Judicial bullying
The conduct division referred to portions of the transcript where the judge bullied the prosecutor, including by describing the case as “hopeless” and saying the Crown was “gutless” and “too scared to never run a case of sexual assault”.
Referring to another DPP lawyer, Newlinds said to the prosecutor: “So how would I know if that person’s got any more brains than you?”
The conduct division said “[in] our view, the characterisation by the Director of this extended passage of the transcript as ‘belittling, harassment and bullying of the prosecutor’ is amply warranted”.
In a letter on July 4 to the conduct division, extracted in the report, Newlinds said he immediately recognised he had behaved inappropriately after the exchange and apologised.
He said he was “deeply regretful as to my conduct”.
“It represents conduct that I have experienced myself that I dislike and strongly disapprove of.”
Director of Public Prosecutions Sally Dowling SC.Credit: Nick Moir
Vilification of complainant
The conduct division also found the judge had engaged in “quite unjustified criticism of the complainant” which could be characterised as vilification.
This included by suggesting: “If the jury had known the full picture of the complainant’s history … the time of deliberation would have been measured in minutes.”
Criticism of DPP
Newlinds said in his judgment he was “left with a deep level of concern that there is some sort of unwritten policy or expectation” at the DPP that it would prosecute any sexual assault matter. He thought it took “the lazy and perhaps politically expedient course” of leaving it to the jury to decide.
The judge said in his response to the conduct division that he regretted the “lazy” comment and accepted his “unwritten policy” remark “went further than was necessary”.
The conduct division said the comments were “far more serious than a matter of inapposite, over strong or imperfect language”.
“It was fundamentally unjudicial conduct and inimical to basic procedural fairness of the most basic kind. It entailed, in our view, an abuse by the Judge of his power in giving reasons for his decision on the matter in hand.”
The panel said that “swingeing criticisms by a District Court judge … would readily be assumed by the public (a) to have a basis in evidence before the judge and (b) only to have been made after an inquiry into the matter based on evidence and a fair opportunity having been given to the object of the criticism to address it. None of that occurred”.
‘Borderline case’
The conduct division said it had “accepted as substantiated” each of the four grounds of the DPP’s complaint, including that Newlinds failed to exhibit judicial impartiality, unreasonably criticised and vilified the complainant, and made baseless criticism of Dowling and the office of the DPP.
It recommended he receive formal mentoring by more experienced judges and meet with former NSW chief justice Tom Bathurst, KC, after reading texts on judicial conduct.
The panel said in the report on August 19 that “[after] careful reflection and, on balance, we do not consider that the grounds that we have found to be substantiated are such, on this occasion, to warrant Parliamentary consideration of removal from office” for proved misbehaviour.
However, it said this was a “borderline case” and a “repetition of such or similar conduct may well lead a subsequent Conduct Division to a different view”.
The response
The NSW District Court, the state’s busiest criminal trial court, said in a statement: “A copy of the report ... was received by the Chief Judge of the District Court on 20 August 2024 and is being considered.”
Newlinds said: “It’s not appropriate for me to comment.”
The report noted Newlinds told the conduct division that he had reflected deeply on the incident, in a reference to the “now conceded bullying”, and had put in place informal mentoring arrangements with judges. He had also sought out the Chief Judge and apologised.
Dowling said in a statement to staff: “As I have made clear on numerous previous occasions, I unequivocally reject Judge Newlinds’ criticisms and I remain steadfastly supportive of the professional, diligent and committed staff of the ODPP.”