Hither and yon

Conferenceville ... Secret police meddle in Dubai lawyers' corroboree ... IBA bends the knee to feudal despot ... Federal magistrate declares he'll stay in the trenches despite scary letter from Commonwealth about pensions litigation 

Exhausted delegates to the International Bar Association's annual knees-up are staggering home after five delirious days in the architecturally grotesque and venal feudal kingdom of Dubai - part of the United Arab Emirates. 

The grand poobahs of the IBA must have thought long and hard before deciding it was a terrific idea to hold their big conference in a place riddled with human rights abuses, intimidation of lawyers, child slavery and persecution of foreign workers. 

Dubai: possible instability created by lawyersConsequently, it could hardly have been surprising that days before the curtain was to go up on this shindig (with speeches from the US political journalist Bob Woodward, the CJ of Canada Beverley McLachlin, and Egyptian presidential candidate Mohamed El Baradei) the security spooks from the UAE told the organisers to close the show down. 

The IBA's talk fest might "precipitate instability in the region". 

Frantic negotiations ensued to try and save the day. The IBA says it insisted that the "rights of speakers and delegates in those sessions" be protected. 

However, the upshot was that seven sessions had to be "retitled [so as to] focus more on standards of international law, in an effort to clarify any misconceptions that they were particularly targeting the countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council". 

The Woman and Islam session was cancelled because, as the IBA organising committee put it, "the new session title might not attract sufficient attendance".  

The IBA's missive on this backdown was a masterly piece of PR babble: 

"By taking these steps we were able to restore the cancelled conference, and thus to recreate the space to discuss all these issues in the UAE...

We believe this philosophy of engagement and inclusion, which has always been a core part of the IBA's approach, has been more than justified by the remarkable success and active dialogue which we can see at this conference." 

Blah, blah.  

The noble thing to do would have been to tell the Dubai emir and his goons to stick it and take the conference somewhere sensible. 

*   *   *

Three cheers for brave federal madge Rolf Driver. 

Driver FM: in the trenchesIn his reasons for judgment in SZQKE v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship on November 2 he took a stand against downing tools and walking off the job in the face of the uncertainty surrounding the judicial pensions case. 

Rolf is staying in the trenches, crafting reasons line by line, despite the bullets whizzing overhead. 

Fifty-eight federal madges have proceedings against the Commonwealth in the Federal Court arguing that it is not within the legislative competence of the government to exclude them from the lush pastures of the Judges Pensions Act. 

One of the newspapers got hold of a letter from the Australian Government Solicitor to the lawyer for the Fighting 58, which suggested that the Chapter 111 implications of the case might mean that all federal magistrates are invalidly appointed and, further, their judgments are invalid - or at least that was the breathless tone in which the letter was reported. 

"Every divorce, every migration ruling, every parenting order and everything else decided by that court would potentially be void." 

Needless to say, the Opposition's George (Soapy) Brandis leapt forward with a quote, saying the letter from the government was a clear threat to the federal madges and "extraordinarily reckless". 

Driver FM referred to the bubbling trouble in his SZQKE reasons: 

"In these circumstances, there is an issue whether federal magistrates can or should continue to deal with any litigation involving the Commonwealth or its officers... 

Regardless of any issue concerning the validity of the establishment of the court and regardless of any issue whether the commissions of the federal magistrates may be constitutionally infirm, I am confident that orders made by the court would stand, by reason of the application of the doctrine of necessity." 

Clearly, Rolf thinks the letter and the way it was reported is a beat-up: 

"The outcome of litigation between federal magistrates and the Commonwealth will be what it will be. 

I intend to perform the duties of my office consistently with my oath of office. 

I will continue to deal with litigation involving the Commonwealth and its officers without fear, favour, ill will or prejudice, notwithstanding the present notoriety of the proceedings between federal magistrates and the Commonwealth." 

For good measure, Rolf refused to recuse himself from this and other cases involving the government. 

Stout fellow.