Search
This area does not yet contain any content.
Justinian News

Sofronoff stripped bare ... Deceit ... Betrayal ... Drumgold hung out to dry as a result of Sofronoff-Albrechtsen information "tryst" ... Latest derailment of conspiracies about the prosecution of manosphere darling, Bruce Lehrmann ... Derangement syndrome ... Sofronoff's "serious corruption" ... Devastation among devoted Banana Benders ... Read more >>

Politics Media Law Society


Bag lady ... Don't call the results until the fat lady sings … Senator's criminal record hidden from view … Inspiration from our B-grade business leaders … Forget the sexual harassment, Dicey Heydon is coming out of the deep freeze ... Read on >> 

Free Newsletter
Justinian Columnists

Capital crimes ... Dangerous words likely to be scrubbed from the Trump era lexicon ... Musk and his techie vandals ... The shredder going full blast at the FBI ... Stolen national security documents sent back to Mar-a-Lago ... Cabinet clown show ... White supremacy unleashed ... Consumer protection prosecutions dropped ... Lawyers and law firms threatened ... Roger Fitch from Washington ... Read more >> 

Blow the whistle

 

News snips ...


This area does not yet contain any content.
Justinian's Bloggers

Letter from London ... Holiday season ... Mother's Day, Lent, Chocolate ... Publisher wants money from Russell Brand for unpublished books ... Paralegal accessed forbidden documents to qualify for legal training contract ... Birthday card payout ... Floyd Alexander-Hunt files from Blighty ... Read more >> 

"True to form, the ACT corruption watchdog has put itself at the centre of perceptions of bias with a finding against eminent former Queensland judge Walter Sofronoff KC that serves only to debase the definition of serious corrupt conduct."

The Australian with its unique perspective on "bias" ... March 22, 2025 ... Read more flatulence ... 


Justinian Featurettes

Judgment for sale ... Melbourne University Publishing's decision to produce Justice Lee's Lehrmann judgment as a commercial product is not without its problems ... The omnishambles continues ... Melbourne lawyer Nilay B. Patel explains ... Read more >> 


Justinian's archive

Defamation and other misadventures ... So sexy, said the actress of the Chief Justice ... Daphnis dunks women in hot water ... Another (male) judge frocks-up ... Inside Madge's mouth ... Stephen Archer defamed ... David Levine strangles more English ... Justice Dean Mildren "the idiot" ... From Justinian's archive, April 22, 2004 ... Read more >> 


 

 

« Whitton at large | Main | Please clean the filters »
Sunday
May092010

Gyles' silk review

Much ado … Roger Gyles QC says the silk consultation process is “superficial” ... Selection committee needs to be more rigorous … Some of the major shortcomings in the present system exposed, but by no means all … Bar ‘n’ grill ponders

Roger Gyles’ review of the NSW Bar’s protocol for the appointment of silk will disappoint those looking for fundamental change.

That is probably no surprise coming from a retired judge who is steeped in the culture of the bar and is a former president of the association.

Possibly a review panel comprising a wider range of experiences, including those who are consumers of barristers’ services, might have produced a greater array of options.

Gyles recommends that the present structure involving a selection committee and a consultation group be preserved.

He said:

“I do not sense a significant groundswell in favour of radical change at the moment …”

He did say that it would be better if there was a uniform selection protocol involving all states and territories, but that’s not to suggest any change to the NSW protocol in the meantime.

His principle recommendation is that applicants for silk should be able to refer to their actual performance and practice “in a manner capable of being verified and assessed”.

Complimentary to that the consultation and assessment process should “be more closely tailored to the particular application than now”.

His other two recommendations were relatively marginal:

* “A distinguished person” who is not a barrister should be added to the selection committee, only to monitor the integrity of the system.

* That the requirement in the protocol that seeks applicants with qualities of leadership in a “diverse community” and who have made “a significant contribution to Australian society as a barrister”, be reconsidered (i.e. scrapped).

The principal complaints about the present system, identified by submissions and by Gyles’ own inquiries, are that it is biased in favour of commercial barristers and certain floors and a corresponding bias against common law and criminal practices.

The bias is said to extend to those having a connection with members of the selection committee.

There’s also a lack of transparency with no proper feedback to unsuccessful contenders.

None of these issues were weighed or analysed terribly thoroughly (the report was only sixteen and a half pages long).

Gyles was satisfied that when all is said and done the worthies get through and invariably are appointed silk.

“By and large, those appointed senior counsel are ‘within the range’ of those that ought to be appointed and have the necessary qualities.”

This implies that the current arrangements throw up the right results, regardless of the lack of transparency and the bias.

Selection committee

 

Gyles said:

“I do not think it is practical to do anything about the complaint that the selectors chosen have not been sufficiently representative and are too narrowly based upon commercial chambers in Phillip Street.”

A panel that was more representative of different components of the bar would “increase the chance of compromise and horse trading”.

Nonetheless, a “prudent” president of the bar would take diversity into account when choosing members of the silk selection committee.

As things stand he found that the committee does a good job. It is diligent and has a sense of responsibility.

“In my view, the combination of experience, knowledge and responsibility inherent in peer group selection clearly outweighs the risk of bias.”

That’s a comforting finding.

The only thing to do is put a token outsider on the selection committee, in a non-deliberative capacity, charged with “observing the process to monitor integrity”.

Consultation and assessment

 

It was here that most of the criticism was directed.

The large consultation group comprising judges, solicitors and other barristers is only required to give a “yes”, “no” or “not yet” response.

This has “the appearance of superficiality”.

Gyles revealed that all the consultees receive is a list of names, with addresses of chambers and a broad statement of areas of practice for each applicant.

An applicant can provide more detail, “but that does not form part of the wide consultation process”.

A lack of ticks or the presence of negatives “are a significant factor in the decision making. The lack of reasons makes meaningful feedback difficult.”

What Gyles recommends is that applicants for silk should be able to demonstrate a case for appointment based of their actual practice and performance and that case should be scruitinised by the selectors.

It’s rather incredible that this has not been standard procedure. The review says that this change should be instituted this year in order that the committee be better informed about the candidates.

Gyles nominated two interesting suggestions he received:

  • That the silk process no longer be an annual event, but that applicants could be received and processed anytime throughout the year.
  • The assessment of applicants be made over a longer period, anything up to two years.

Strangely, he did not offer any comment on these ideas.

See Gyles report in full

Reader Comments

There are no comments for this journal entry. To create a new comment, use the form below.
Editor Permission Required
You must have editing permission for this entry in order to post comments.