Mystery of the kiddie court tours … School students’ exposure to dangerous notions … Trump-loving academic’s batty predictions … Magic Circle’s fee spree … Toast of the town … Theodora reports 

Before the plague sidelined the traditional organising principles of society, the paleo-conservative outfit known as Speed & Stracey’s “Rule of Law Institute” was showing school children around the courts. 

Even better, the institute had worked out a way to monetise the tours, slugging the students for a fee. 

Paul Lynch, the shadow attorney general in New South Wales, has been asking his counterpart Mark Speakman SC about these tours and what is going on. 

The questions on notice kept drawing a blank. Assisted by the research resources of his department, the AG said he had no knowledge of non-government tours of the courts: 

Then on October 27 there arrived a rather confusing correction: 

In other words, there are arrangements in place with the Rule of Lawyers Institute, but the excursions are suspended due to the pandemic. 

There has been a follow-up question from the shadow AG: 

We can assist with this answer, because in February 2018, Justinian reported that the Judicial Commission had climbed into bed with the Rule of Lawyers Institute sending out an all points alert to judges and magistrates to take part in Speed & Stracey’s court tours. 

In its message, the commission advised the judicial officers that the Rule of Law Institute “is an independent, politically non-partisan, not-for-profit body formed to uphold the rule of law”. 

The poor school students would also be given lectures by the institute’s “education staff”. 

It’s only to be hoped that Rule of Lawyers vice-president Chris (The Tamil) Merritt doesn’t advise the pupils about some of his pet theories – such as, the courts should admit confessions made under duress. 

Even if jurors reject these tainted confessions, the accused nonetheless should be locked-up – according to The Tamil. 

Among other operations, Speed & Stracey has run astroturf lobbing outfits, while its “institutes” have pushed an anti-regulatory agenda that suits its corporate and tax clients. 

Most recently it has been calling for a federal government royal commission into the Victoria’s Covid-19 hotel quarantine program. It wants a good public thrashing of Dan Andrews and his fellow travellers.  

The prof told the Australian Institute of International Affairs that he was predicting a Trump win. He tipped the same in 2016 and “I’m more confident now than I was back then”. 

In the process, the Banana Bending academic lost his $400 SportsBet on a Trump victory. 

He also claimed the Black Lives Matter demonstrations “are hurting the Democrats and they know it”. 

In his view, the Republican National Convention was a treat, significantly because there were no “political elites” on stage. 

Should Trump get around 15 percent of the black vote, “it would be hard to see how the Democrats can win”. 

In a cockeyed way he was right about that, because according to various surveys reported by the Financial Times, Biden got between 87 and 90 percent of the black vote and Trump didn’t win. 

“In some ways,” Allan wrote, Trump is “a flawed human being – crass, vulgar, a braggart”. At one point he thought he wouldn’t invite him to dinner – but he’s changed his mind on that. 

“I’d be honoured to have him to dinner. I respect his toughness under sustained onslaught.” 

Which means he’s forgotten about Trump’s chronic lying, crookedness, tax avoidance, divisiveness, perversion of the rule of law and industrial scale sexual assaults. 

It would be nice if occasionally a far-right academic had a few clues. 

At least 37 lawyers for five different defendant-groups attended the six-hour application, which was brought before the English Competition Tribunal by truck company Ryder. 

Ryder alleges that rivals MAN SE, Daimler, DAF, Ivesco and Volvo/Renault are guilty of 14 years of cabal conduct – in violation of EU law. 

The disclosure hearing, a detour in a sprawling piece of litigation, ended up going the defendants’ way, with costs awarded against Ryder. 

The magic circle did what the magic circle does best and sent through the bills: 

Each firm brought along at least two barristers, accompanied by a gaggle of solicitors, featuring at least one partner. 

The partners seem to have charged around the £600 an hour mark, with lower rates for associates and paralegals. 

Meanwhile, Slaughter and May spent a full 28 hours “reviewing” a 10-page skeleton argument written by counsel. 

And Travers Smith said it took 71 hours just to bundle hardcopy documents ahead of the hearing. 

The complainant challenged these amounts, saying they were unreasonable and disproportionate. 

Sir Peter Roth of the Competition Tribunal for the most part agreed, saying the figures were an “enormous sum” for resisting an application of this kind. 

He reduced each firm’s payout to between £130,000 and £160,000, about £65,000 of which was to go towards counsel’s fees. 

Ryder’s final bill was £740,000 — still “an exceptionally high sum for a disclosure application that lasted only one day”, his Honour said. 

It is biting, chunky, perfectly set with satisfying tones of grapefruit, lemon, mandarin and orange. 

Prominent judges and other leading lights of the law caper have been smearing it on their morning toast. Some even have dobbed it on scones for afternoon tea in chambers along the Street of Tongues. 

As in past years, Wendler dedicates his marmalade to Sir Anthony Mason, who before his time on the High Court was a jams and preserves judge at Sydney’s Royal Easter Show.