Claire O’Connor SC does not want the Chief Justice to investigate Facebook claim of sexual harassment or bullying by District Court judge
EXCLUSIVE: The barrister who used social media to accuse the legal profession of sexism says she does not want the Chief Justice to investigate her claims of sexual harassment or bullying by a judge.
- Top lawyer accuses judge of harassment, profession of sexism
- Lawyer’s Facebook post ignites gender debate among lawyers
- Chief Justice silent on lawyer’s harassment claim
- Analysis: Sour grapes or a raw nerve exposed?
THE barrister who used social media to accuse the legal profession of sexism says she does not want the Chief Justice to investigate her claims of sexual harassment or bullying by a judge.
As she prepares to face the Law Society’s governing council on Monday, Claire O’Connor SC has finally broken her public silence.
A week ago, The Advertiser revealed her Facebook post — which has sparked intense debate within the law fraternity and the general public.
Declining to answer questions “on legal advice”, Ms O’Connor said calls for Chief Justice Chris Kourakis to inquire into her allegations were unwanted and unwarranted.
“At the time the incident occurred, more than a decade ago, the person was not a judge — they were a practitioner,” she said on Sunday.
“I made the appropriate complaint at the time, I do not require the Chief Justice to conduct any investigation into the incident.”
Ms O’Connor’s Facebook post, drafted in the wake of her loss to Tim Mellor for the 2018 Law Society of SA presidency, appeared online last week.
The post ignited debate, with some lawyers saying she had exposed a “boys’ club” culture of gender inequity while others feared she had set back the cause of women.
Chief Justice Kourakis initially declined to comment on both the post, and any investigation into claims about judges, when asked last week.
In a statement, his spokeswoman said it was not for him to investigate such a matter, and that Ms O’Connor had “made it clear” she was not making a formal complaint.
“The Chief Justice hopes it is a well-known aspect of judicial independence that the conduct of judges is a matter, in the first instance, for the principal judge of the court concerned and, ultimately, for Parliament,” she said.
“The principal judge of the District Court is Chief Judge Geoffrey Muecke and not Chief Justice Kourakis... the Courts Administration Authority has no power to investigate judges.
She said Chief Judge Muecke was not available for comment.
Ms O’Connor now faces possible disciplinary action once the matter has been discussed at the society’s council meeting on Monday.
Meanwhile, a female barrister who commented on the debate last week said she had come under fire — not from male colleagues, but from female peers.
Heather Stokes said her stance had been misunderstood, and she had been criticised for “enduring chauvinism and male recalcitrance” instead of fighting for women’s rights.
She re-emphasised her support for Ms O’Connor’s message, saying she questioned only her choice to air it on social media.
“We do need to move forward on gender equity, no one disagrees with that,” she said.
“I’m disappointed that people think we were in some way enduring chauvinism or recalcitrance by the male part of the profession or anything remotely resembling it.
“I would have thought our differences were only in the pace of change — if you hit people in the face with it so hard that they bleed, they are likely to react badly.
“If you show them the facts in a manner such that they can’t back away and have to start thinking about it, then you’ve started something.”
Ms Stokes said the reactions of some female practitioners had been disappointing, insisting misunderstandings would not help female practitioners.
“I’d think that in a democracy, even amongst women, people might be allowed to have different views on how to achieve a result in terms of gender equity,” she said.