This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/jun/11/former-colleague-blocked-release-of-tape-of-tim-carmody-abusing-judges

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Former colleague blocked release of tape of Tim Carmody abusing judges Former colleague blocked release of tape of Tim Carmody abusing judges
(5 days later)
The public servant who blocked the release of a recording of Tim Carmody unloading abuse on fellow judges has worked for the Queensland chief justice in two former roles, Guardian Australia can reveal.The public servant who blocked the release of a recording of Tim Carmody unloading abuse on fellow judges has worked for the Queensland chief justice in two former roles, Guardian Australia can reveal.
Anne Edwards, the director of the right to information and privacy unit of the state justice department, worked as research director for Carmody’s child protection inquiry in 2012 and 2013 before his appointment as chief magistrate and then chief justice.Anne Edwards, the director of the right to information and privacy unit of the state justice department, worked as research director for Carmody’s child protection inquiry in 2012 and 2013 before his appointment as chief magistrate and then chief justice.
Edwards, who ruled last week that the release of the recording of Carmody would interfere with his right to privacy, also worked under him more than a decade ago at the Queensland crime commission.Edwards, who ruled last week that the release of the recording of Carmody would interfere with his right to privacy, also worked under him more than a decade ago at the Queensland crime commission.
Guardian Australia understands the only judge who has objected to the release of the recording – made secretly by senior judge administrator John Byrne in February – was Carmody. In the conversation, recorded secretly by senior judge administrator John Byrne in February, Carmody purportedly calls fellow judges “scum” and one a “fat fuck”. It took place as Byrne and colleague David Boddice confronted the chief justice about his interference around a potential legal challenge by the Liberal National party following the state election.
The conversation, in which Carmody purportedly calls fellow judges “scum” and one a “fat fuck”, took place as Byrne and colleague David Boddice confronted the chief justice about his interference around a potential legal challenge by the Liberal National party following the state election.
Boddice had been nominated by roster to sit in the court of disputed returns months earlier under a protocol in place since 1995.Boddice had been nominated by roster to sit in the court of disputed returns months earlier under a protocol in place since 1995.
But right to information documents obtained by Guardian Australia last week revealed Carmody secretly ordered staff to ignore Boddice’s instructions and keep him out of the loop if any legal challenge materialised.But right to information documents obtained by Guardian Australia last week revealed Carmody secretly ordered staff to ignore Boddice’s instructions and keep him out of the loop if any legal challenge materialised.
However, Edwards decided that the recording – along with a letter from 25 March written the day before outgoing judge Alan Wilson’s highly publicised speech condemning Carmody’s leadership of the courts as a “failed experiment” – should not be released on the grounds they contained “personal information of the chief justice”.However, Edwards decided that the recording – along with a letter from 25 March written the day before outgoing judge Alan Wilson’s highly publicised speech condemning Carmody’s leadership of the courts as a “failed experiment” – should not be released on the grounds they contained “personal information of the chief justice”.
Edwards said in her decision that “on this basis, I believe the right of the chief justice to privacy outweighs the public interest in releasing it”.Edwards said in her decision that “on this basis, I believe the right of the chief justice to privacy outweighs the public interest in releasing it”.
“I have considered there is already a great deal of material in the public domain relating to the broader issues about the contentious nature of the appointment of the chief justice in July 2014, negative public comment by senior leaders in the legal profession about his appointment, and discontent among supreme court judges about decisions he has since made,” she said.“I have considered there is already a great deal of material in the public domain relating to the broader issues about the contentious nature of the appointment of the chief justice in July 2014, negative public comment by senior leaders in the legal profession about his appointment, and discontent among supreme court judges about decisions he has since made,” she said.
“The disclosure of further material is not likely to lead to positive and informed debate.”“The disclosure of further material is not likely to lead to positive and informed debate.”
Edwards told Guardian Australia on Thursday that if anyone suggested that her prior working relationship with Carmody had created the perception of a conflict of interest “they’d be wrong”.Edwards told Guardian Australia on Thursday that if anyone suggested that her prior working relationship with Carmody had created the perception of a conflict of interest “they’d be wrong”.
Edwards said that declaring associations with people who were the subject of right to information requests was “not a common process” but added: “I would have removed myself if I had felt that there might be any bias or apprehended bias.”Edwards said that declaring associations with people who were the subject of right to information requests was “not a common process” but added: “I would have removed myself if I had felt that there might be any bias or apprehended bias.”
“I’ve made my decision within the requirements under the act,” she said.“I’ve made my decision within the requirements under the act,” she said.
“I’ve made a legitimate decision and I’ve made a well-considered decision that takes into account the public interest factors and the issues under schedule two of the act.”“I’ve made a legitimate decision and I’ve made a well-considered decision that takes into account the public interest factors and the issues under schedule two of the act.”
Edwards said she worked for three months on secondment at the former QCC during Carmody’s stint as commissioner from 1998.Edwards said she worked for three months on secondment at the former QCC during Carmody’s stint as commissioner from 1998.
A number of RTI applicants including media are appealing her decision to the information commissioner.A number of RTI applicants including media are appealing her decision to the information commissioner.
A spokesman for the justice department emphatically defended Edwards as “a senior public servant of impeccable character, who maintains the highest standards of professionalism and impartiality in exercising her statutory responsibilities”.A spokesman for the justice department emphatically defended Edwards as “a senior public servant of impeccable character, who maintains the highest standards of professionalism and impartiality in exercising her statutory responsibilities”.
“Any anonymous inference to the contrary could only be condemned as baseless and reprehensible. It seems unlikely that anyone of good repute would attach their name to such scurrilous innuendo,” he said.“Any anonymous inference to the contrary could only be condemned as baseless and reprehensible. It seems unlikely that anyone of good repute would attach their name to such scurrilous innuendo,” he said.
“Applicants who disagree with the decision are entitled to appeal, but they are not entitled to cast unworthy aspersions on the integrity of the decision-maker.“Applicants who disagree with the decision are entitled to appeal, but they are not entitled to cast unworthy aspersions on the integrity of the decision-maker.
“The avenues for appeal are well established and have been outlined in some detail.”“The avenues for appeal are well established and have been outlined in some detail.”
It was hoped the recording would give an insight into the fracturing of Queensland’s judiciary under Carmody, who has consistently been dogged by claims he was a partisan appointment by the former LNP government looking to imbue the courts with a more punishing approach to criminal offenders.It was hoped the recording would give an insight into the fracturing of Queensland’s judiciary under Carmody, who has consistently been dogged by claims he was a partisan appointment by the former LNP government looking to imbue the courts with a more punishing approach to criminal offenders.
Carmody was “unanimously condemned by the judges” for interfering in Boddice’s appointment and for subseqeuently sacking Byrne, Wilson said in March.Carmody was “unanimously condemned by the judges” for interfering in Boddice’s appointment and for subseqeuently sacking Byrne, Wilson said in March.
• This article has been amended pending investigation of a complaint.