Australia’s Judiciary's Sacred Duty Betrayed

When judicial bias replaces impartiality, trust crumbles, and democracy teeters. Australia’s judiciary now faces this risk, threatening national stability and the very integrity of the rule of law.

"With a sly peek beneath her blindfold, Lady Justice tips the scales, shifting the balance from justice to judicious deceit."

What happens when the institution we depend on to guard truth and justice begins to protect itself instead? When a judiciary no longer seems impartial, it risks a swift, dangerous descent from guardian of law to enabler of power—a collapse that has proven devastating throughout history. Chief Justice Debra Mortimer’s recent dismissal of the complaint against Justice Helen Rofe is a turning point that threatens to erode the trust Australians place in their highest courts. Has the Federal Court abandoned its commitment to transparency and public accountability, choosing instead to protect its own ranks at the expense of justice?

In any democracy, the judiciary is a pillar of stability. Without trust in its impartiality, society teeters, vulnerable to unrest, disillusionment, and even outright collapse. History warns us that when courts forsake their duty, the price is high. From the Roman Republic’s demise to Stalinist purges, compromised judiciaries have propelled societies into chaos. Australia cannot afford to follow this path, yet recent decisions from the Federal Court disturbingly echo the tactics of biased, politicized courts in authoritarian regimes.

The Judiciary as Guardian of Justice—Or Guardian of Itself?

The judiciary exists not only to interpret the law but to be perceived by the people as an impartial arbiter of justice. Trust in this institution isn’t just an expectation—it’s a necessity. When Chief Justice Mortimer reframed the complaint against Justice Rofe as a mere question of procedural bias, she sidestepped the deeper ethical concerns raised by Rofe’s undisclosed ties to Pfizer, a company central to one of the most consequential issues of our time: the COVID-19 vaccine rollout. Is it acceptable for a judge to conceal affiliations with major players in a case before her? Would any citizen believe this was impartial?

Mortimer’s focus on procedural technicalities over transparent disclosure dismissed these pressing questions. Her reasoning—that Rofe’s past with Pfizer was simply part of her career as a barrister—ignores the public’s legitimate concerns about the integrity of decisions involving such high-stakes issues. This deliberate reframing suggests a judiciary concerned not with public trust, but with protecting its own.

The Peril of Judicial Bias

If Mortimer’s decision feels like an insult to public intelligence, it’s because it echoes historical moments where courts aligned themselves with power instead of truth. When British judges in the American colonies became enforcers of the Crown, public trust evaporated, fuelling the revolutionary fervour that would lead to independence. Similarly, under Stalin’s regime, Soviet courts served as instruments of political purges, perpetuating fear and repression. Citizens came to see the judiciary not as a guardian of rights, but as a weapon wielded by the powerful against the weak. Do we now risk heading down a similar road?

The erosion of trust in the judiciary is a slippery slope. In nations like Zimbabwe and Venezuela, judiciaries aligned with government interests, using courts to silence dissent and enforce oppressive policies. The consequences were dire: economic chaos, social fragmentation, and a judiciary that was neither trusted nor respected. Once public faith in a judicial system collapses, it rarely recovers without profound reform—and sometimes, not at all.

Why Judicial Impartiality Matters

A judiciary that isn’t seen as impartial is a ticking time bomb. When people believe the courts are biased, they lose hope in lawful resolution and turn to alternative, often violent means of seeking justice. The public’s loss of faith in the judiciary drives instability and divides society, pitting citizens against institutions meant to serve them. Mortimer’s dismissal of the complaint against Rofe embodies a troubling detachment from these principles. The reasonable observer—the public—expects transparency, yet Mortimer’s legalistic justifications serve only to obscure the truth. Does the Federal Court truly believe the people will accept rulings that seem to cater more to internal allegiances than to the nation’s interests?

Mortimer’s approach minimizes the importance of accountability mechanisms that are crucial to judicial integrity. Transparency, independence from influence, and equal application of the law—these pillars hold up the judiciary. If they crumble, so does the public’s belief that judges serve justice, not themselves.

The Judiciary’s Ethical Obligations Are Non-Negotiable

The legal system cannot operate without public confidence, yet Mortimer’s dismissal signaled a disregard for ethical transparency. When she reframed the complaint as mere procedural bias, Mortimer conveniently sidestepped questions about the reasonable observer’s expectation of disclosure. This omission strikes at the core of judicial ethics. Every citizen has a right to expect that judges will disclose any relationship that could impact their impartiality. By dismissing this expectation as unworthy of “serious consideration,” Mortimer seems to believe that the court is above public accountability.

And what about the Constitution’s mandate? Section 72(ii) empowers Parliament to oversee judicial conduct, yet Mortimer reframed the issue as an internal matter of procedural jurisdiction, effectively shutting down external oversight. Does the judiciary intend to operate in a vacuum, immune from the standards and expectations upon which a democratic system relies?

The Cost of a Judiciary That Protects Its Own

Mortimer’s decision not only fails to hold Justice Rofe accountable but risks destroying public confidence in the court system itself. Without trust, there can be no fair or functioning judicial system. How long will Australians continue to respect a judiciary that prioritizes self-preservation over ethical duty? Can we even call it justice when one judge shields another from scrutiny, turning a blind eye to conflicts of interest that the public deems crucial to fair decision-making?

This decision forces us to confront a painful truth: the Federal Court’s priorities seem increasingly at odds with the nation’s expectations. The stakes are simply too high for this to go unchallenged. Every ruling like Mortimer’s, every technical justification that glosses over ethical concerns, only widens the chasm between the judiciary and the people it serves.

Reclaiming the Judiciary’s Sacred Duty

The judiciary’s role as the guardian of justice is a sacred duty—a duty to ensure that justice is done, and seen to be done. When courts cease to honour this obligation, they cease to be true courts of justice. Mortimer’s ruling has raised troubling questions about whether Australia’s Federal Court is still committed to these values. Have they forgotten that their authority relies on public trust, and that trust, once lost, is rarely restored?

If the judiciary refuses to uphold transparency, if it continues to shield its members from accountability, it risks becoming little more than an arm of government power—a transformation with devastating consequences for Australia’s democracy. The Federal Court stands at a crossroads: it can either return to the principles of integrity and impartiality or continue down a path that leads to public alienation, mistrust, and, ultimately, instability.

Judges must remember that every decision either strengthens or erodes the public’s faith in the legal system. Without a fair and impartial judiciary, there can be no justice, no stability, and no lasting trust in the rule of law. For Australia, this is more than a legal issue—it’s a matter of national security. The question is not if the judiciary can uphold these values, but if it will—for without them, the very foundation of society hangs in the balance.

For more information about this travesty, link to Julian Gillespie’s Substack here.

---

Footnote:

The Perils of a Judiciary That Fails in Its Duty

Throughout history, societies that allow the judiciary to fall into corruption, bias, or governmental subservience face significant and often irreversible consequences. When the judiciary no longer acts as an impartial guardian of justice, the very fabric of society begins to unravel. A compromised judicial system can breed public mistrust, erode the rule of law, incite civil unrest, and weaken the democratic principles upon which stable societies are built. The following historical examples underscore how the loss of trust in judicial integrity has led to societal collapse, political turmoil, and sometimes violent rebellion. These examples stand as warnings of what can occur when a judiciary fails to uphold its duty at the highest level:

1.     The Fall of the Roman Republic (1st Century BCE): Corruption and manipulation of the judiciary by powerful elites undermined public trust, leading to the collapse of the Roman Republic and the establishment of an autocratic Empire. Judicial corruption fed civil unrest, weakening democratic governance and paving the way for a dictatorship under Augustus.

2.     The American Revolution (1775–1783): Colonial courts, seen as enforcers of oppressive British laws, contributed to widespread unrest, culminating in a revolution that severed colonial ties with Britain. Distrust in colonial courts fuelled revolutionary fervour, ultimately leading to independence from British rule.

3.     The Nuremberg Laws in Nazi Germany (1935–1945): German courts enforced racial laws under Nazi rule, facilitating human rights abuses and moral degradation on a massive scale, with devastating consequences for German society and Europe. The judiciary's support for Nazi policies enabled atrocities that culminated in the Holocaust.

4.     The Great Purges in the Soviet Union (1936–1938): Stalin’s regime used the judiciary to conduct show trials, eliminating political opponents and creating an atmosphere of fear and societal disintegration. The judiciary's complicity in Stalin's purges led to mass executions and societal mistrust that stifled free expression for decades.

5.     Apartheid in South Africa (1948–1994): South African courts upheld racial segregation laws, fuelling intense resistance and civil unrest, eventually forcing a reformation of the government and legal system. Judicial endorsement of apartheid policies institutionalized racism, leading to decades of violence and resistance.

6.     Northern Ireland’s Troubles and Judiciary (1960s–1998): The judiciary’s perceived bias deepened distrust between communities, intensifying violence during Northern Ireland’s Troubles. Judicial bias fuelled mistrust that prolonged the sectarian conflict, resulting in decades of bloodshed.

7.     Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe (1980s–2000s): Mugabe’s regime manipulated the judiciary to suppress opposition, leading to economic collapse, international isolation, and widespread social distress. The judiciary's alignment with Mugabe undermined rule of law, contributing to Zimbabwe’s economic and social breakdown.

8.     The Yugoslav Wars (1990s): A politicized judiciary failed to protect minority rights, contributing to the violent breakup of Yugoslavia and ensuing ethnic conflicts. Judicial failure to protect minorities fuelled ethnic hatred, leading to brutal wars and genocide.

9.     Rodney King Trial and Los Angeles Riots (1992): The acquittal of police officers in the Rodney King case exposed public distrust in the judiciary, sparking widespread protests and civil unrest. A perceived miscarriage of justice led to riots that exposed deep racial and social divisions in the U.S.

10.  Greece’s Financial Crisis and Judicial Response (2009–2018): Judicial rulings supporting austerity measures amid severe economic hardship led to public dissatisfaction and social unrest. Judicial support for austerity widened social inequalities, fueling protests and economic instability.

11.  The Crisis in Venezuela (2010s–Present): The judiciary’s alignment with the government contributed to public outrage, economic collapse, and a mass exodus of citizens. Judicial corruption helped solidify authoritarian rule, leading to economic collapse and a humanitarian crisis.

12.  The Egyptian Revolution (2011): A judiciary seen as corrupt and allied with the Mubarak regime became a focal point of public anger during the Arab Spring, contributing to mass protests. Judicial corruption fostered public unrest, eventually toppling the Mubarak regime during the Arab Spring.

13.  Poland’s Judicial Reforms and EU Protests (2015–Present): Judicial reforms perceived as undermining judicial independence led to widespread protests and criticism from the European Union, raising alarms over democratic erosion. Perceived loss of judicial independence has isolated Poland within the EU, risking political and economic consequences.

14.  Spain’s Catalan Independence Crisis (2017): The Spanish judiciary’s handling of Catalan independence leaders was viewed as excessively punitive, intensifying tensions and fueling mass protests. The judiciary’s perceived heavy-handedness inflamed separatist sentiment, leading to prolonged unrest.

15.  France’s ‘Yellow Vests’ Movement (2018–2020): This populist movement decried perceived judicial bias favouring the elite, contributing to widespread social unrest across France. Judicial favouritism deepened mistrust in government, sparking months of protests and civil discontent.

16.  The Myanmar Military Coup and Crackdown (2021): The judiciary’s alignment with Myanmar’s military junta in persecuting pro-democracy activists sparked mass protests, deadly violence, and severe international condemnation. Judicial complicity with the military junta intensified public resistance, resulting in a brutal crackdown and widespread unrest.

These cautionary tales reflect the judiciary's vital role as the upholder of justice and stability. When it forsakes its principles and betrays public trust, the repercussions can shake societies to their core, dismantling social order and fostering environments ripe for conflict and upheaval.

Significant Judicial Failings in Australia

Several significant judicial officers in Australia have faced allegations, charges, or convictions of wrongdoing over the years. These cases underscore the importance of judicial accountability and the challenges inherent in maintaining public trust within the judiciary. Here are some prominent cases:

1. Judge Salvatore Vasta (Federal Circuit Court of Australia) – 2018–Present

Judge Salvatore Vasta has faced a barrage of complaints over multiple instances of judicial misconduct, especially in family law cases. Known for his harsh judgments, Vasta made headlines in 2018 when he jailed a father in a custody dispute for contempt—an act later overturned on appeal with higher courts calling it "fundamentally flawed." Vasta’s approach has led to widespread public outcry and an investigation by the Judicial Commission, yet he remains on the bench. The case reflects a worrying pattern seen in authoritarian regimes, where judges, unchecked, impose severe judgments with little regard for fairness or transparency.

2. Justice Bruce Lander (Federal Court of Australia) – 2015–2017

Justice Bruce Lander, also appointed as Australia’s first Commonwealth Integrity Commissioner, faced allegations of conflicts of interest in judicial appointments. The ICAC launched an investigation in 2015, as public concerns mounted over favouritism in his judicial decisions. Although cleared of criminal wrongdoing, the case highlighted issues of judicial impartiality in Australia’s highest offices, mirroring the same lack of accountability seen in failing judiciaries worldwide. Public trust depends on the impartiality of judicial appointments, and when compromised, it leaves the system vulnerable to the erosion of respect.

3. Justice Michael Adams (Supreme Court of New South Wales) – 2011–2012

Justice Michael Adams faced allegations of mishandling politically sensitive cases involving government corruption, leading to suspicions of favouritism toward powerful interests. Media scrutiny and public backlash called Adams's impartiality into question. Despite retaining his position, Adams's case underscored the danger of judges appearing to serve power rather than justice—a pattern seen in authoritarian states where the judiciary is weaponized to serve those in power rather than the public good.

4. Deputy Chief Magistrate Pat O'Shane (New South Wales) – 2012–2013

Pat O'Shane, one of New South Wales' most controversial magistrates, gained a reputation for her confrontational style and leniency in cases involving marginalized defendants. In 2012, a wave of complaints alleged bias and unprofessionalism, leading to public scrutiny. Despite no formal discipline, she retired in 2013 amid mounting criticism. O'Shane’s case highlights the difficulty of balancing judicial independence with accountability—a challenge faced by courts worldwide.

5. Magistrate Jennifer Betts (New South Wales) – 2008–2009

In 2009, Magistrate Jennifer Betts was suspended after complaints about bias and inappropriate comments, particularly in cases of family law and domestic violence. Her courtroom demeanor, described as abrasive and dismissive, raised questions about her ability to deliver impartial justice. After a Judicial Commission investigation, she chose to resign. Her case highlights how judicial impartiality is essential in sensitive cases, as bias risks endangering those the law is meant to protect.

6. Justice Garry Neilson (New South Wales District Court) – 2014

Justice Garry Neilson sparked public outrage in 2014 with controversial remarks suggesting societal attitudes toward incest might be shifting. Condemnation from advocacy groups and the legal community led to a Judicial Commission investigation. Neilson’s temporary suspension reflects how judicial statements, particularly those perceived as endorsing socially dangerous views, can incite public mistrust—underscoring how critical judicial decorum is for maintaining public confidence.

7. Justice David Yeldham (NSW Supreme Court) – 1996

Justice David Yeldham’s career ended abruptly in 1996 when a police corruption inquiry exposed his hidden double life, which allegedly compromised his impartiality on the bench. Though not criminally charged, the scandal led to his resignation and eventual suicide. Yeldham’s case shows how personal vulnerabilities, left unaddressed, can undermine public trust and expose a judiciary’s ethical blind spots.

8. Magistrate Richard Pithouse (Victoria) – 2010–2011

Accusations of bias and inappropriate behaviour in family law cases led to Magistrate Richard Pithouse’s resignation in 2011 after an investigation by the Judicial Commission. Complaints from colleagues and litigants alike centred on favouritism and improper courtroom conduct. His resignation underscored the need for consistent judicial standards, especially in cases impacting vulnerable parties.

9. Justice Angelo Vasta (Queensland Supreme Court) – 1988–1989

Justice Angelo Vasta’s removal by the Queensland Parliament in 1989 remains one of the few instances of legislative action taken against a judge in Australia. Vasta faced allegations of misusing his office for personal gain and engaging in questionable business dealings. The scandal highlighted the dangers of unchecked judicial power and prompted calls for greater transparency and oversight in judicial conduct, mirroring the consequences faced by judicial systems worldwide where corruption reigns unchecked.

10. Justice Lionel Murphy (High Court of Australia) – 1984–1986

High Court Justice Lionel Murphy’s influence crumbled under allegations of attempting to sway judicial proceedings for the benefit of a friend under investigation. Murphy’s controversial statement, "I have to look after my little mate," led to criminal trials, inquiries, and a conviction that was later overturned. Murphy’s case underscores the risks when judges are seen as wielding their power for personal alliances, a betrayal of public trust that left the judiciary stained and Australians questioning the accountability of their highest court.

11. Marcus Einfeld (Former Federal Court Judge) – 2006–2009

Marcus Einfeld’s career came to an infamous end in 2006 after he perjured himself over a minor traffic fine, falsely claiming a deceased friend was driving his car to avoid the penalty. The scandal deepened as he fabricated evidence, leading to a conviction for perjury and three years in prison. Einfeld’s case shook Australia’s legal community, illustrating that integrity failures at even the smallest scale can unravel a distinguished judicial career, tarnishing the judiciary as a whole.

12. Justice Terence Lewis (Queensland Supreme Court and Former Police Commissioner) – 1987–1989

Justice Terence Lewis, implicated in Queensland’s Fitzgerald Inquiry into police corruption, exemplifies the worst consequences of judicial corruption. Accused of abuse of power and corrupt activities as Police Commissioner, Lewis’s subsequent judicial career was tarnished beyond repair. He was found guilty of multiple corruption charges in 1989 and sentenced to 14 years in prison. The case highlighted how deeply embedded corruption undermines public faith and drew parallels with countries where compromised judicial systems fail their citizens.

---

Concluding Comment

The cases of judicial officers in Australia who have faced allegations, charges, or convictions of wrongdoing reveal the critical importance of integrity, transparency, and accountability in the judiciary. While Australia’s judicial system is fundamentally strong, even isolated instances of misconduct have shown the power to significantly undermine public confidence. Judicial officers hold immense influence over lives, and with this power comes a duty to adhere to the highest standards of ethics and impartiality.

Every instance of judicial misconduct tarnish not only the individuals involved but also the credibility of the judiciary as a whole. These cases highlight just how difficult it can be to hold high-ranking officers accountable, which underscores the urgent need for robust oversight mechanisms and clear standards for addressing misconduct. A fair, impartial judiciary that the public can trust is essential to a stable and democratic society. If these ideals are compromised, the principles of fairness, justice, and equality before the law—the very foundation of our legal system—are placed in jeopardy.

Australia cannot afford to let its judiciary follow the troubling path of politicized or biased courts seen in authoritarian regimes. The time for action is now; a judiciary that values integrity above all else is not just essential to justice, but to the survival of democracy itself.