In a fiery letter addressed to the NSW Bar, Curtain suggested that the process was unfair, secretive and nepotistic. For those who don’t remember, here are the choice passages (the letter can be read in full here):
The Bar Council has been asleep at the wheel on this issue for some years now, largely ignoring the general dissatisfaction the Bar has with the Protocol and vesting absolute power in silk selection committees without any oversight and relying (in a formal fashion) solely on such information as committee members provide (if any) regarding problems with the Protocol. We, the members of the Bar (including myself), must also take some responsibility for the present state of affairs having stood silently by, privately complaining about the Protocol but failing to take any steps to improve it.
… On any view, the decision-making conducted under the NSW system is secretive, non-transparent, non-independent, is open to invalid voting (and invalid voting does occur) and the acceptance of false accusations. Further, the administration of the Protocol (by silk election committees) is not the subject of any oversight and not, at least not expressly, bound by any substantive rules of fairness or natural justice. In the respects mentioned above, the Protocol embodies values anathema to the Bar’s fundamental values, and opens the Bar to accusations of hypocrisy.
Well, after being denied entry into the lofty halls of the SC club in 2006, 2007 and 2008, it seems Mr Curtin has now himself been appointed. But were any of his suggestions finally implemented?
Keith Mason, an independent member of the panel, delivered these somewhat entertaining remarks on the new appointments process:
The number and names of the 128 applicants became public knowledge very early on
the piece through the usual channels for disseminating gossip in Phillip Street, “the
street of tongues”. …Some of the consultees appeared comparatively generous (even fulsome) in the number of their YES or NO responses; others parsimonious. Some consultees when contacted, qualified or modified their written response in significant ways. For example, when approached for further and better particulars, some indicated that their “PE NOT YET“ meant “Definitely not, but I was being polite!”. Others supplemented their responses with details or with statements ranking or comparing the several persons whose claims they had addressed.
The consultees were specifically asked to disregard rumour and gossip. The Committee approached its task in similar manner.
Sounds like a step in the right direction. Here, on the other hand, is where all NSW barristers should report their rumour and gossip…
Loading...
