Thread by @KathNaish

Is @FinancialReview part of the #rapeculture problem? In this piece, the @FinancialReview supports the view of a former male @thelawcouncil president over the voices of 3 prominent female lawyers #auslaw #EnoughIsEnough #RuleOfLaw

afr.com/politics/feder…

AFR view: “The Heydon case was one of inappropriate and unacceptable workplace behaviour. In the case of Mr Porter it is alleged criminality that is at stake. And for that there is only one place: the criminal justice system and the court of law.”

But in this article quoting @JaneNeedhamSC, @larissaandelman and @pollypippin the view is expressed that accountability for conduct is not limited to the criminal jurisdiction and the issue is “about the Attorney-General’s position”.
afr.com/companies/prof…

”He holds the apex position for the legal profession and his conduct – and integrity – must be beyond [re]proach. An independent inquiry would be able to look into whether or not he is a fit and proper person to hold the position of Attorney-General in the Cabinet #auspol

That’s right isn’t it? Where a criminal justice solution is not available that would usually be that. But here we have special circumstances where the accused is the Attorney General. So this is also a matter of significant public interest.

Australian lawyers are required to satisfy the fit and proper person test in order to practise law. This is to protect the public and if it comes into question it is adjudicated on by professional regulatory bodies.

It is not necessary to be guilty at criminal law in order to be found not to be a fit and proper person to practise law. Dishonesty might be sufficient and certainly these regulatory processes occur all the time outside of the criminal justice system.

So the @FinancialReview either fails to understand these basic processes of the Australian legal profession or is deliberately choosing to ignore them. Which is it? And why? #EnoughIsEnough #auspol #RuleOfLaw

@threadreaderapp unroll please