I was among this disgraced judge's victims. Attempts to honour him are an insult

Sydney Morning Herald

3 days ago

Albrechtsen now claims Heydon didn't 'take part' in the investigation. That's misleading. His lawyers negotiated its terms. He consented to the process. He just chose not to be interviewed.
Others point out there was no trial or judge, as if that undermines the outcome. But this was a workplace investigation, not a criminal one. And the findings – accepted by the institution to which he was appointed – were damning.
Yet Albrechtsen now writes: 'For how long is he to be punished by other self-appointed wardens of morality? … One wonders whether a murderer who later contributes to society might be treated better than Heydon has been.'
There was no political conspiracy. Heydon's associates, myself included, were often conservative. I'm a lifelong, faithful Catholic and conservative constitutionalist. Speaking out felt like a betrayal, not just of a man, but of the broader movement.
Of course, I confided in a few people. One of them was Albrechtsen. I had brunch at her home in August 2005 – just days after Heydon gave me champagne and asked to kiss me. I told her what had happened, trusting she would handle it with discretion. The two were friendly and she was unlikely to reduce it to political fodder. She responded, I felt, with a dismissive but not unkind shrug of the shoulders. And we never spoke of it again.
Loading
I gave Albrechtsen's name to the High Court investigator, Dr Vivienne Thom. She was one of the few people who knew about Heydon – way back in 2005 – before several other women were harassed. Which is why her column was so galling. I deliberately kept her name out of the press when the story broke. Albrechtsen should have done the same and remained silent.
Albrechtsen's dilemma, though, is genuine and worth considering: how do we reckon with a man who made meaningful intellectual contributions while also abusing his position? It's an important question, but not a complicated one.
Heydon is a very smart man and his academic work is meticulous. But his conduct was indefensible. His writing may be publishable, but that doesn't entitle him to public rehabilitation – or a speaking slot at an event where he'll again have access to alcohol and young women: a cocktail that's already gotten him into trouble.
Failing to censure his actions sends the message that sexual harassment will be tolerated – so long as the offender is connected or ideologically convenient. As such, it invites future abuse. If Heydon is lauded even after the findings against him, why should any judge with a wandering hand fear accountability?
Loading
It is deeply ironic that Heydon is now being re-embraced by a society that claims to defend the Constitution. He benefited from the Constitution's separation of judicial powers and the inability to remove a High Court judge without a majority vote from both houses of parliament. His conduct exposes serious flaws in our constitutional framework, particularly the limits of judicial independence and accountability when judges engage in unacceptable behaviour. Sexual harassment is unlawful and indecent assault, if proven, is criminal.
The men now working to rehabilitate Heydon – many of them the same ones who once drank in his chambers after hearings – never saw his predation. They weren't his targets. His charm and wit never came with a proposition. That behaviour was reserved for young women like me.
Those scrambling to restore Heydon's reputation aren't defending constitutionalism – they're protecting a mate. They confuse intellect with integrity and loyalty with principle. In doing so, they betray conservatism. True conservatism demands accountability, not excuses. When we shield our own and condemn only our opponents, the rule of law becomes a tool of convenience – not a standard of justice. That's not integrity. That's hypocrisy.