The impending elevation of Australian criminal barrister Phillip Boulten SC to the Supreme Court is causing controversy. It all has to do with his problematic social media posts, which seem to hold “Zionists” and police in contempt.
The swearing-in of Phillip Boulten SC will proceed next month, Mr Daley confirmed, following a snap review triggered by The Australian’s reporting on his prolific social media commentary attacking antisemitism envoy Jillian Segal, police and Israel.
Speaking exclusively to The Australian, Mr Daley said “extensive inquiries” had been conducted and found Mr Boulten’s online commentary did not meet the threshold required to overturn the appointment.
“I don’t support the comments he made. I don’t agree with them, but the removal of a sitting judge in NSW is exceedingly rare, and it is a hugely serious issue,” he said.
“Phil’s comments, as unsavoury as they were, don’t rise to the level of judicial misbehaviour or incapacity to the extent that he can be removed.”
Mr Daley said he had discussed with the state’s Chief Justice Andrew Bell which matters Mr Boulten would handle in the Supreme Court, given his strident online criticism of Israel and police.
The Attorney-General said he expected Mr Boulten’s caseload to largely revolve around common law issues, such as murder.
The Supreme Court in the past year has handled matters including applications for pro-Palestine marches in Sydney and challenges to protest laws passed by the NSW government.
“The Chief Justice has assured me that he will manage any conflicts of interest with Mr Boulten … in the first instance it would be the responsibility of the Chief Justice of NSW to make sure that he doesn’t sit, or is not allocated or rostered on to a case where there might be an apprehension of the bias,” Mr Daley said.
“He’ll be sitting in the common law division … a lot of the work of the common law division is murder trials.”
—
His appointment comes at the same time as deep internal concerns within the Labor Party over antisemitism in its ranks.
Last month party members wrote to Labor’s NSW leadership urging a crackdown on widespread anti-Semitism and inflammatory anti-Israel rhetoric within the ALP.
—
Mr Boulten had previously re-shared messages online about Ms Segal, including one that labelled her as “the deplorable racist Segal”, while he said measures contained in her plan to combat antisemitism lacked “sufficient justification”.
He also responded to a video of British Jewish comedian Alexei Sayle talking about “Zionist Jews” by commenting: “And they lie and they lie and they lie”.
I find this appointment highly problematic given the nature of his social media posts, most of which were not covered by the above report.
The response to the Alexei Sayle video was actually a quote tweet of Adam Houda, a criminal lawyer who himself has an extensive history of posting things that could be considered antisemitic.
An examination of Boulten’s X feed reveals he retweets Houda a fair bit, including other tweets that could be considered antisemitic. Like this one invoking the antisemitic trope of the powerful, nefarious lobby:
this one comparing Israel to Nazis, in contravention of the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism:
and this one suggesting that European or Ashkenazi Jews are not “semites”:
Not that Adam Houda is the only person, who might be considered antisemitic by many, who Boulten has amplified. Another is Dr. Anastasia Maria Loupis:
Elsewhere, Phillip Boulten has endorsed artwork including the words “Palestinians have the right to resist” and “From the River to the Sea”, which could be considered endorsing terrorism and even genocidal:
The same could be said for this post of a rally on the first anniversary of the October 7 massacre, a rally which included flags deliberately reminiscent of Hizbollah:
While the report indicates he might sit in the common law division, including murder trials, this could still be problematic. For instance, imagine if a proud Jew who supports Israel was accused of a violent crime.
Or if there was a trial in which police evidence was brought:
The appointment of Phillip Boulten to the Supreme Court of NSW seems to be a real slap in the face to a Jewish community reeling from the Bondi attacks. Not only that, but at the very least, this appointment should give anyone who cares about public confidence in the judiciary serious pause. Judges are not required to be blank slates, but they are required to be seen as impartial.
When a barrister’s public record is littered with rhetoric that demonises “Zionists,” amplifies antisemitic tropes, flirts with genocidal slogans, and shows open hostility toward law enforcement, it goes directly to apprehended bias. The question is no longer whether Phillip Boulten’s posts technically cross some narrow legal threshold, but whether Australians can reasonably trust that justice will be administered without prejudice.
