The wheels of justice have turned slowly and only partially so far for this judicial disgrace:

‘A NSW District Court judge who compared incest and pedophilia to homosexuality and suggested juries may no longer think sexual relations with a child were unnatural or “taboo” faces a ban from hearing further sex cases.

Finding the remarks brought NSW courts into disrepute, the NSW Judicial Commission has recommended judge Garry ­Neilson “not sit on cases involving sexual offences”’.

A bit of context for those who may not be familiar with the case:

‘He made the comments during the case of a 58-year-old man who was charged with repeatedly raping his younger sister in the family’s western Sydney home in 1981’.

Perhaps some of what Mr Neilson said would also help:

‘During one exchange with the crown prosecutor, Judge Neilson said the community may no longer see sexual contact between siblings and between adults and children as “unnatural” or “taboo”, just as homosexuality is now widely accepted.

All I’m saying to you is if this was the 50s and you had a jury of 12 men there, which is what you’d invariably have, they would say it’s unnatural for a man to be interested in his sister,” Judge Neilson said in April last year.

“They would say the same thing of a man being interested in another man or a man being interested in a boy. Those things have gone‘.

He didn’t stop there:

‘A jury might find nothing untoward in the advance of a brother towards his sister once she had sexually matured, had sexual relationships with other men and was now ‘available’, not having [a] sexual partner.

He also said the “only reason” that incest was still a crime was because of the high risk of genetic abnormalities in children born from consanguineous relationships “but even that falls away to an extent [because] there is such ease of contraception and readily access to abortion”‘. [sic]

Needless to say, the case was successfully appealed by the State.

How Mr Neilson could still be allowed to sit on any cases is completely beyond me. If he was ever your appointed judge, you could be forgiven for having absolutely no confidence whatsoever in his… ummm… judgment.

(Picture from The Australian).