Dyson Heydon inquiry didn’t get to hear former judge’s side of the story

Former High Court judge Dyson Heydon. Picture: AAP

The inquiry that found Dyson Heydon sexually harassed female associates reached its decision without hearing one word from the former High Court judge.

As a result, one of those familiar with the inquiry said it had not been able to consider the former judge’s side of the story before upholding accusations that he had harassed six young women while they worked as his associates at the High Court.

Their accusations were not tested under cross-examination, nor weighed against Mr Heydon’s version of what happened.

On Monday, when the High Court issued a statement saying the “complaints were borne out”, it did not mention that Mr Heydon’s side of this affair had not been provided and therefore had not been considered.

The law firm representing the complainants, Maurice Blackburn, has dismissed as “ridiculous” concern that Mr Heydon may have been denied procedural fairness.

However, Terry O’Gorman, president of the Australian Council of Civil Liberties, said he was “disturbed that a major public figure could be ‘found guilty’ in the public arena via a process where he has not been accorded the usual procedural fairness requirements”.

“My ‘legal politics’ are very different from those of Justice Heydon but I have long taken the view that it is important that principles of procedural fairness and civil liberties rights generally be applicable to all, not just people whose views are aligned with your own,” Mr O’Gorman said.

James Allan, who is Garrick professor of law at the University of Queensland, believes the procedure used during the investigation falls short of proper standards.

He is also concerned about Chief Justice Susan Kiefel accepting the findings before the accusations have been tested in court. This could give rise to a perception of bias if the Heydon affair ever went to the High Court, Professor Allan said.

The inquiry was conducted by Vivienne Thom, a public servant who is a former inspector-general of intelligence and security.

While Dr Thom had invited Mr Heydon to provide his side of the affair, he is believed to have declined that invitation out of concern that the accusations against him could not be tested, but that anything he said could be used against him in future proceedings.

Maurice Blackburn, the law firm that brought the affair to the attention of the High Court, is launching legal proceedings on behalf of three of the complainants aimed at recovering compensation.

While Dr Thom may have used her own methods to test the accusations, one of those familiar with the inquiry said this would have been less effective than allowing Mr Heydon’s legal team to cross-examine his accusers.