Anti-Semite’s appeal dismissed
A MAN sentenced in a Western Australian court last January for racially vilifying Jews has lost an appeal against his conviction.
A MAN sentenced in a Western Australian court last January for racially vilifying Jews has lost an appeal against his conviction.
Brendan Lee O’Connell was the first person to be jailed under Western Australia’s racial vilification laws after being convicted on six counts of anti-Jewish harassment and vilification.
The charges stemmed from O’Connell posting footage on the internet in 2009 of a verbal altercation between himself and then Australasian Union of Jewish Student members Stanley Keyser and Timothy Peach, who were handing out pro-Israel literature at a Friends of Palestine rally.
Alongside the footage he also filmed a piece to camera in which he vilified and threatened Jews.
In dismissing O’Connell’s appeal last Friday, Justice Robert Mazza said the original sentence, while high, was not unjust or unreasonable.
“The total effective sentence bore a proper relationship to his overall criminality,” he wrote in his judgement.
Executive Council of Australian Jewry executive director Peter Wertheim said it came as no surprise the appeal was dismissed.
“Like everything else O’Connell has publicly advocated, the appeal was completely lacking in merit,” he said.
“The12-person jury who convicted O’Connell knew exactly what they were dealing with.
“His case illustrates how important it is to have criminal laws in place to deal with serious cases of racial vilification by those who are not ashamed to be identified as racists.”
Court documents indicate that during his initial trial O’Connell was often disrespectful, labelling the trial a “kangaroo court”, addressing the judge as “adjudicator”, “De Fuhrer” and “Comrade Stalin”, and disrupting the prosecution’s closing address several times.
“The appellant is completely without remorse,” the documents stated.
“His testimony at trial shows that he is proud of what he has done and regards it as his duty to speak and act out in the manner that he has.
“There is no indication that the appellant has any insight into his views and behaviour. His recalcitrant stance indicates that he poses a risk of further such offending in the future.”
GARETH NARUNSKY
comments