Order of the Gilded Wombat ... Hands on the staff but keep your hands off the gongs ... What about Queen's Counsel? ... Campaign to confiscate honours from sexual offenders ... Comparison with the Einfeld case ... New discrimination and harassment rules for briefs ... Theodora on the case
There has been a concerted campaign to have Dyson Heydon's Order of Australia stripped from his chest and for his picture to be removed from the High Court and cast into a furnace.
The people at Crikey have led the charge with reports on Dicey's AC and why he doesn't deserve it.
Swimmer Dawn Fraser, lawyer Mark Leibler, businesswoman Margaret Jackson and philosopher Philip Pettit, all holders of the highest Australian civilian gong, have gone on the record to say that his award should be "terminated".
Australian Women Lawyers want his photo prised from rogues' gallery of High Court judges.
Mark Leibler told the Financial Review that the Order of Australia Council is wrong to think it cannot cancel the bauble without an adverse finding by a court of tribunal.
"I just don’t think that's the case. It's a question of 'engaging in conduct which brings the order into disrepute'."
Leibler pointed to the independent inquiry conducted for the High Court by the former Inspector-General of Security and Intelligence, Vivienne Thom, and the Commonwealth's payout to three of the court's former associates.
Chief Justice Susan Kiefel issued a statement saying the court was "ashamed" that the harassment happened - presumably under everyone's nose at the time.
Leibler argues this makes the allegations "well-founded".
The fact that the award of the Companion of the Order of Australia was made as an appendage to Dicey's position on the court and that he sexually harassed his High Court associates, creates a direct connection with his behaviour on the job and the blot on the AC's escutcheon.
Apart from the six associates, The Sydney Morning Herald revealed the former judge's sexual harassment rampage with other woman, plus an accusation of indecent assault by a judge.
See full library of SMH stories on Heydon.
Shane Stone "QC", Liberal Party heavyweight crony and the chair of the Council for the Order of Australia, has indicated that he won't move against Heydon's lapel badge.
Shane Stone AC "QC"
The governor general David Hurley, even though he has an independent discretion with the gongs, won't lift a finger to upset anyone.
But what of Dicey's other badge of honour, his Queen's Council. Again we find much ducking for cover and looking the other way.
Justinian asked the NSW Bar Association whether it might consider doing something about it.
Not our business, came back the reply. This is done pursuant to letters patent, so it needs the governor to act on advice from the attorney general.
But, we pressed, does the bar association have a view as to whether Heydon should retain his recognition as a QC in view of the findings of sexual harassment made against him?
Ahem ... "The bar association is unable to comment on the matter at this time."
We also asked press spokesperson Natalie Hissey, in the office of Mark Speakman SC, whether the NSW AG thinks Dicey and his QC should be separated ...
Silence reigns.
The closest precedent is Marcus Einfeld, now living life without his AO or QC badges.
Einfeld was convicted of perjury and perverting the course of justice after he lied in court about who was speeding in his car.
After his conviction his commission as a QC was revoked on the recommendation of the attorney general John Hatzistergos. That was in November 2008.
In April 2009, the governor general terminated his AO.
Apparently, a criminal conviction, as opposed to an independent High Court investigation, makes all the difference if trinkets are to be confiscated - even though there may not be significant qualitative difference in the offending.
Just to hand are the new uniform barristers' conduct rules dealing with anti-discrimination and harassment.
(1) A barrister must not in the course of, or in connection with, legal practice or their profession, engage in conduct which constitutes:
(a) discrimination,
(b) sexual harassment, or
(c) bullying.
(2) For the purposes of sub-rule (1), conduct in connection with a barrister’s profession includes, but is not limited to:
(a) conduct at social functions connected with the bar or the legal profession, and
(b) interactions with a person with whom the barrister has, or has had, a professional relationship.
Have the judges got similar rules?