Magistrate stood down from court while Judicial Conduct Commissioner investigates claims of sexual harassment

A South Australian magistrate will not sit in court while claims of sexual harassment are investigated.

A South Australian magistrate has been stood down from presiding in court while allegations of sexual harassment are investigated.

The magistrate, who has not been named, is the subject of an inquiry by Judicial Conduct Commissioner Ann Vanstone QC, after a Commonwealth prosecutor alleged she was repeatedly sexually harassed while working as a District Court judge’s associate.

A spokesperson for Chief Magistrate Judge Mary-Louise Hribal confirmed on Wednesday afternoon the magistrate would not be sitting.

“As a result of a direction given by the Chief Magistrate, the magistrate who is under investigation by the Judicial Conduct Commissioner for alleged sexual harassment, will not be sitting in court,” a statement said.

Earlier, Ms Vanstone warned South Australian judicial officers they face an “uncertain future” if they embrace a culture of poor behaviour.

The Commissioner said she was addressing the thrust of a report into sexual harassment within the state’s judiciary and legal profession, rather than any particular allegation.

“The type of conduct described in that report should not happen in any workplace,” she said.

“If it does happen, it should be called out, and the person responsible for the conduct should be held accountable.”

She acknowledged making reports about the conduct of judicial officers, and having them held accountable, can be complicated.

Judicial Conduct Commissioner Ann Vanstone says judicial officers will face an “uncertain future” if they embrace a culture of poor behaviour. Picture: Tony Lewis

Last month’s report, by the Equal Opportunity Commissioner, pointed to serious cultural problems that give rise to poor behaviour.

It found bullying, harassment and improper practices went “all the way to the top” of the industry, with victims fearful of “professional retribution” if they complained.

The report included numerous allegations of harassment, including claims a judge told a woman he “would like to throw you on the floor and f--- you now”.

Ms Vanstone said the culture was, in part, because of the hierarchical nature of the profession – and judicial officers sat at the top of the hierarchy.

But, she warned, such behaviour was unacceptable and would not be tolerated.

“If judicial officers regard such a culture as acceptable and bring it with them to the courts, they will face an uncertain future,” she said.

“The conduct of judicial officers – officers who sit in judgment on the conduct on others, should be beyond reproach.

“I have little doubt that this is the case for most of South Australia’s judicial officers.”

Ms Vanstone said it was “interesting to note” how few complaints had been made to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner, saying it was likely victims feared speaking out.

“Up until last Friday I had not received any complaints that would constitute sexual harassment as defined in the Halliday report.

“I do not think the absence of those complaints is because there is an absence of conduct of that type … I suspect it is because of the fear of speaking up.

“The Halliday report cites ‘a fear of repercussions on career and work life’ and an attitude that ‘it is best not to rock the boat’.

“I understand the fear but if it is not reported, it will not stop.”

On Tuesday, it was revealed Ms Vanstone will investigate claims made by prosecutor Alice Bitmead.

As reported by InDaily, Ms Bitmead has alleged that, while working for a judge in 2018, she was subjected to inappropriate sexual behaviour by the magistrate.

She further alleged she raised complaints in the months following the behaviour, but was yet to receive a response or an apology.

Ms Vanstone called on anyone who had experienced sexual harassment or inappropriate behaviour by a judicial officer to find the courage and report it.

Supreme Court Chief Justice Chris Kourakis has also launched an investigation into why the matter was not brought to his attention soon after the events were reported.