Has the Royal Commission been compromised? One man's personal decision creates political chaos.

Dyson Heydon has captured the fancy of Australians.

There are allegations against Justice Heydon claiming that his impartiality is compromised because he agreed to give a speech at a liberal dinner party. Despite these accusations, Heydon is refusing to stand down from his position on the Royal Commission. He is determined to remain on the commission as its head.

Heydon claims that he was not aware of the extent of the political connection that the Sir Barfield Barwick address had. It should be noted, that he has subsequently withdrawn his acceptance as he has not yet given the speech.

The belief that the Sir Barwick event was not connected to the liberal party is not unreasonable. Barwick was a QC and Chief Justice of Australia for 17 years making him the longest standing chief justice in history. Therefore, Justice Heydon as an esteemed retired judge of the High Court was a reasonable choice to appear at the address.

However, Barwick was a member of the House of Representatives and a part of the Liberal party. It is not unreasonable to suggest that a judge of Heydon’s caliber should have realized the possible compromise to his impartiality. Especially when he is involved in a delicate political matter as an acting head of a royal commission. It seems only reasonable that he should exercise great caution when interacting with any part of the political arena.

On the other hand how accountable can a speech make an individual? The act of speaking on a topic at a memorial dinner to commemorate the longest running chief justice in history has now constituted extreme bias that can compromise an entire Royal Commission. The calls for Heydon to withdraw the claim that this single event alone has completely jeopardized the impartiality of the entire commission. My concern is that speech at a respectful event, acknowledging the successes of a great legal mind, is not a pro-liberal placard. Somehow, the head of this Royal Commission who has made a life out of separating his personal life from his working life is being made out to have lost all credibility. The credibility is lost in the eyes of the media and political affiliates because in his own time he merely made an agreement to give a speech at a commemorative dinner.

This begs the question, are we interfering too much in peoples’ private lives?

In today's’ 24/7 society have we lost the ability to remove work related responsibilities and personas from a personal life?

We may argue that giving a speech as a retired justice of the high court has a sufficient connection with his work to constitute it as not his personal life but duties connected to work. However, I would reply that a speech, at whatever venue, does not indirectly or directly express support of those behind the veil of the event. If the primary intention of the event is to provide support, such as at a rally, then the speech itself would also exhibit that primary purpose. An even such as the one agreed to by Justice Heydon was an event that proposed to have the main purpose of recognizing the great legal career of Sir Barwick. It has been treated by the media as a liberal love-fest and not a mere commemorative dinner party.

It is hard to reach an objective conclusion given the nature of the media sensationalism surrounding this issue. I would hazard the suggestion, however, that the intentions of Heydon were as he claims, given that there were mixed intentions of the event that were not immediately apparent. Additionally the finding of evidence by the Royal Commission are not the sole discoveries of Heydon but a collective effort. Hence, the Commission cannot be sabotaged by his presence at dinner.

Justice Heydon, agreeing last year to give a speech on August 29^th has no significant influence on the findings or any implications of the evidence. Assuming that our legal system is not corrupt. A single person offering an oration, while he may hold great authority in the provision and presentation of the conclusions of a Royal Commission can still not suppress findings grounded in sound evidence.

As I have mentioned, I am hesitant to give any final form of an opinion. The media has been infamous for neglecting information in vital cases for years. I will instead return to my earlier comments on the value and separation of personal and work life. I am of the opinion that there are parts of an individual’s personal life that should affect the manner in which a person is regarded during their work life.

However, these actions are easily restricted to crimes of a significant nature such as sexual offenses, fraud or grievous bodily harm. A speech given to a group of officials commemorating the honorary Barwick as a retired member of the judiciary appears to be of a more domestic and personal nature than criminal. While the decision to give the speech is controversial, it is still the choice of Heydon to do so. I was unable to find whether he was paid for his time but assuming not there would be no personal benefit to Heydon.

Hence, it appears that while the judge may not have exercised the caution appropriate for the head of a Royal Commission, his right to give a speech at a commemorative event should not be removed. The speech while held at an event connected to the Liberal Party was not the primary intention of the event. Moreover, the royal commissioner has not sacrificed the integrity of the evidence found by the commission. This means that little argument can be made against the findings of the commission despite his actions.