The Dyson Heydon allegations produced a torrent of new policies governing behaviour and manners … Hands off … Safer workplaces … No complaints to the wallopers … No fresh High Court investigations … Pathways for survivors … Help with the drinks … Still a hot lunch at The Australian Club … Janek Drevikovsky reports 

Faint retching noises have been heard Australia-wide. At the same time, a great cry has gone up – from within the legal caper – about the need to do something. 

Sexual harassment is a scourge. Workplaces must be made safer, for women in particular. 

Quietly, there have even been mutterings about a police investigation into Dyson’s deeds. 

So where has all this shouting got us?

In late June, the ACT Director of Public Prosecutions, Shane Drumgold SC, referred Heydon’s file to ACT Policing, the Canberra branch of the AFP. 

He directed them to media reports about the allegations — no doubt including Vivienne Thom’ finding that, while a High Court judge, Heydon sexually harassed six of his associates. 

A spokesperson for ACT Policing told Justinian that ACT Policing “encourages members of the public to report any form of assault committed against them”. 

 Shane Drumgold confirmed it was all quiet on the Heydon front: 

 “Short answer is I have nothing to report at this stage.” 

For his part, Heydon continues to deny the allegations “emphatically”, in statements made by his lawyers Speed and Stracey.

“Any allegation of predatory behaviour or breaches of the law is categorically denied.”

In late June, the AFR reported that the High Court had launched a “new investigation” into harassment of associates. 

Over 100 former support staff had been contacted, the Fin said, and further interviews with Dr Thom had commenced. 

But the court says  there is no second-round inquiry. When asked whether new interviews were afoot, a High Court spokesman replied “No”.  

Second investigation or no, the court hasn’t exactly been resting on its laurels.  

When announcing the findings against Heydon, Chief Justice Susan Kiefel said she was “ashamed this could have happened at the High Court of Australia”. 

She also said the court had adopted all recommendations made by Thom as part of her report. 

One of the recommendations was to draft an HR policy specifically for judicial support staff, including associates. A High Court spokesman confirmed that policy has now been distributed to all chambers. 

Under the policy, the court’s senior registrar will function as a contact-person for support staff. The spokesperson On High added: 

“All associates have the opportunity to discuss any matter with the senior registrar during their time at the Court. And each associate as their term finishes is offered the opportunity for a discussion with the chief executive and principal registrar.”

The policy also clarifies that associates are not required to join in social functions and that the job’s confidentiality requirements don’t extend to workplace problems. 

On July 2, barely a week after Heydon’s fall from grace, the NSW Supreme Court put in place its own updated workplace policy. 

The new policy commits the Supreme Court to “broadly” follow the recommendations implemented by the High Court in response to Dr Thom’s report.

According to a spokesperson, the policy applies “to all aspects of unacceptable workplace conduct; discrimination, bullying, harassment, sexual harassment, victimisation and vilification”. 

NSW Chief Justice Tom Bathurst described all these behaviours as “abhorrent and unacceptable”. 

The new policy appoints an “external consultant” who can receive complaints on a dedicated hotline. Complaints can be addressed informally or with a formal investigation. 

On July 6, the NSW District Court and Dust Disease Tribunal also adopted a revamped HR policy. 

A similar raft of behaviours is in the firing line.  Special stress is laid on sexual harassment, which gets an exhaustive definition and a list of 13 examples, including: 

Under the policy, associates or tipstaves can complain to the chief judge or to the judicial support officer. 

The policy also clarifies that judicial staff are not required to attend social functions with their judges – although they may have to help by “serving food and beverages, and cleaning up”. 

The Federal Court would not say whether it has introduced a new policy, but a spokesman said that bullying and harassment training were a “top priority”.

“A range of initiatives have been in place for many years but have been promoted more rigorously since 2018.”

The professional bodies have also stepped up to the plate. 

In July, the Law Council of Australia held a national roundtable on harassment within the profession. 

Its recommendations included an “urgent amendment” to extend the Sex Discrimination Act’s prohibition on harassment to “all areas of life”; the establishment of a Federal Judicial Commission; and “cultural change” in the legal profession. 

Law Council President Pauline Wright said her organisation was in the process of consulting with the state and territory professional bodies, aiming at a “national action plan” on combating harassment. 

Similar reviews are underway at the state and territory guilds. The Victorian bar expects to release updated versions of its conduct policies within the next few weeks. 

“Our policies are designed to provide a clear path to report sexual misconduct,” Vic bar CEO Katherine Lorenz said. 

“They will be accompanied by an education campaign so that all barristers understand and can identify instances of sexual harassment, and have clear, individual responsibility, to call it out, and stamp it out.”

Several bodies upped their harassment response even before the allegations against Heydon came to light. 

NSW Law Society President Richard Harvey said his organisation had for years been hosting seminars, producing podcasts and publishing articles about ending harassment. 

The body also has a charter for advancing women’s careers and is not shy about referring sexually delinquent solicitors to the OLSC, Mr Harvey said. 

In Victoria, the Legal Services Board conducted a “profession-wide” survey into workplace harassment last year. 

That survey found that “many workplaces” lack appropriate ways to report sexual harassment and very few offer harassment training. 

“It’s clear that formal reporting mechanisms alone cannot stop harassment,” Legal Services Board CEO Fiona McLeay said. 

“As a profession, we need to address the underlying cultural issues that allow sexual harassment to go unchecked. This will require significant commitment and leadership across the profession.”

Meanwhile, Dyson’s long scroll of gongs and bells has been cut down to size. 

After the allegations appeared, his brass nameplate was summarily chiselled off the door at Eight Selborne, where he’d had rooms since 1979. 

Soon after came the news that he had not renewed his barrister’s ticket – and all mentions of the silk were expunged from the NSW Bar Association’s website. 

The ignominies do not stop there. In 2016, Oxford University, Heydon’s alma mater, refused to renew the former judge’s contract as visiting professor, after receiving complaints from students.

And jumping before he could be pushed, Heydon resigned his honorary fellowship at Oxford’s Keble College, where he first began tutoring while a Rhodes scholar in the ’60s. 

After this great offloading of bells, what’s left to his ex-Honour? He is still Mr Heydon AC – Companion of the Order of Australia and still he’s spotted lunching at Sydney’s Australian Club, where his membership is intact.  

Janek Drevikovsky’s reporting for Justinian is supported by
the Judith Neilson Institute for Journalism & Ideas