Shortlist was ignored for three judicial appointments in 2017

Shock proof has emerged of the Queensland Government dumping its much trumpeted protocol for judicial appointments and appointing three magistrates who had not been among a short list of 20 provided by an independent review panel.

The Queensland Government is again at the centre of an integrity scandal after it dumped its much trumpeted protocol for judicial appointments in 2017 and appointed three magistrates who had not been among a short list of 20 provided by a review panel.

Yesterday, Attorney-General Shannon Fentiman put out a statement saying that “every (judicial) appointment is based on the recommendations of a panel of independent professionals from each arm of the legal profession’’.

“The Palaszczuk government introduced a robust policy for judicial appointments in 2016 to ensure every appointment is based on the recommendations of a panel of independent professionals from each arm of the legal profession,’’ she said.

“This ensures that all appointees are well respected and qualified members of the legal community, and each appointment is based on merit.’’

Attorney-General Shannon Fentiman says every judicial appointment is made based on recommendations from a panel of independent professionals. Picture: John Gass

Yet in 2017, then attorney-general Yvette D’Ath trumpeted “a transparent protocol for judicial appointments in Queensland’’ and then ignored some of the specialist panel’s recommendations and appointed three “captain’s picks’’.

Ms D’Ath received 20 names on a short list and appointed eight magistrates. Five people came from the short list of 20 and three did not.

It is unknown which of the five were recommended by the panel, and which were not. The appointees were Clare Kelly (Southport), Dennis Kinsella (Caboolture), Andrew Molony (Children’s Court), Louise Shepherd (Southport), Stephen Courtney (Townsville), Donald McKenzie (Southport), Kerrie O’Callaghan (Southport) and Mark Nolan (Mackay).

The Sunday Mail does not suggest any of the appointments lacked merit.

In a departmental document sighted by the Sunday Mail, authored by then chair of the

appointments panel Judge Sarah Bradley, five recommendations from the panel were appointed, and three magistrates were appointed who were not recommended by the panel.

In the document – sent to the panel members, it says:

“The panel met for the second time in July, 2017. It considered 213 expressions of interest in relation to six vacancies. We provided a list of 20 suitable appointees to the AG. Eight appointments were made, five from the list provided by the panel.’’

The anomaly in appointments comes a day after The Courier-Mail reported just how many judicial appointments under the current government have gone to relatives and friends of Labor figures.

Former attorney-general Yvette D'Ath made three “captain’s picks” judicial appointments in 2017. Picture: Liam Kidston

On October 15, 2015, then attorney-general Yvette D’Ath said:

“The Palaszczuk government is pushing forward with its plan to deliver a transparent protocol for judicial appointments in Queensland.

“Confidence in the expertise, independence and impartiality of the judiciary is essential to the proper functioning of government in Queensland.

“The Palaszczuk government believes that the public will only share that confidence if the process for the selection and appointment of members of the judiciary can be seen to be transparent and genuinely consultative.’’

A senior judicial source said the selection process was “far from transparent if the panel puts up 20 names and only five are chosen among eight appointments”.

“So you’ve had three ring-ins that were selected by the A-G, that were not even on the list of 20 names supplied by the panel,” the source said.

“It just reinforces the notion that this government will say anything, do anything, to protect itself from scrutiny.’’

A spokesperson for Ms Fentiman said she had always taken the recommendation of the panel in appointing magistrates and judges and the 2017 decision was best explained by then AG Yvette D’Ath.

A spokesman for former attorney-general Yvette D’Ath said: “As attorney-general, the minister adhered to all protocols around judicial appointments.”