South Australia magistrate locked-up after doing an Einfeld … Briefs told by SA bar president to keep quiet … Speaking out on sexual harassment and other unpleasantness found to be unprofessional … Appeal in the wings … Curtain rises on a new court of appeal 

A long-running corruption case crystallised this month – involving ex-magistrate Bob Harrap, former police prosecutor Abigail Foulkes, court clerk Melanie Freeman and solicitor Catherine Moyse – with Harrap being sentenced to 12 months porridge and Foulkes getting a conviction and a 12-months bond. 

Freeman was placed on a bond but avoided conviction, while solicitor Moyse was slapped with a $600 fine, and has to show cause why she should not lose her ticket. 

All had pleaded guilty to corruption-related charges following an investigation by South Australia’s ICAC earlier this year. 

Harrap bullied and pressured Foulkes and Freeman to hand over details of their driving licences so they could take the demerit points for his speeding offences. 

Madge Harrap’s guiding inspiration for the speeding offences must have been the former celebrity judge Marcus Einfeld, who tried to palm his demerits off onto deceased driver Teresa Brennan. 

“At the time, you were a senior serving police officer. You knew what you were doing was wrong and it constituted an offence,” Judge Paul Slattery told Foulkes at the sentencing.

Harrap manipulated a vulnerable Ms Freeman because she was resented by other staff at the Christies Beach Magistrates Court. She reported Harrap’s conduct to her superiors but no action was taken. 

Judge Slattery found the magistrate put considerable pressure on Freeman, claiming to have stuck “his neck out” to get her the job as a court clerk.  

Harrap had claimed that he needed to be able to drive because of one of his daughters had a disability, a claim that unravelled when his other daughter revealed he was over-egging his excuses. 

It was a factor that determined the former Madge would not do his time in home detention. 

She is another former squeeze of Madge Harrap and the daughter of corrupt SA drug squad detective Barry Moyse, who in 1988 was sentenced to 20 years in the slammer for supplying drugs he has seized as a police officer. 

Catherine Moyse was not au fait with driving convictions, so she asked Harrap to help prepare the appeal and for advice how she might best present the case. 

Whereupon, Harrap insisted that he should be the presiding judicial officer at the hearing and told her not to worry about any conflict of interest. 

She accepted this, telling the court she trusted his judgment. She was fined for conspiring with Harrap to pervert the course of justice.

Accompanying bar president Mark C.J. Hoffmann’s recent note to the rank ‘n’ file about new silks was a curious warning about members speaking out of turn, in public. 

“On another note, by reason of recent publicity concerning a SABA member I have received a number of enquiries and comments. 

I do not intend to comment on that matter specifically. I do, however, take this opportunity to remind all members of Rules 75 and 76 which state: 

75. A barrister must not publish or take steps towards the publication of any material concerning any proceedings …. [blah, blah, blah].” 

Whoever could he have in mind? Maybe it was to do with a profile of barrister Claire O’Connor SC, published a week earlier in The Advertiser. Incidentally, O’Connor had appeared for court clerk and Bob Harrap victim, Melanie Freeman. 

The newspaper profile, by Penelope Debelle, told of offensive remarks and attitudes dished out by male briefs to their female colleagues. 

“No offence,” he added with a smirk. 

In October 2016 O’Connor, after unsuccessfully running for president of the SA Law Society, posted on Facebook her thoughts about sexual harassment, discrimination in the profession, and the way silks and presidents of the Law Society had been appointed so as to perpetuate a dominance of establishment white males. 

She also mentioned in general terms the court-room abuse and harassment by a barrister, “who now sits on our District Court”. The post was deleted but not before it made its way into the Advertiser. 

Her remarks resulted in a law society complaint against her to Greg May, the Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner. 

May came up with a finding in June last year that the O’Connor’s comments amounted to unsatisfactory professional conduct due to their tendency to diminish public confidence in the legal profession and the judiciary – the sort of offence that you mind find upheld by a Peoples’ Local Court in China. 

O’Connor is appealing the findings with a hearing scheduled for April, with Julian Burnside QC as counsel. Another ground of appeal has been proposed dealing with her right to freedom of expression and that is likely to be heard in February. 

Claire O’Connor wrote to president Hoffman following his December 4 message to members about making public comments in relation to current proceedings. 

She pointed out that she is not covered by the relevant prohibition because in this situation she is a client. 

“I am not being my own barrister and have briefed an interstate silk who did not comment …” 

She thought that Hoffmann should have mentioned the bar policy on discrimination, bullying and harassment in his note to members, adding: 

“I am sure you are aware that the bar is a dangerous place for woman barristers. Research shows that women barristers are the most bullied and harassed of all women lawyers and research also shows that barristers are the perpetrators towards other women barristers and to also [sic] towards female solicitors.” 

This is particularly so during the Christmas period, “where woman are more at risk by those at the bar who are perpetrators and, who having been allowed, through a lifetime of having their conduct unchecked and/or swept under the carpet will continue to prey on us. 

A reminder that this conduct is not acceptable would be compelling coming from you, as president …” 

The same day as O’Connor was firing off to Hoffmann, the state attorney general Vickie Chapman unveiled her appointments to SA’s new court of appeal. 

The bar was delighted and on behalf of the troops Hoffers extended congratulations to the chosen few. 

The new court comprises Justices Trish Kelly as president, Justice David Lovell and Justice Sam Doyle. 

They join two others whose appointments to the CA had been announced earlier in the year – Mark Livesey QC in January and solicitor general Chris Bleby in May. 

According to Vickie the new court gets down to business on “January 1” – a curious commencement date when everyone else in the law trade has downed tools. 

One of our Torrenside field agents assesses the court’s talent as follows: 

Earlier this year, Procrustes reported that the new court is “popularly assumed to be a vengeance weapon in the feud between Chapman and the chief justice Chris Kourakis. 

There is a desperate need for more judges, but the AG insisted that she would not be filling any vacancies until her precious court of appeal legislation got through parliament.