Just in case you were unsure about your own Hogwash
If Prime Minister Anthony Albanese (or any government official) were to meet privately with Justice (Jackson) or any judge overseeing the PEP-11 case during the legal proceedings, it could raise serious legal and ethical concerns, especially regarding judicial independence and the appearance of impartiality.Here’s a breakdown of the legal and constitutional implications:
Separation of Powers ViolationIn Australia, the separation of powers doctrine is a foundational principle. The executive branch (e.g., the Prime Minister) must not interfere with or influence the judiciary.A private meeting during an ongoing case could be perceived as executive interference, even if no direct influence was attempted
Perceived or Actual Conflict of InterestEven the appearance of influence can undermine public trust.If PM Albanese met with a judge presiding over a case directly affecting his government’s interests (e.g., PEP-11), it would raise suspicion that he was attempting to influence the outcome.That’s grounds for potential judicial recusal if the judge believed their impartiality could be reasonably questioned.
Breach of Judicial Code of ConductJudges are bound by strict codes of conduct requiring them to avoid both impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.If a judge met privately with a party to a case, it would be highly irregular and potentially disciplinary or misconduct territory.
Possible Grounds for AppealIf such a meeting became public, the losing party could argue the decision was tainted by bias, leading to:Appeals,A request to set aside the judgment, orEven a miscarriage of justice claim.
Political FalloutBeyond legal consequences, such a meeting would cause a political storm:Opposition parties, the media, and the public would likely call for resignations, inquiries, or Senate investigations.It could also breach ministerial codes of conduct, triggering internal disciplinary processes.
IMO DYOR
Expand
(20min delay)