To support a “fantastical” recusal application, a former prison officer combed through a Federal Court judge’s social media, included images of his family in an affidavit, and used a GoFundMe for his brother-in-law to allege there was a “quid pro quo” with the opposing barrister.
Former Bunbury Regional Prison officer Bronwyn Hendry filed a recusal application against Justice Darren Jackson, who was presiding over her case against the West Australian Department of Justice for alleged sexual harassment and discrimination during her employment.
According to a memorandum filed by Justice Jackson in September, the recusal application concerned an alleged “personal relationship” with Fiona Stanton, a barrister briefed to appear for the department.
Justice Jackson disclosed they both attended the University of Western Australia’s Law School and he had known of her up until 2017, but clarified they did not attend the same small or private social gatherings.
The two began working at the same chambers in 2017 and “likely spoke socially” during social functions. It was also likely they spoke at Bar and bench dinners since his appointment in March 2019.
“Since Stanton first appeared in this proceeding, I have had no communications with her, about any matter or thing, other than in open court,” Justice Jackson clarified in the memorandum, republished in full in his recusal decision handed down late last week.
Hendry described the relationship as “close and ongoing”, based partially on interactions in the memorandum, but also the fact of “social media friendships” between Stanton, Justice Jackson, and his wife.
The judgment disclosed that Stanton attended the same high school as Justice Jackson’s brother-in-law and had “fond memories” of him. His wife also attended the school, but it was “some forty years ago”.
On the Facebook issue, Justice Jackson said Facebook “friends” can include relationships “as diverse as family, close friends, distant acquaintances or even strangers”, and so the nature of a person’s real closeness cannot be determined by the social media connection.
“In my view, the fact of a Facebook ‘friendship’ is a fact to be taken into account like any other in evaluating the closeness or otherwise of a relationship between a judge and a party, witness or legal representative. It is an evaluation to be conducted on the basis of all relevant objective facts of the case,” Justice Jackson said.
As far as the personal relationship extends, Justice Jackson pointed to High Court authorities about the inevitability that judges may know barristers who appear before them, given the nature of the profession.
His connection with Stanton is unremarkable and a kind “which the fair-minded observer would expect many barristers and judges to have”.
“The proposition that a relationship of this kind would lead a judge with the requisite professional training, and having made the judicial affirmation, to be inclined to favour the case of the client represented by the barrister is unreal,” Justice Jackson added.
Hendry also took issue with Stanton’s $500 donation to a GoFundMe set up by Justice Jackson’s wife and two other people to support his brother-in-law through a six-month hospital stay.
Justice Jackson shared the GoFundMe link on his Facebook page, and Stanton made the donation on the same day. However, it was worth noting Stanton’s connection with the brother-in-law and mutual friends.
Hendry alleged this was proof Justice Jackson has a “direct financial interest in the case”, referring to the donation as a “quid pro quo”.
“To the extent that Hendry says I have a financial interest in the case, or that Stanton and I somehow have a financial interest in each other, she misstates the position,” Justice Jackson said.
“Stanton and I have no financial ties whatsoever. The donation has been made, and there is no rational basis to suggest that deciding the case in the State’s favour will lead to any financial benefit to me.”
The suggestion of a quid pro quo was dismissed as “far-fetched”.
“It is fantastical to suggest that I posted the GoFundMe link out of a concern to reduce any financial burden on me, or that I would view donations to the fundraiser as having that effect.
Only a peculiarly suspicious and cynical observer, rather than a fair-minded one, would view it as a real possibility.”
Another part of Hendry’s application was the accusation of differential procedural treatment, pointing to instances where her documents were rejected by registry for “technical” non-compliance.
In contrast, documents filed by the represented parties were accepted quickly via the court’s “auto-accept system”.
At a factual level, Justice Jackson said Hendry has not established a connection between those decisions and any direction on his part.
Further, he offered to issue a pro bono certificate so Hendry could obtain legal representation, but she chose not to do so.
“That choice made it inevitable that she would not have the benefit of the court’s auto accept system,” Justice Jackson said.
“While every litigant is entitled to the same level of fairness, regardless of whether they have legal representation, the years of training and experience that legal practitioners have in the preparation of legal documents correctly is not a mere irrelevancy.
“But if that does explain the approach Registry has taken, as I have said, there is no logical connection between that approach and any conduct on my part.”
The recusal application was dismissed on these grounds.
However, Hendry “assiduously combed through” the social media presence of Justice Jackson and his wife and chose to file affidavits which included “screen captures of images of my family”.
She has also based her application in large part on his brother-in-law’s medical emergency.
“Hendry must have seen all this in her thorough researches. And she chose to utilise it, in order to baselessly ascribe the worst of motives to me and others,” Justice Jackson said.
It left open the “simple reality” that it would be difficult for any judge to be objective with a person who has conducted themselves in this way, and a fair-minded observer may not reasonably apprehend that such a judge could bring an impartial mind to the proceedings.
“To be clear, it is not the strident and unjustified personal criticisms alone which lead to this conclusion. Judges face such criticisms frequently,” Justice Jackson clarified.
“It is the way Hendry has based those criticisms on a significant tragedy in my family that creates a logical connection between her conduct in this proceeding, and a reasonable apprehension that I might not decide the case on the merits.”
For that reason alone, the proceedings were returned to the court’s National Operations Registry for reallocation.
The case: Hendry v State of Western Australia (No 3) [2025] FCA 1262.
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
