Darwin silk justified in accusing Supreme Court Justice of ‘political bias’, ‘malice’, tribunal rules

A LEADING Darwin silk was justified in suggesting a Supreme Court Justice was “politically partisan” in favour of the Country Liberal Party and calling into question his fitness to sit on the bench, a tribunal has ruled

Prominent Darwin barrister Alistair Wyvill SC has been cleared of any wrongdoing by the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal.

• Judge takes stand behind closed doors in Stella Maris inquiry legal stoush
• Watchdog action looms for Alistair Wyvill over Stella Maris

A LEADING Darwin silk was justified in suggesting a Supreme Court Justice was “politically partisan” in favour of the Country Liberal Party and calling into question his fitness to sit on the bench, a tribunal has ruled.

Alistair Wyvill SC had been accused of professional misconduct in relation to advice he provided to former Labor Opposition Leader Delia Lawrie during the Stella Maris inquiry in 2015.

Ms Lawrie appealed the inquiry’s findings in the Supreme Court and Mr Wyvill was also alleged to have engaged in misconduct by claiming appeal judge Stephen Southwood made comments in his ruling that were motivated by “malice” and “politically partisan”.

MORE NT COURT NEWS

Coroner slams departmental failings in remote NT children’s preventable deaths

Ex-croc wrangler busted selling drugs from Pinelands sex shop, claiming it was sold as ‘incense’

Police within rights to breath test woman in breach of DVO at her front door, court rules

In his ruling, Justice Southwood had stated: “What is being counselled by Mr Wyvill is a strategy to make the incredibly serious and completely baseless allegation that the Country Liberal Party Government picked (inquiry Commissioner John) Lawler on the basis that he would find what they wanted him to find.”

As a result, Mr Wyvill wrote to the Bar Council complaining that Justice Southwood had not given him an opportunity to respond to his “both unnecessary and politically partisan” comments.

“He caused extraordinary damage to my professional reputation which will be irreversible to a significant extent regardless of what I might have to say and what any other tribunal, having heard what I have to say, might find,” he wrote.

“This in my view is suggestive of malice and calls into question his fitness to be a judge.”

But in dismissing all the allegations against Mr Wyvill, the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal ruled his decision to write to the Bar Council was “understandable”, given Justice Southwood’s “extremely damaging” comments, which, if true, would have warranted his being struck off.

Prominent Darwin barrister Alistair Wyvill SC has been cleared of any wrongdoing by the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal.

“An implication that may be drawn from (Justice Southwood’s) finding is a favourable view of (the) Country Liberal Party,” the tribunal found.

“In his email Mr Wyvill expresses the belief that the finding was politically partisan. In the overall context of what was ‘inherently political’ litigation, we accept that the finding provides a basis for that belief.

“As the victim of his honour’s findings, we are satisfied that Mr Wyvill had a sufficient basis for saying that the matters that he detailed were, in his view, suggestive of malice and call into question his honour’s fitness to be a judge.”

The tribunal also found that Mr Wyvill was justified in his belief that Justice Southwood bore him ill-will after he earlier represented another lawyer who the tribunal found the judge had “bullied and belittled” during a trial.

OFFER EXTENDED: Amazing NT News subscription offer: Read everything for $1

“We consider that the evidence of his honour bullying and disparaging the lawyer provides a basis for calling into question his honour’s fitness to be a judge and the evidence of Mr Wyvill’s involvement provides a basis for suggesting that his honour may have been ill-disposed towards Mr Wyvill,” the tribunal found.

The tribunal stressed that while its ruling reflected “derogatory and offensive things” said about people not party to the proceeding, its findings were “not findings against non-parties”.

Follow @jas_walls