There is no statute of limitations on hypocrisy. It’s been one week since this newspaper revealed NSW Supreme Chief Justice Andrew Bell’s scathing email to fellow Supreme Court judges about a speech given by Federal Court judge Ian Jackman.

Exactly what business it was of Bell’s to sledge Jackman is not entirely obvious, though one suspects he thought supporting the Chief Justice of the Federal Court, Debra Mortimer, was a good idea.

Either way, his email has backfired.

All it has done is prove that old proverb about the folly of those in glass houses throwing stones.

Bell quoted section 5.7 of the guide to judicial conduct as support for his attack on Jackman, implying the Federal Court judge wasn’t a collegial enough fellow when he named six Federal Court judges for taking at least 2½ years to decide cases.

How awkward. Section 5.7 says precisely nothing about what Jackman said in his now famous speech to the Rule of Law Institute when he explained why “egregious delays” in delivering reserved judgments were undermining the rule of law in this country. The Federal Court judge added that “trust and confidence in our institutions of government should not simply be demanded; it should be earned”.

If only the NSW Supreme Court had been more careful about citing section 5.7 of the Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration guide to judicial conduct. This section says a great deal about judges getting involved in political controversies and expressing views “that will give rise to issues of bias or prejudgement in cases that later come before the judge even in areas apparently unconnected with the original debate”.

The bind for Bell is that if one runs a ruler over his own public addresses, using section 5.7 as a measure of what is proper judicial conduct, the result for the judge is not good.

Bell has publicly criticised Tony Abbott for spreading misinformation when the former PM posted that “it should not be for a judge to decide when a political protest is justified. The decision to close the Sydney Harbour Bridge to facilitate this protest is a political decision and should be made by elected and accountable ministers – who, as it happens, think the march should not go ahead.”

Bell must have known full well that there is a legitimate political debate as to whether we should empower judges to make decisions of a political nature, especially when it concerns intelligence material impacting the government’s first duty to keep people safe.

Bell has also publicly attacked Elon Musk for challenging the Australian government’s attempt to regulate the flow of misinformation and disinformation. Bell must know that these loaded terms are part of a robust political debate and are frequently used to shut down debate. Strident claims of misinformation were used during Covid to censor claims by critics, only to be revealed as accurate.

Bell seems to have fallen for the rookie judicial mistake of thinking his black robes confer greater morality on his views when it comes to contested legislation and that the lumpenproletariat, too stupid to notice his political intervention, will lap up his moral guidance.

Bell attacked Donald Trump too for issuing pardons for the January 6 rioters. Bell must know presidential pardons are legal in the US. Just days before Bell’s public dressing down of Trump, former president Joe Biden issued pre-emptive pardons for members of his family. No word from Bell about that.  

The judge is free to dislike Trump, but rant among friends in private, please. Being a judge is a sombre profession for a reason.

Judges show respect for courts and for citizens by understanding the simple rule that publicly criticising politicians, especially over a contested issue, is usually a sign that the judge has veered out of his lane, into the rambunctious world of politics.

Stepping into the wilds of politics may deliver a judicial rush to the head, but it does little to uphold the reputation of the courts as impartial arbiters of the law.

Similarly, when judges deliver public acknowledgments of country, they enter the political arena.

For example, ACT Supreme Court Chief Justice Lucy McCallum has said that “this land has never been ceded” in her acknowledgment of country in a public address.

Federal Court Chief Justice Debra Mortimer won’t find much salvation in Bell’s clumsy attempt to denounce Jackman either. Section 5.7 comes closer to covering her own conduct when she delivers acknowledgments of country, especially where she throws in some social commentary, acknowledging “the challenges facing the Australian community in our relationships with First Nations peoples, including how First Nations peoples are treated by the justice system”.

All the available evidence after the failed voice referendum is that most Australians oppose these overtly political statements.

Bell’s email is especially clumsy coming so soon after High Court Justice Robert Beech-Jones waded neck deep into politics in a public address in May. When the High Court judge sledged US Supreme Court judges as “supine”, he sounded a lot like a politician.

When the judge attacked the Samuel Griffith Society as a political organisation, he stepped right into politics. When Beech-Jones effectively threatened law students to steer clear of a body that is committed to judges behaving like judges, not politicians, he behaved in a very unjudge-like way indeed.

Yet Bell did not fire off a long email after the Beech-Jones speech to remind judges about section 5.7 of the AIJA. How could he? He appears to be guilty of showing scant regard for the golden rule that judges should stay out of politics.