Login
Barrister reprimanded for pushing female practitioner’s head towards crotch
A barrister who pushed a female legal professional’s head towards his crotch area during an event for clerks has been reprimanded and ordered to pay costs, with the tribunal finding that the actions did not warrant any “more onerous” discipline.
Naomi Neilson
The barrister – whose name and any other identifying features have been restricted – was found to have engaged in sexually inappropriate conduct when he approached a female legal professional, dubbed H for anonymity. The Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) said he did so to include her in a “jokey greeting ritual”.
To continue reading the rest of this article, please log in.
Create free account to get unlimited news articles and more!
In submissions and affidavits, H alleged that the barrister had taken hold of the back of her head with one hand and “started to move my head to and from his crotch area”. While he did this, she alleged that he said “suck my dick” and afterwards, she said he humorously told her not to “complain about me to the Bar Association”.
NCAT found that the incident was an “ill-judged attempt by [the barrister], late in the evening, after consuming a considerable quantity of alcohol” to include H in the type of greeting he had shared with a male peer. H was “angered, offended, embarrassed and humiliated”, but NCAT said the barrister did not intend to make her feel that way and was “appalled when he discovered that he had done so”.
In handing down the reprimand and the order to pay the applicant’s costs, NCAT was “very confident that he will never behave in a like manner again” but noted the marking of the degree of seriousness warrants a reprimand over a caution.
It also found that general deterrence would not be enhanced by the imposition of a fine and that to the extent it is possible to deter others from making any “ill-judged jokes in very poor taste”, the simple awareness of the matter, its outcome and any consequences “are likely to be a sufficient deterrence” from similar incidents.
“Had the incident involved an unwarranted sexual advance, an attempt to obtain sexual (or other) co-operation by intimidation, threats or other pressure, or even a deliberate decision to humiliate anyone, then the disciplinary orders we would be considering would be more onerous than the orders we are considering. However, no such factors are at present here,” the judgement read.
The judgement can be found on AustLII: Council of the New South Wales Bar Association v EFA (No 2) [2021] NSWCATOD 84 (18 June 2021).
