Topbarrister says a royal commission into antisemitism is premature andrisky
By
RobHarrisDecember30, 2025 — 5.44pm
Save
Normaltext sizeLarger text sizeVery large text size
Whenmore than 130 of Australia’s most senior legal minds affixed theirnames to acall for a federal royal commission intoantisemitism following the Bondi terror attack, one absence rippledquietly through the profession.
RobertRichter, KC – one of the country’s most prominent criminaldefence silks – was conspicuously not among them.
Credit:
RobertRichter in his chambers in 2018. SimonSchluter
Ina profession steeped in consensus and cautious alignment, Richter’srefusal to add his name was neither accidental nor surprising. Forfive decades, he has occupied a singular place in Australian law: abarrister whose authority rests not on popularity but on a fierceattachment to legal principle, even when that attachment places himat odds with his peers.
Richter,a human rights campaigner who is a fierce critic of the Israeligovernment’s occupation of the Palestinian territories, says hedoes not deny the existence or seriousness of antisemitism. But heargues that a royal commission – particularly one framed arounddefining antisemitism – would be premature and dangerous.
Hisconcern extends beyond legal doctrine. He warns that a royalcommission explicitly framed around antisemitism risks inflamingcommunity tensions – echoing the comments from Prime MinisterAnthony Albanese about it being a potentialplatform for hate speech.
Loading
“Ifthere is to be a royal commission … and I don’t think we needone,” he said,“it will go for years, and its definitions will beargued about endlessly.”
InRichter’s view, the key institutional failures exposed by the Bondiattack are already apparent.
“Thetragedy at Bondi was the result of a stuff-up by ASIO in notred-flagging the man for overseas travel or anything of the kind,red-flagging his father,” he said. “It was a complete stuff-up bya combination of ASIO, the federal police, NSW Police and bordercontrol. We don’t need a royal commission for that.
“Anycall for a royal commission is premature until we find out whatRichardson has to report,” Richter said, referring to thegovernment’s intelligence and security review led by former seniorpublic servant Dennis Richardson.
Thatposition places him at odds with an unusually broad coalition ofsenior legal figures.
Formerchief justices; former judges; the inaugural Commonwealth director ofpublic prosecutions, Ian Temby, KC; former Federal Court chiefjustice James Allsop; former solicitor-general David Bennett; anddozens of senior silks argue that antisemitism has reached a pointthat demands a federal royal commission with statutory powers andpublic transparency.
Theirletter cites arson attacks on synagogues and Jewish businesses,vandalism of Jewish MPs’ offices and widespread fear among Jewishstudents. A departmental review, they argue, lacks the independenceand authority required.
Richter,who defended Cardinal George Pell against sexual abuse allegations,gunman Julian Knight after the Hoddle Street massacre and Melbourneunderworld figure Mick Gatto, as well as tax offenders, does notdispute the facts the letter cites. What he disputes is the remedy.
Thatoutlook informs his resistance to calls for a royal commission intoantisemitism following the December 14 terrorist attack on theChanukah by the Sea event which left 15 dead. One gunman, SajidAkram, was shot dead at the scene. His son, Naveed Akram, has beencharged with 59 offences, including 15 murder charges and one ofterrorism.
Adual Israeli citizen who was raised Jewish but is now an avowedatheist, Richter has long resisted identity-based politics –including, he argues, when it enters the legal domain. Now 79, hesays he is neither a Zionist nor anti-Zionist.
Credit:
RobertRichter drew attention when he was representing the late CardinalGeorge Pell.JasonSouth
“Iam post-Zionist,” Richter, who joined a group of 500 JewishAustralians this year to condemn a proposal by US President DonaldTrump to forcibly transfer Gaza’s 2 million residents to Egyptand/or Jordan.
Bornin 1946 in the Kyrgyz Republic of the former Soviet Union, Richterhas lived a life shapedby displacement and scepticism of authority. Hisparents – Berek, a Polish Jew, and Sofia, a Ukrainian – met afterbeing displaced during World War II. As an infant, Richter travelledwith forged papers to Germany, where the family spent three years ina refugee camp before moving to Israel, one of the few places willingto accept them.
Whilehe says he would accept a royal commission if recommended by theRichardson review, he draws a firm line at any inquiry tasked withdefining antisemitism.
“Thatis the disputed arena,” Richter said.
Heis particularly critical of the InternationalHolocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA)definition of antisemitism, endorsed by the Albanese government onthe recommendation of special envoy Jillian Segal, and by 34 othercountries. Richter describes the definition as “polluted”,arguing it impermissibly restricts political speech and criticism ofIsrael.
Manydispute this, pointing to the fact the definition is explicit thatcriticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any othercountry cannot be regarded as antisemitic.
Richterargues if an inquiry were to be held, it should examine hate speechand discrimination holistically – across race, religion, sex andethnicity – rather than isolating antisemitism as a standalonecategory.
“Ifthe report from Richardson tells us something we don’t know whichis important and which must lead to a royal commission, then so beit,” he says.
Untilthen, one of Australia’s pre-eminent legal minds remains unmoved bythe consensus around him.
