Top End capers … NT judge says she was defamed by silk in an article in which she wasn’t named … Article said to be indefensible … Judge threatens to take it further … History of bad blood … Journalist complains about ripe language from barrister … Another first … Buffalo Bruce reports from Darwin 

Judges in pursuit of new ways to punish lawyers present novel issues for free speech, the right to dissent, the independence of briefs, let alone judicial imperviousness. 

Kelly was not named in the article, instead there were general references to judges. Lawrence describes the NT legal system as “not fit for purpose”. It has become “a depraved jailing machine consuming Aboriginal men, women and children at an ever-increasing rate”. 

“Most of the players in this theatre of the absurd – Supreme Court justices, local court judges, and lawyers – are just going through the motions. Most of them have either become inured to the process or are unaware of any proper alternative to its absurdity and inadequacy. The criminal courts now operate like clearing houses rather than vehicles for due process. 

Inadequate resources, inadequate time, inadequate experience, inadequate training and supervision, inadequate, inadequate. Inadequate. This has been one of the factors that have led to more, and longer, Aboriginal imprisonment. The legal profession has presented no real opposition to this incremental slide and is now effectively muted, if not signed up to this mediocrity.” 

You get the drift. 

On March 17, Lawrence appeared before Kelly in a case called The Queen v Renae Bretherton. 

Within moments of the proceedings commencing, Justice Kelly said: 

Other finely honed defamation gurus are not in agreement with this unknown famous silken expert who advised Kelly. Indications are that Lawrence has several defences available for his article.

A judge seeking damages for an article calling out the problems in the criminal justice system would take the cake with our “unbalanced” defamation laws. 

“Unbalanced” is the word Christian Porter once used to describe the Defamation Act. 

Lawrence and Kelly have a bit of history. In early 2020, the barrister asked Kelly to recuse herself from hearing the rape trial of former NT assistant police commissioner Peter Bravos. 

He said the judge had a personal relationship with a key witness in the case, a member of the Darwin bar, Georgia McMaster. 

She said that a jury would be deciding the verdict in the Bravos case, not the trial judge. 

Subsequently, as a matter of “convenience” the court brought in ACT Supremo John Burns as the trial judge. Bravos was acquitted in August 2020. 

This month the Council of the NT Law Society dismissed a complaint by journalist Craig Dunlop that Lawrence swore at him on the steps of parliament house. 

A journalist complaining about expletives from a lawyer is another rare and interesting challenge to the natural order of things. 

A tape of the exchange found Lawrence berating the hack: 

“You’ve never done a day’s work in your life you f***ing piece of shit, f*** off, go on, f*** off … I’m a mad man, I’m a passionate Scot, I’m a hysterical woman …” 

Lawrence claimed that Dunlop’s reporting on youth offending had “caused so much damage in the Aboriginal community and with youth”. 

He told the Law Society that the hack has provoked the outburst outside parliament by telling the silk that his “breath stinks” and calling him a “shit lawyer”. 

The Law Society found that the ripe language was insufficiently connected with Lawrence’s practice as a lawyer to justify a finding of disgraceful or dishonourable conduct.