Cops raided Darwin barrister’s legal chambers following judge’s ruling, complaint reveals

Police raided the legal chambers of a prominent Darwin barrister following a Supreme Court ruling critical of his representation in the Stella Maris inquiry in 2015, the NT News can reveal.

POLICE raided the legal chambers of a prominent Darwin barrister following a Supreme Court ruling critical of his representation of former Opposition Leader Delia Lawrie in the Stella Maris inquiry in 2015, the NT News can reveal.

The revelation is contained in a letter of complaint to the Judicial Commission from lawyer Alistair Wyvill SC about the conduct of Justice Stephen Southwood dating back to his honour’s appointment in 2005, obtained by the NT News.

No charges were laid against the silk and a complaint based on Justice Southwood’s comments in his judgment was dismissed with costs by a tribunal in 2020, which found Mr Wyvill was justified in suggesting the judge was “politically partisan” and calling into question his fitness to sit on the bench.

In the letter, Mr Wyvill says “in contrast to the enthusiasm shown for prosecuting me”, the NT legal fraternity’s failure to address the issues raised by the tribunal’s ruling was “both striking and concerning”.

Mr Wyvill says the lack of action on the “serious findings” in the judgment issued in his favour suggest “many of the individuals involved in the administration of justice in the Territory” have “a positive disposition against examining” the allegations.

“I raise these matters because I note that four members of the Commission (all save the one or two lay members) are part of the local legal community which has acted or failed to act in this way, some with greater involvement than others,” he wrote.

Alistair Wyvill SC.

There is I suggest an urgent need not just to address the alleged misconduct of Southwood J but these broader issues as well, not least because they are relevant to the proper discharge of the Commission’s function to investigate the alleged misconduct of Southwood J.

“Manifestly, the Commission as presently comprised is not well-suited to do this. It will need to make appropriate arrangements to constitute an examination of these matters that is.”

In the letter, Mr Wyvill also acknowledges his “own role in the systemic impotence this appears to demonstrate” as a former president of the NT Bar Association.

Justice Southwood has previously declined to comment on the allegations.

“It would be inappropriate for Justice Southwood or any other member of the Supreme Court to make comment in relation to the matter,” a court spokesman said.

On Friday, the NT News revealed Independent Commissioner Against Corruption, Michael Riches, had dismissed a complaint by Mr Wyvill about Justice Southwood and referred it back to the Territory’s newly established Judicial Commission.

ICAC dismisses allegation judge tried to ‘ingratiate’ himself with CLP in bid for top job

THE Territory’s corruption watchdog has found no evidence Justice Stephen Southwood used his position to ingratiate himself to the then Country Liberal Party government in a bid to become Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

The allegation was made in a complaint to the newly formed Judicial Commission by Darwin silk, Alistair Wyvill SC, after a tribunal ruled he was justified in suggesting Justice Southwood was “politically partisan” and calling into question his fitness to sit on the bench.

But Independent Commissioner Against Corruption, Michael Riches, used his powers under the Judicial Commission Act to intervene and take on the investigation himself.

In December last year, Mr Riches wrote to Mr Wyvill saying he believed it was “in the public interest that I investigate” the allegations stemming from the Stella Maris inquiry in 2015, in which Mr Wyvill represented former Labor Opposition Leader, Delia Lawrie.

“You have alleged that a serving judge of the Supreme Court delivered a judgment which was motivated by self-interest (ie. to ingratiate himself to the CLP government with a view to securing appointment as Chief Justice) and/or malice,” he wrote.

Justice Stephen Southwood.

“I cannot conceive of a much more serious allegation of corrupt conduct against a judge.”

Then, after appointing unnamed, interstate “senior and junior counsel” and having “collected evidence and considered that evidence”, but without further explanation, Mr Riches informed Mr Wyvill in February he had “closed my investigation”.

“I did not find any evidence to support the contention that Justice Southwood’s decision in Lawrie v Lawler was motivated by a desire to ingratiate himself to the Country Liberal Party in order to advance his interests in securing appointment as Chief Justice,” he wrote.

“I have informed the Judicial Commission of that fact and have consented to that body receiving and dealing with the entirety of your complaint.”

Mr Wyvill responded with a series of questions about what Mr Riches’ investigation entailed and why he did not consider it more appropriate to refer the matter to an independent panel of judges, noting Mr Riches had not sought to interview him about his allegations.

Mr Wyvill also raised concerns about the independence of Judicial Commission chairman, Chief Justice Michael Grant, who he said was responsible for commencing failed professional misconduct proceedings against him, in his then role as Solicitor-General, in the wake of Justice Southwood’s ruling.

Alistair Wyvill SC in the Supreme Court.

“The impact of his interest is evidenced by his complaint’s obvious lack of merit as explained in the Tribunals’ decision and which resulted in the Law Society agreeing to pay $550,000 of my costs even though it has a statutory protection against adverse costs order for complaints prosecuted in good faith,” he wrote.

“In addition to the common interest he shares in defending Justice Southwood’s conduct in Lawrie v Lawler, Michael Grant and Justice Southwood are good friends and have been for a number of decades.”

After Mr Riches declined to respond to Mr Wyvill’s questions in detail, the barrister lodged a complaint with ICAC inspector, Bruce McClintock SC, who dismissed the complaint in April, saying the ICAC Act did not permit him to express a view about the merits of the allegations.

Mr McClintock said a complaint could only be upheld “if it demonstrates some form of impropriety or an erroneous approach to the legislation”.

ICAC Michael Riches.

“Put simply, it is not the function of the inspector to reconsider the merits of an ICAC decision in the absence of impropriety or legal error,” he wrote.

“I consider that the commissioner was entitled to conclude that there was no evidence to support your allegation concerning Justice Southwood and, in the exercise of his discretion, to determine that his investigation should not be continued.”

Justice Southwood has previously declined to comment on the allegations.

“It would be inappropriate for Justice Southwood or any other member of the Supreme Court to make comment in relation to the matter,” a court spokesman said.