Legal columnist HUGH SELBY, identifying a bumblebee, takes a flight of fancy around a real-life retelling of the tea party in Alice in Wonderland that is keeping the legal fraternity’s gossips in Sydney and beyond entertained.

I swear this is true. I was riding the hot summer eddies near St James Church, top of King Street, Sydney, enjoying dives on to pedestrians and aerial somersaults, when a violent suck of lawyer hot air dragged me right across the road and inside the NSW Supreme Court building. 

For those of you who failed to pay attention in primary school. I am not, repeat not the same as a honey bee. I hibernate underground and I can sting and survive – a trait that I might put to use if what I describe below is not fixed.

I made it into the protective cover of a horsehair wig and journeyed on the lifts to an upper floor. I left the cosy, curled horsehair (and its black gowned owner) behind and flew into a room in which I saw a most unusual assembly.

The top legal minds in the state were discussing what to do about the unseemly spectacle of claims, rejoinders and counter claims from judges and the NSW Director of Public Prosecutions about each others’ conduct.

The state’s Judicial Commission (that deals with complaints against judges and magistrates), the Legal Services Commissioner (an independent body that deals with complaints about lawyers) and the Bar Association (the barristers’ trade union) have all been drawn into what is best described as a real life retelling of the tea party in Alice in Wonderland.

The Murdoch press has been having a super time regaling its Sunday readers (November 17 and 24) with details, some of which are suggestively prurient, and therefore gossips’ fantasies come true. Who cares if this judge was, is, might become the partner or ex-partner of this other judge? “The Telegraph” knows the correct, money-making answer: most Sydneysiders.

For those few readers not well informed about the origins of this unedifying mess it began in 2023 with reports that some NSW judges were being critical of NSW DPP decisions to prosecute alleged sexual offence claims when the realistic prospects of conviction were zilch.

Murdoch’s premier masthead The Australian has been keen for some time to promote the notion that decisions to prosecute trampled upon men are being made by overzealous, unobjective persons who are too woke to distinguish the legit allegations from the “are you a deliberate liar, or just plain mad?”

The people that I saw and heard had correctly judged that the maintenance of public confidence in each and all of the judiciary, the DPP and her staff, and the complaints bodies plural required that the various actors withdraw their complaints, take a vow of silence on the issue, and get back to doing well the important jobs for which they are paid. The problem was how to get that result.

Reap what you sow

Sally Dowling SC, the NSW DPP, is the first woman to have the job in NSW. Victoria and Queensland got there a long time ago. 

One of the oddities of being a DPP is that the High Court held in the 1980s that a DPP decision to prosecute or not prosecute is not reviewable. 

It seems not to have occurred to Sally that the price of being protected from review is that you refrain from making noisy complaints about others. Why? Because it fails the pub test.

Did Sally have other options? Certainly. So much can be achieved by quiet, behind-doors diplomacy. The clash of “symbols” (sic) and the “fog of war” is not the only way.

Too late. Sally lobbed her complaints into the NSW Judicial Commission. Her complaints about a newly minted judge were upheld by a panel comprising the chief justice, a highly regarded judge of appeal, and an internationally renowned mathematician as the lay member.

Sally 1, Judges 0. Her complaint against a second judge was partially upheld: Sally 1.5, Judges 0.5. No one leaked that second decision to me so I know nothing of the reasons. 

What is happening within the Judicial Commission with respect to any other complaints by Sally is unknown: they move in mysterious ways and their decisions are not released to the public – a very odd result for a body that is supposedly about maintaining and enhancing public confidence in the courts.

Among the matters pending within the Judicial Commission is Sally’s complaint against a third judge, a woman. This judge ain’t lying down. She has retaliated by lodging a complaint against Sally with the Legal Services Commissioner and, more recently, with the NSW Bar Association (of which Sally is a member) alleging that Sally is, per the Sunday Telegraph’s report, “not a fit and proper person” to be a barrister.

Oh, what a tangled web they weave

Who hasn’t seen the insect that failed to heed the warning, got caught in the spider’s web, and is destined to be devoured? Even one of my young’uns failed to listen and I watched helplessly. The memory makes me shiver. 

These people have got caught in a web and forgotten where it starts and where it finishes. They need help to get out or they’ll be monstered.

When Alice fell down the rabbit hole she came across the Mad Hatter who explained that the Queen of Hearts ordered his beheading for “murdering time”. Though saved from that ending the Mad Hatter was forever stuck at 6 o’clock, drinking tea. 

The people I saw were also stuck in time, needing a way to reset the clock so that real progress, not the futility of nursing damaged feelings is the outcome.

Chief justice, get them all together, serve them afternoon tea, and then have them led to the promised land of enlightenment: complaints withdrawn, silence on these “tits and tats” and “let’s move forward”. 

You’ll know whom to ask to mediate: they will be highly regarded not just for their legal acumen and experience (in either prosecuting or judging or both), but their ability to listen, to inspire, to lead everyone to a result which though imperfect will be a big improvement on what is now (on the QT, I can even offer three names).

Hugh Selby, a former barrister, is the CityNews legal affairs commentator. His free podcasts on “Witness Essentials” and “Advocacy in court: preparation and performance” can be heard on the best known podcast sites.