UK Supremos flee Hong Kong’s top appeal court … Judicial independence in the hands of Australian retirees … Catching Collaery … Preposterous post-nominals … AAT gets a top-notch Callinan … Peace breaks out at Vic’s bar … Theodora reports 

UK Supreme Court president Lord Robert Reed and Lord Patrick Hodge have both bailed from the HKCFA citing the crushing impact of the national security law of 2020. Lord Reed said: 

“The judges of the Supreme Court cannot continue to sit in Hong Kong without appearing to endorse an administration which has departed from values of political freedom and freedom of expression.” 

Foreign Secretary Liz Truss supported then judges decision, saying it was “no longer tenable” for them to sit on the court as it would “risk legitimising oppression”. 

So why is it legitimate for retired Australian, New Zealand and Canadian judges to continue as non-permanent members of the HKCFA? 

From Australia, keeping alive the flame of judicial independence, we have Smiler Gleeson, William Montague Charles Gummow and Robert French. 

Spigsy Spigelman blazed the trial, getting off the court in 2020 after seven years in the saddle. 

Following the introduction of the national security law, Hong Kong’s independent media outlets have been closed down, editors and publishers jailed, there is no freedom of assembly, protests are banned and people are imprisoned infinitely ion spurious charges. 

Philip Bowring, an English Hong Kong resident, has been editor of the Far Eastern Economic Review and a columnist for the South China Morning Post. His wife Claudia Mo has been member of the HK Legislative Council, but has spent more than 12 months on remand in custody for breaching the national security law by participating in a primary election for the council. 

Bail was refused on the grounds she could “reoffend”. 

The Sydney Morning Herald reports decisions of the final court of appeal that show the untenable state of the rule of law. For instance, it was held national security was endangered by a speech therapist who conspired to publish “seditious children’s books”.  

Also, the court upheld a decision to give jail time to a pro-democracy MP, Fernando Cheung, who chanted slogans during a government meeting. It was held that parliamentary privilege did not apply to chanting in the legislative council. 

Smiler, the Frenchman and Montague Gummow say they are staying put because of the court’s commitment to “judicial independence”. 

French added that he believes the court has the ability to give effect to a commitment to independence. 

Obviously, Reed, Hodge and Spigs do not have that belief. 

China’s captive administrator Carrie Lam couldn’t see any connection between the national security law and the resignation of the sitting Supreme Court justices. She said: 

“We must vehemently refute any unfounded allegations that the judges’ resignations have anything to do with the introduction of the Hong Kong national security law or the exercise of freedom of speech and political freedom.” 

In the latest twist to a labyrinthine saga he is questioning whether the formal processes for the eavesdropping in the Timor Leste ministerial offices was properly authorised. 

The answer to that question would impact on the four-year rolling prosecution of Collaery and former ASIS operative, Witness K. 

If the bugging had not been conducted in accordance with the rules then it was an “illegal” operation, which has the distinct prospect of jeopardising the prosecution of Collaery. 

Of course, with Bunter Downer having ministerial carriage of the arrangements there has to be a strong prospect that there was a snafu in the works.  

It is unlikely that David Irvine, the ASIS boss, who requested the spying, will be of much assistance now that we have news of his death at age 75.  

Last month the ACT Supreme Court said that secret “court only” evidence can be used in the prosecution by the attorney general, Madam Cash, and that this cannot be disclosed to the defendant. 

Last October, the ACT court of appeal allowed other evidence to be heard in public. Chief Justice Helen Murrell said: 

“The court emphasised that the open hearing of criminal trials was important because it deterred political prosecutions, allowed the public to scrutinise the actions of prosecutors, and permitted the public to properly assess the conduct of the accused person.”

The government has sent that decision to the High Court. 

The Human Rights Law Centre has prepared a timeline of over 50 interlocutory hearings and more than a dozen judgments in the Collaery case.

There’s been follow-up correspondence concerning our report last week on Dicey Heydon and the campaign to confiscate his gongs.

The spokesmodel for Attorney General Mark Speakman couldn’t speak at all when asked could the government advise the governor to revoke his patent leather letters for Queen’s Counsel.

A learned reader advises that Dyson Heydon’s QC cannot be cancelled because he doesn’t have one. 

The correct thinking is that once someone becomes a judge, they cannot also be a QC. The late Jim Merralls QC pointed this out in an article for the Australian Bar Review. 

He argued that the trinket was extinguished when a person is appointed a judge because it is impossible to be one of HM’s judges and one of her counsel at the same time. 

The bauble doesn’t revive once a judge retires so, apparently, there are scores of ex-judges roaming around pretending to be QCs – when they’re not. 

Betty Battenberg is too polite to do anything about it. 

Presumably this distressing situation does not apply to judges who were Senior Counsel. 

Attorney General Madam Cash has announced the appointment of Fiona Meagher as the new president of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, with a federal court appointment thrown in by way of a cherry on top. 

Coincidentally Fiona is the daughter of Ian (Tubby) Callinan who in 2019 reviewed the tribunal and made recommendations. The government has yet to respond to his report. 

Justice Meagher has had a speedy rise up the greasy pole. Last year we reported that the then attorney general, Christian Porter, moved her up the tribunal’s rungs to become a deputy president and head of the division handling the national disability scheme. 

This is an unusual appointment by Madam Cash because Fiona Meagher’s colleagues say she is competent and well-regarded. 

We’re puzzled by Gareth Ward MP (Liberal, Kiama). Yes, Gareth is still a member of the NSW parliament after being charged with three counts of assault with an act of indecency, one count of sexual assault without consent and one count of common assault. 

Police allege Ward indecently assaulted a 17-year-old boy at Meroo Meadow, Shoalhaven in February 2013 and a 27-year-old man in Sydney in September 2015. 

The NSW premier Dom Pérignon wants Ward out of parliament, pronto – otherwise the government will move to have him expelled. So far nothing has happened. 

He has to defend the charges as a “private citizen” not as an MP. Ward says he supports the right of “genuine victims” to make allegations. For two years, up to March 23, 2021, he was the NSW Minister for Families, Communities and Disability Services. 

His parliamentary website says he’s a solicitor of the Supreme Court and a member of the Law Society. 

Indeed, in February the Sunday Smellograph reported that Ward was appearing before the CJ at common law, Robert Beech-Jones, arguing that local government councillors should not have to stand for reelection because of a “stuff up” by the NSW Electoral Commission. 

However, an inspection of the Law Society’s register of solicitors fails to disclose Gareth Ward’s name. 

We asked the MP about this and he said: 

“As per the privacy policy of the NSW Law Society, I asked that my details be removed from the society’s website.” 

He further explained: 

“Given that I’m a full time MP, I thought it unnecessary to add to any public confusion hence why my PC is listed on the parliamentary website as a qualification.” 

Does this make sense? He wants privacy from the Law Society, but not from state parliament.

And does the Law Society allow people to be “private solicitors”? We asked, but the media muffins have yet to come up with the answers.  

All decidedly peculiar. 

Great news from Vic’s Bar ‘n’ Grill. 

Bar boss Róisín Annesley reports the grill “is enjoying a productive working relationship with the LCA and its president”. 

Phew … Last year when president Blanden was in charge steamy emails were passing between the bar and the Law Council, with fulminations about misleading and selective information to members. 

Despite claims by Blanden that the LCA was gouging Vic’s members a massive $110 each (actually $78 this year), barristers decided that the Victorian Bar should be part of the national lawyers outfit.

Now the Law Council has gone along with the bar’s campaign to resist the Victorian government’s “poorly thought out” mandatory reporting regime – it’s not clear, but this could be a reference to recommendations originally flowing from the Royal Commission into Institutional Abuse. 

Last week’s bar newsletter from Róisín also pointed to the Melbourne Catholic Lawyers’ Association Lenten retreat, held on March 27, where Fr Paschal Corby OFM Conv. delivered a talk on the theme of “finding joy in these challenging times”.