
But judge Clive Jeffreys said yesterday he was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that it was Mrs Matthews who made the racism accusation because the person who complained to police was wearing a burqa at the time.
The absurdity of the law is that, to reach the level of proof of identity to make the case, Mrs Matthews would have been required to identify herself by lifting her burqa at the police station – what started the uproar in the first place.
More than a dozen Muslim supporters linked arms and began chanting “Allah Akbar” as they stormed out of Downing Centre Court with Mrs Matthews concealed behind them.
Tempers rose and they began jostling with police after several members of the group attacked cameramen.
It marked a stark difference from their behaviour minutes earlier, when they had quietly assembled outside the lifts for prayer shortly after the judge’s decision.
Mrs Matthew’s lawyer Stephen Hopper defended their actions saying: “They are obviously happy with the result and are expressing it in a way that is culturally appropriate to them.”
Judge Jeffreys said yesterday that even if Mrs Matthews had made the complaint, he could not be sure she knew it was a “false” statement.
“I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that she made the complaint,” he said.
“Even if I was satisfied that she made the complaint, I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that it was knowingly false.”
Mrs Matthews made the claim in her court appearance last year, saying police could not prove it was her behind the burqa when the complaint was handed in to police. The local magistrate rejected it.'
2 comments:
Judge Jeffreys said yesterday that even if Mrs Matthews had made the complaint, he could not be sure she knew it was a “false” statement.
So whatever happened to the idea that ignorance of the law was no protection from the law? Never mind the huge question around how you could not know something was false when it didn't happen.
I've sinced termed this the Shrodinger's Cat Defence in that somehow it was both Carnita Matthews and wasn't her at exactly the same time by virtue of the fact she was unseen under her Burqa / Niqab.
However it is worth connecting the dots on this. It seems she was assisted in her complaint by one Mamdouh Habib who gave an interview on radio saying he took her to the police station to file the complaint. Habib is former Quantanmo bay inmate.
Her lawyer, who liked to appear a little clueless about the post verdict "celebrations" is in reality far from clueless. Stephen Hopper was a former lawyer of Habib and represented him in the struggle to have him released from Gitmo. He has also been connected to other people through to hold extreme interpretations on Islam and has been a frequent commentator on Australian security services approach to fighting terror groups.
All of a sudden this small traffic stop case looks a bit lowball for him, although that changes if you look at it as something a little different.
Post a Comment