Top barrister opposes push for royal commission into antisemitism

“Any call for a royal commission is premature until we know what Richardson has to report,” Richter said, referring to the intelligence and security review led by the government’s former senior civil servant Dennis Richardson.

This position puts him at odds with an unusually broad coalition of senior legal figures.

Former chief justices, first Federal Director of Public Prosecutions Ian Temby, KC, former Federal Court chief judge James Allsop, former attorney general David Bennett and dozens of senior silks claim antisemitism has reached a point that requires a federal royal commission with statutory powers and public transparency.

Their letters describe arson attacks on synagogues and Jewish businesses, vandalism of Jewish lawmakers’ offices, and widespread fear among Jewish students. They argue the departmental review lacks the necessary independence and authority.

Richter, who defended Cardinal George Pell against allegations of sexual abuse, gunman Julian Knight after the Hoddle Street massacre, Mick Gatto of the Melbourne underworld and tax criminals, does not dispute the facts they convey. What he objects to is the remedy.

This perspective reflects his resistance to calls for a royal commission into antisemitism following the December 14 Hanukkah by the Sea terrorist attack that left 15 dead. One of the attackers, Sajid Akram, was shot dead at the scene. His son, Naveed Akram, is accused of 59 crimes, including 15 murders and one terrorism offense.

Richter, a dual Israeli citizen who was raised Jewish but is now openly atheist, has long resisted identity-based policies; This includes entering the legal arena. Now 79 years old, he says he is neither Zionist nor anti-Zionist.

“I’m post-Zionist,” said Richter, who this year joined a group of 500 Australian Jews to condemn US President Donald Trump’s proposed forcible transfer of 2 million residents of Gaza to Egypt and/or Jordan.

Born in 1946 in the Kyrgyz Republic of the former Soviet Union, Richter lived a life shaped by displacement and skepticism of authority. His parents – Berek, a Polish Jew, and Sofia, a Ukrainian – were born to World War II. They met after they were displaced during World War II. As a baby, Richter traveled to Germany with false documents; where the family spent three years in a refugee camp before moving to Israel, one of the few places willing to accept these documents.

While he has said he would accept a royal commission if recommended by the Richardson review, he has drawn a firm line against any inquiry into defining antisemitism.

“This is the controversial area,” Richter said.

He is particularly critical of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, which was approved by the Albanian government on the recommendation of special envoy Jillian Segal and 34 other countries. Richter describes the definition as “dirty” and argues that it impermissibly restricts political discourse and criticism of Israel.

Many people disagree, pointing out that the definition is clear that criticism of Israel, similar to criticism of any other country, cannot be considered antisemitic.

Richter argues that if an investigation is to be conducted, hate speech and discrimination should be examined holistically across race, religion, gender and ethnicity, rather than isolating antisemitism as a standalone category.

“If Richardson’s report tells us something that we don’t know which is important and which should lead to a royal commission, so be it,” he says.

By then one of Australia’s leading lawyers, he was unimpressed by the consensus around him.

Be the first to know when important news happens. Sign up for breaking news alerts Turn on notifications in email or in the app.