The ashes of Dyson Heydon’s standing scattered far and wide … We’re ashamed … Tally of the catastrophe … Retreat to the club … No more blind eyes … Fresh inquiries and investigations rattle some nerves … Character, law, and judging … Ginger Snatch, an associate of judges, reports
Dicey looked completely crushed in that dreadful photo snapped by the Sun-Herald. Even his pooch had a hang-dog expression.
Meanwhile, important elements are ducking for cover. The Commonwealth Club, where he sought to lure members of staff and young lawyers to his room for champagne snifters, won’t answer questions.
Nor will Smiler Gleeson, who allegedly was told about Hayden’s harassment in 2005. And the law shop Speed and Stracey has pulled down the shutters after issuing an initial statement denying allegations of their client’s “predatory behaviour or breaches of the law” yet nonetheless offering apologies for any “inadvertent or unintended” offence.
Heydon himself takes succour with lunches and wine at The Australian Club with Francis Douglas QC. Mens’ clubs and Wildes Meadow are his retreats from a cruel world.
When High Court justice Lionel Murphy got into deep strife at least he had a cheer-squad of supporters who issued rallying calls attesting to his innocence and greatness.
Dicey has no public voice in his corner. Maybe his close friend Margaret Cunneen will come out in support or his political patrons, the Mad Monk and Little Winston Howard.
For all his smarts, Dyce is not a man capable of handling a public execution. He would not know where to start and maybe it’s also beyond the best spin merchants or crisis managers.
When The Sydney Morning Herald made allegations of sexual misconduct against actor Craig McLachlan, he went to The Sunday Telegraph, which published a patsy interview with a charming posed photo, during which he declared, “By God I will fight this”.
When The SMH was hot on the tail of the crook Eddie Obeid and his son Moses, they scurried to The Australian where their tale of woe and innocence was dutifully published.
This is the way people in a corner go on the offensive, yet it is difficult to contemplate Heydon snuggling down for an interview with a sympathetic hack.
Mark Speakman SC, the NSW attorney general, shows every indication that he will not let Heydon and sexual harassment slide into oblivion:
“The allegations against Mr Heydon are appalling,” he said, adding later:
“The full force of the law should be applied to those engaging in sexual misconduct …
Public confidence in our justice system requires that lawyers, including judges, hold themselves to the highest ethical standards, both in the practice of law and their conduct outside the practice of law.”
He has asked the head of his department, Michael Coutts-Trotter, to urgently review the way courts and tribunals handle allegations of sexual misconduct.
This will include the role of the state’s Judicial Commission and how it investigates complaints about judges, judicial staff and other court employees.
The AG indicated that the review will look at “reporting pathways” for tipstaves, associates and court staff to lodge complaints about judges without fear of retribution.
The selection, vetting and training of judges are also part of Coutts-Trotter’s brief.
Speakman has also asked his department for advice about Heydon’s letters patent and whether the Queen’s bauble can be confiscated. It’s understood he’s also asked the bar boss, Guv’nor Game, for his input.
Meanwhile, CJ Tom Bathurst has been on the case. Ten days after the High Court released its “we’re ashamed” statement, the NSW Supremes published a new policy on “inappropriate workplace conduct” – in which the words bullying and sexual harassment are prominent.
The policy extends to judges and their staff.
An external consultant has been engaged to be at the other end of a Supreme Court hotline to advise complainants of what to do. The identity of the external person has not been released outside the court itself.
On June 29, the SMH published an article, “I’m a sexually harassed judge’s associate, but at last I’m being heard”. The associate was unnamed and so too the judge for whom she worked.
Her story was chilling – with the judge talking to her about sex, making lewd comments, taking unsolicited photos of her, wanting her to wear a bikini, and planning interstate trips in which he suggested they share the same bed.
She spoke about this to the chief justice at the time, on the phone. He advised her to confront the judge, but he made no efforts to follow-up the complaint or to inquire about the welfare of the young associate.
When she did confront the judge about his harassment, the mood changed. His sexual harrying ceased and was replaced by verbal putdowns in open court.
Within a year of her associateship, she left the profession, disillusioned and her confidence shot. She says in the article that she reported her story to the current chief justice of the court where she worked and was told that there would be an external investigation into her case.
People who can read the tea-leaves about these allegations suggest that this judicial sex pest had been operating at the Darwin Supremes.
Anthony McGrath SC, a former mover and shaker on the NSW bar’s diversity and equality committee, says the “culture of silence and the quiet word” is no longer sufficient.
One story in the ether involves a suggestion there should be chaperones for men at legal gatherings, to ensure that they got home safely without harassing anyone.
It could be thought that a person with Heydon’s searing intellect would have got the message after numerous horrified women fled from his sleazy overtures.
One of his priapic pounces, recently reported, concerned Dr Alice Edwards, now the head of the Convention Against Torture Initiative in Geneva.
She was invited on a tour of the High Court, during which the champagne flowed in his chambers, mainly down Dyse’s throat. This was followed by a dinner at the Commonwealth Club and an invitation after for more drinkies in the judge’s room upstairs.
Edwards said she wanted to get a taxi and leave, adding that the judge “continued to insist he should come back with me in the taxi, because taxi drivers in Canberra were dangerous men”.
It was not always a story of repeated failure to charm his way into a woman’s bed. There is at least one extra-mural relationship within the legal profession that Heydon sustained. Maybe the champagne worked.
At the time of Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings amid the testimony from Christine Blasey Ford, 65 women who knew Trump’s nominee signed a statement claiming he was of good character.
Two thousand four hundred professors of law signed-up to a letter that said he was not a good pick for the court and he lacked the right temperament for the job.
Kavanaugh said it was “character assassination” by the Democrats, although there was not much character to assassinate. On the US Supreme Court sit two judges against whom serious allegations of sexual misconduct were levelled, before they were sworn in – Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas.
Of course, they denied the allegations and the complainants were publicly crucified – yet their presence on the court is a stain on the institution.
Heydon can hardly complain that it is the political lefties who have assassinated his character, particularly as the initial investigation was carried out under the auspices of the High Court itself.
Character is what is at stake. It’s an essential requirement for being a judge. Heydon might be rated as a stellar lawyer, but without character he’s not much of a judge.
Full collection of SMH and Age reports on the Dyson Heydon story
Justinian’s recent reports and analysis on the soup of the day: