“What started out as a ‘let’s share some thoughts and impressions’ interview by our Chief Justice Lucy McCallum, has descended into farce land,” writes legal columnist HUGH SELBY, who channels the girl with the kaleidoscope eyes.

To the legendary John and Paul she was the girl with the kaleidoscope eyes.

Do you remember the lyrics? This week you should: not just for their simple delight, but their healing value.

If you have been following media coverage since May 25 in “The Canberra Times”, “The Australian” and “Pearls and Irritations” then you will be aware that what started out as a “let’s share some thoughts and impressions” interview (CT May 25) by our Chief Justice Lucy McCallum, has descended into farce land.

But first, let’s enjoy:

Newspaper taxis appear on the shore
Waiting to take you away
Climb in the back with your head in the clouds
And you’re gone

Lucy in the sky with diamonds
Lucy in the sky with diamonds
Lucy in the sky with diamonds
Ah

I doubt these sentiments were front of mind for the author of the closing lines of the editorial commentary in one well known mainstream media – The Australian, June 4: “Justice McCallum’s comments [about aspects of sexual assault trials] are not helpful and paint an unfortunate picture of a judiciary out of touch not only with the reasonable person but with the foundations of the law itself.”

Really? That picture painted by a media scare monger is a scary fantasy. It is built upon an earlier article (June 2) that repeated ill-informed claims, and both mis-stated and skewed “quotations”, to create an illusion of “reliable reporting”, an illusion that disappears so soon as one reads the Chief Justice’s announcement (on May28) of a proposed new approach to managing sexual assault cases in the ACT Supreme Court. 

It seems that two articles – one after the other, and only one of which can be sourced to the Chief Justice – have been interwoven with unfortunate results for accuracy, but a real boon to those who get their kicks from believing that their “values” are under real or imagined attack.

Both intellectually, and from career experience, she knows rather more about “the foundations of law” than we scribblers. She has reached her present position on merit, nothing more and nothing less.

As for being in touch with reasonable and unreasonable people she is socially adept, seen and heard to listen to others, and – as her recent comments show – alive to current issues and the need for the legal system, and all its servants (including her), to adapt to changing needs. 

Whether one agrees or not with her “out of court” opinions, we should be grateful that we have a chief justice who is both seen and heard, the more so as her actual remarks (as distinct from those wrongly attributed to her) are informative and worthy of discussion. 

That discussion is important, especially as the Australian Law Reform Commission is now inquiring into what needs to change in our response to claims of unwanted sexual conduct.

When announcing a likely new approach to pre- trial management of sexual assault cases the chief justice limited her remarks to ensuring a fair trial, the need to reduce the time between the charge and coming to trial, and how complainants could misunderstand the application of fundamental principles in our criminal justice system.

As an aspect of a fair trial she explicitly acknowledged the need for the defence to be able to test the evidence of complainants by cross-examination. As she said: “That’s what a trial is. It’s a trial of the evidence”. 

Our evidence law specifically refers to a trial judge stopping questions that are, for example, misleading, offensive or humiliating. She referred to that power and commented – presumably from her experience as an advocate and judge – that such stopping wasn’t occurring as often as it should. That comment is not an attack upon a fair trial. It’s the opposite – seeking to ensure that it’s a fair trial for everyone.

Let us return to the positive pen picture of our chief justice created by a “Canberra Times” writer just 10 days ago. She wants to see everyone, including jurors, better informed about the obstacles faced by truthful complainants who are so brave, or so foolhardy (my words, not hers) as to follow the path from complaint to trial. 

She shared her commitment to empowering our indigenous fellow citizens, and encouraged people to read what is said at sentencing hearings (this can be found on the Supreme Court webpage).

We can smile, even grin, that she hopes to see courtrooms that are less stuffy, less formal, but where there is ”nerdy intellectual excellence”.

It is claimed that the non-nerd John Lennon explained the song lyrics as inspired by a drawing that his three-year-old son had created and brought home from school. The drawing was of his friend Lucy who was floating in the sky surrounded by sparkling jewels and diamonds.

That’s a special bit of magic, understandable by any of us, nerds or not, and a wonderful antidote to the recent much ado about nothing.

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