“An interested reader might wonder if the NSW Chief Justice is fit for the role. Fear not, once you do what Ms Albrechtsen never thought you would, namely, pay attention to what he said last week, that thought will be but a memory,” writes legal columnist HUGH SELBY.

Why does it matter to Canberrans if well-known columnist for The Australian Janet Albrechtsen attacks the NSW Chief Justice in the current weekend edition under the headline “Judicial neutrality trumps Bell’s political alarm”?

Ms Albrechtsen is a clever writer, being persuasive and entertaining. She does not hide her political allegiances, nor her “articles of faith”, among which “freedom of expression” is always to the fore.

But that is not the sum of Ms Albrechten’s writing skills, and it is other attributes that required me to put aside a quiet Saturday afternoon of reading and pen this response to her article.

Headlines are not devised by authors, but by others in the publisher’s team. The Australian’s headline points to Chief Andrew Justice Bell making political points at the expense of the neutrality expected of him and all judicial officers.

The headline text reasonably reflects the content and tone of the Albrechtsen article. It could have been, but wasn’t, followed by a sub headline such as “freedom of expression above all”, or “My views on anti-semitism are in keeping with free speech, but Bell’s are not”.

You can find the whole article here and I urge readers of this piece to read it carefully.

For those that don’t, what she chose to write about the NSW Chief Justice included, inter alia:

• “The judge said some silly things about Trump, Musk and Zuckerberg’s Meta. He made ill-conceived comments about free speech, too”; 

• “When judges wade into political controversies, they usually make a hash of it”; 

• “We can live with self-indulgent judges. What’s more problematic is when judges join policy and political fights they have no business being in”;

• “Bell’s eagerness to tell the world he favours speech control wouldn’t matter if he were Jo Citizen”;

• “Bell is right that there are reasons to worry about the rule of the law and the state of our democracy. But his obsession with politics appeared to get in the way of exploring legal issues closer to home”.

By now you, as an interested reader, should be concerned about the serious shortcomings of the NSW Chief Justice, sufficient to make you wonder if he is fit for the role.

Fear not, those thoughts will be but memories once you do that which Ms Albrechtsen never thought you would do, namely, pay attention to what he said last week.

Speeches given by judicial officers are often uploaded to court websites. The Chief Justice’s speech this week at a NSW Law Society dinner was titled, “Present and future challenges to the rule of law and for the legal profession”. You can find it here. 

As would be expected of a dinner address it is not a black letter law discussion, but a series of pertinent observations about our current situation, both domestically and abroad. 

There is, for example, a detailed commentary on how much law students are being charged for their professional practical training (PLT), why those charges are unacceptable, and how they could be substantially lower. There is also to be a survey of practitioners about how to improve the Practical Legal Training that law graduates must endure before being allowed to work as lawyers. At long last!

There is also a discussion of the pardons recently granted by both the outgoing and the incoming US Presidents, with particular attention to the case of one Ulbricht. Do take the time to read the account from paragraphs 27 to 36. Having done that, have a second look at the Emperor Donnie’s assertion, quoted in paragraph 31, that those who worked to convict Ulbricht were scum.

Albrechtsen’s anti-Bell sentiments are rebutted by his words. I give some examples here, but I urge readers to take the few minutes to read his address:

• “In this country, all individuals, of whatever background or sets of beliefs, should be able to live and go about their daily business in a society free from the promotion and perpetuation of religious, racial or ethnic hatred.” [para 7] ;

• “Freedom from fear is a cardinal element of a liberal democracy as is the freedom to practice or indeed not to practice a religion. Australia should be a beacon of tolerance and decency with our proudly diverse community built on principles of mutual respect for each other and for the operation of the rule of law which undergirds the safe and peaceful existence and functioning of our society.” [para 8];

• “…free speech is not an absolute value, just as principles of liberty do not permit or justify physical attacks on other people (still less law enforcement officers) or the violation and desecration of public or private property.”[para 11]; and,

• “Meta’s abandonment of fact checking, a position which could in part be attributed to intimidation, including threats to have its chief executive arrested, as well as to basic commercial self-interest unshackled from previously expressed concerns about integrity of information, will only contribute to the flourishing of misinformation and disinformation, with consequences of the kind I have highlighted.” [para 15]

I asked, “Why does it matter?” It matters because journalism requires transparency, accuracy, and integrity. That’s why.

Hugh Selby, a former barrister, is the CityNews legal columnist.