ultimately the AG Mark Speakman SC
The Guardian reported:
The (Supreme Court NSW) said in a statement on Tuesday 23 June: “Chief Justice Bathurst has confirmed that since his appointment in 2011, he had not been made aware of any claims or complaints of sexual harassment at the court.
As noted on this blog, the Chief Justice has been a little too circumspect in his statement:
Chief Justice Bathurst not made aware of "sexual harassment at the court ": Carefully worded statement suggests sexual harassment outside court, and behaviour not amounting to sexual harassment but which may be construed to be threatening, intimidating
Apart from the above the statement has also the effect of deflecting any blame from the Chief Justice personally; he has stated, again rather too carefully, he "had not been made aware of any claims or complaints of sexual harassment at the court".
Consequently the Chief Justice's official gatekeepers, including his associates and his executive officers at the NSW Legal Profession Admission Board and the Judicial Commission NSW , are now exposed to accusations of ignoring if not hindering complaints of sexual harassment. Similarly the upper reaches of the NSW Supreme Court administration, who decide who works at the NSW LPAB, and thus have power to determine who may or may not practise law in NSW, and in Australia.
The Chief Justice's subordinate judges are also exposed.
The Australian's Nicola Berkovic reported on JUNE 27, 2020:
........a NSW Supreme Court judge was told Heydon had made unwanted advances towards one of its young female employees two years ago but did not take any action Dhanya Mani, 26, was working as a tipstaff to NSW Supreme Court judge Guy Parker in 2018 when she told him about alleged harassment by Heydon.
It is true that we do not know from the above when precisely in the week ending June 27 2020 Mr Justice Guy Parker informed Chief Justice Bathurst of Mani’s allegation. He may have done so on or after Tuesday 23 June 2020, when Bathurst issued his press release denying any knowledge of any " claims or complaints of sexual harassment at the court." Regardless, the denial shifts blame to Justice Parker.
........a NSW Supreme Court judge was told Heydon had made unwanted advances towards one of its young female employees two years ago but did not take any action Dhanya Mani, 26, was working as a tipstaff to NSW Supreme Court judge Guy Parker in 2018 when she told him about alleged harassment by Heydon.
Parker informed NSW Chief Justice Tom Bathurst only this week of Mani’s allegation
TO BE READ WITH
Dyson Heydon sexual harassment revelations are also matters for the NSW Auditor General Margaret Crawford: reports suggest NSW LPAB, NSW Legal Services Council did not disclose complaints in their Annual Reports; NSW LPAB has a history of interfering with the paper trail
by Ganesh Sahathevan
Dhanya Mani, one of Dyson Heydon’s accusers. (Picture by Adam Yip, published on The Australian website.)
Mani's complaints should have been reported in the NSW LPAB and NSW Legal Services Commission annual reports.
The Australian's Nicola Berkovic reported on JUNE 27, 2020:
........a NSW Supreme Court judge was told Heydon had made unwanted advances towards one of its young female employees two years ago but did not take any action Dhanya Mani, 26, was working as a tipstaff to NSW Supreme Court judge Guy Parker in 2018 when she told him about alleged harassment by Heydon.
Parker informed NSW Chief Justice Tom Bathurst only this week of Mani’s allegations.
The court says Mani did not ask Parker to take the matter any further, but she told The Australian that she had hoped when she raised the matter he would do something about it.
Bathurst has now asked the state’s judicial commission to prepare an education program for judges on what to do if an allegation is made. The court says judges were not previously trained on the issue because it was generally expected they would have been educated in their previous careers.
Dhanya Mani, one of Dyson Heydon’s accusers. (Picture by Adam Yip, published on The Australian website.)
Mani's complaints should have been reported in the NSW LPAB and NSW Legal Services Commission annual reports.
The Australian's Nicola Berkovic reported on JUNE 27, 2020:
........a NSW Supreme Court judge was told Heydon had made unwanted advances towards one of its young female employees two years ago but did not take any action Dhanya Mani, 26, was working as a tipstaff to NSW Supreme Court judge Guy Parker in 2018 when she told him about alleged harassment by Heydon.
Parker informed NSW Chief Justice Tom Bathurst only this week of Mani’s allegations.
The court says Mani did not ask Parker to take the matter any further, but she told The Australian that she had hoped when she raised the matter he would do something about it.
Bathurst has now asked the state’s judicial commission to prepare an education program for judges on what to do if an allegation is made. The court says judges were not previously trained on the issue because it was generally expected they would have been educated in their previous careers.
The problem for Bathurst (who is also Chairman of the Legal Profession Admission Board) , and for Parker, is this: even if the complaint was not progressed, it should have been reported to the NSW Parliament (and the public) in the relevant NSW LPAB and NSW Legal Services Council annual reports, as an operational matter. Non-disclosure has caused an underestimation of operational risks. This should be evident from the reports this week that leave no doubt as to the magnitude of the risks. Indeed, the reports suggest that there are systemic risks that have been allowed to fester.
Both organisations, but in particular the NSW LPAB have a history of making incomplete disclosures. As reported by this writer the NSW LPAB has recently gone so far as to misstate the facts of a landmark decision of the NSW Supreme Court in what appears to be an attempt to deflect questions about its failure to investigate and report complaints against the College Of Law, which it certifies as a PLT provider. Evidence has also been provided of what appears to be an attempt to confect a paper trail in order to deflect questions about the NSW LPAB's own conduct.
These are all matters for the NSW Auditor General Margaret Crawford, who must now conduct a full and complete investigation into all and any complaints of sexual harassment, and ensure that NSW LPAB and NSW Legal Council Annual Reports are amended to reflect those complaints.
TO BE READ WITH
Sunday, July 21, 2019
Malaysia will investigate NSW AG and LPAB oversight of the College Of Law: College's Malaysian business removes protective mantle; likely to further expose LPAB Annual report exclusions
by Ganesh Sahathevan
by Ganesh Sahathevan
The story below was published by the well connected Malaysian investigative new site New Malaysia Times. An investigation by all the relevant Malaysian authorities can be expected, and that will involve a forensic examination of the College Of Law Sydney.
Questions about the College's activities in Malaysia have been put by this writer to the two parties ultimately responsible for regulating the College's activities , the Attorney General NSW Mark Speakman and the Legal Professional Admission Board NSW.
The queries have been met with accusations, by the LPAB and the AG of harassment , threat and intimidation by this writer of the College's management.They have gone so far as to object to the Attorney General Malaysia being informed about the College's activities in Malaysia
They have also excluded from the LPAB's 2018 and earlier Annual Reports , which the AG tables in the NSW Parliament complaints against the College and its management; and in particular statements on the official record that they have made in support of the College.
All the above is now likely to be investigated in Malaysia.
END
by Ganesh Sahathevan
The story below was published by the well connected Malaysian investigative new site New Malaysia Times. An investigation by all the relevant Malaysian authorities can be expected, and that will involve a forensic examination of the College Of Law Sydney.
Questions about the College's activities in Malaysia have been put by this writer to the two parties ultimately responsible for regulating the College's activities , the Attorney General NSW Mark Speakman and the Legal Professional Admission Board NSW.
The queries have been met with accusations, by the LPAB and the AG of harassment , threat and intimidation by this writer of the College's management.They have gone so far as to object to the Attorney General Malaysia being informed about the College's activities in Malaysia
They have also excluded from the LPAB's 2018 and earlier Annual Reports , which the AG tables in the NSW Parliament complaints against the College and its management; and in particular statements on the official record that they have made in support of the College.
All the above is now likely to be investigated in Malaysia.
END
Bar Council education ‘JV’ must be clarified
By Editor , in Scandal on July 19, 2019 . Tagged width: College of Law , Fareed Gafoor , Malaysian Bar
KUALA LUMPUR, July 19 – The Malaysian Bar Council launched its first education venture, a LLM in Malaysian Legal Practise (LLM), last year in collaboration with the College Of Law Australia.
The LLM does not seem to have the approval of Malaysia’s Legal Professional Qualifying Board (LPQB) but the website for the course, which is hosted in Australia, prominently displays the Bar Council crest.
The crest has not been used before to promote a course of study, and queries put to Bar Council President Fareed Gafoor about the use of the crest have been acknowledged but remain unanswered.
NMT has however sighted an email from Fareed dated Friday, May 24, 2019 with regards the LLM and the use of the crest where he states:
Dear Rajen,
We can’t remain silent on this.
Abdul Fareed Bin Abdul Gafoor
Sent from my iPad
It is understood that “Rajen” refers to Rajen Devaraj, Chief Executive Officer of the Bar Council Secretariat in Kuala Lumpur.
The Bar has remained silent for nearly 2 months since.
Key person suddenly retired during extensive query
The College of Law used to be represented in Malaysia by its Director, Peter Tritt. Tritt have been queried extensively about the LLM and about the College’s business in Malaysia but has refused to provide answers. Tritt has been based in Kuala Lumpur since 2017 but announced on Friday that he had “retired” from the College on 30 June 2019.
It is understood that Tritt has forwarded queries sent him to his head office in Sydney and hence it appears that Tritt is under orders from his Chief Executive, Neville Carter, to remain silent.
Questionable advertising claims?
In advertising on the College’s website Carter has claimed that he had established a Professional Legal Training course for Malaysian Law students seeking admission to practise in Malaysia. There seems to be no evidence of such a course, or of any national level training course for the existing Certificate of Legal Practise.
Carter has also claimed to have produced the “inaugural” Handbook in Legal Practise for Malaysia, in the late 80s. A search of the main law libraries in Malaysia directed by the Chief Registrar, Federal Court Malaysia, has not found any such handbook.
He has also claimed to have, during that time to have identified and addressed “gaps” in Malaysian legal practise, but not even those in practice during that period and since have ever heard of him. Nor are senior practitioners aware of “gaps” that needed that to be addressed by external consultants.
As CEO of the College Carter has ultimate responsibility for the College’s Malaysian operation headed by Tritt and variously named the “College Of Law Asia Pacific” and the “College Of Law Asia”. A search by NMT has not revealed any entities registered under those names in Malaysia or in Australia, not even a foreign entities registered to conduct business in Malaysia.
Meanwhile the College, in collaboration with the Bar Council continues to sell its LLM and other courses in Malaysia, deriving a fee income from Malaysian courses.
-NMT
See also
AG NSW justifies exclusion of foreign regulatory risks from Dept of Justice annual reports on the basis that he was threatened, intimidated by the information:The matter of Top Group has implications for all regulators (including the NSW Law Soc)
Posted by Ganesh Sahathevan at 6:24 PM
No comments:
Post a Comment