Chief Justice Bell Rejects Abbott's "Ignorant" Comments on Judge's Protest Decision
New South Wales Chief Justice Andrew Bell has publicly addressed comments made by former Prime Minister Tony Abbott concerning a judge's decision to approve a pro-Palestinian march on the Sydney Harbour Bridge. During a recent speech, Chief Justice Bell described Mr. Abbott's remarks as "misconceived," "regrettable," and "ignorant," and stated they threatened social cohesion. Mr. Abbott has maintained his position, framing the issue as a matter of the separation of powers.
Chief Justice Bell described Mr. Abbott's remarks as "misconceived," "regrettable," and "ignorant," and stated they threatened social cohesion.
The Controversy's Origin
The controversy stems from a social media post made by Mr. Abbott last August, following a ruling by NSW Supreme Court Justice Belinda Rigg. Justice Rigg's decision permitted a pro-Palestinian march to proceed, which was attended by an estimated 225,000 to 300,000 people and involved the closure of the Sydney Harbour Bridge.
In his post, Mr. Abbott stated that "it should not be for judges to decide when a political protest is justified." He contended that the decision to close the Harbour Bridge for the protest was a "political decision" that should be made by elected and accountable ministers.
Judicial Role Clarified
Chief Justice Bell delivered his remarks during a speech to the legal profession. He clarified that Justice Rigg's decision did not involve determining the justification of a political protest. Instead, he explained, the authorities had already decided to close the bridge, a fact recorded in the judgment. Bell noted that the legislature had expressly given the court responsibility for such decisions.
According to Chief Justice Bell, Justice Rigg's ruling was not a political judgment but involved a careful balancing of the common law and constitutionally protected rights to free speech and public assembly against public safety considerations. He emphasized that her decision applied existing statutory frameworks and case law.
Such attacks often indicate "ignorance" of the legal framework and judicial reasoning, thereby undermining trust in the judiciary and the rule of law.
Broader Concerns for Judicial Independence
Chief Justice Bell described Mr. Abbott's specific remarks as "misconceived," "regrettable," and "ignorant," stating they threatened social cohesion. He also voiced broader concerns about what he termed "simplistic but frequently highly personal criticism" of judges in the media and on social media, particularly concerning bail decisions, acknowledging the inherent risks in such rulings.
Bell stated that such attacks often indicate "ignorance" of the legal framework and judicial reasoning, thereby undermining trust in the judiciary and the rule of law. He further revealed that two Supreme Court judges who had faced personalized criticism in the media had received death threats in the past 18 months, describing this as a "grave concern."
Abbott Stands Firm
When asked about Chief Justice Bell's criticism, Mr. Abbott informed the ABC that he stood by his comments. He reiterated his stance, asserting that the question of whether a political protest proceeds should fall to the executive government, not judges. Mr. Abbott maintained that his position is rooted in the principle of the "separation of powers."