Court of Appeal sends Freund matter back to NSW judicial watchdog
The Court of Appeal sent the Judicial Commission of NSW’s decision concerning Deputy Chief Judge Sharon Freund back to the commission. The commission is to reconsider whether the matter should go to a conduct division.
AI-assisted synthesis · Based on 2 outlets' reporting · Article text read from 1 of 2 outletsHow it's made
View timeline · 3 entriesWhat happened
Key facts
- The commission is to reconsider whether to refer the matter to a conduct division (per The Sydney Morning Herald).
- The court ordered the matter remitted to the commission “to be dealt with according to law” (per The Sydney Morning Herald).
- Allen is a Judicial Commission member but was excluded from participating in the examination of matters concerning Freund (per The Sydney Morning Herald).
The brief
The Court of Appeal quashed a Judicial Commission of NSW decision concerning Deputy Chief Judge Sharon Freund and sent the matter back to the judicial watchdog. The Sydney Morning Herald reported that the commission must reconsider whether to refer the matter to a conduct division. The court directed the commission to deal with it according to law. The case follows a complaint Freund made to the commission against Chief Judge Michael Allen. According to the Sydney Morning Herald, court documents filed by Freund’s lawyers said she alleged Allen bullied her over an 18-month period. The commission dismissed her complaint in June. Allen is a member of the Judicial Commission, but he had been excluded from participating in the examination of matters concerning Freund. The court examined messages Allen sent about Freund to a commission member. In one message, dated July 29, Allen wrote: “Not sure she will ever go away.”
The Sydney Morning Herald reported that Allen also wrote to NSW Attorney-General Michael Daley on June 25, raising the findings about Freund. The article does not describe a response from Daley. Freund’s lawyers told the court that the commission’s findings concerned her handling of a criminal matter in 2024. The defendant in that matter was the adult child of another magistrate, whom the Chief Judge had questioned, according to the lawyers’ submissions as reported by the Sydney Morning Herald. The lawyers also argued that the commission’s decision described the seriousness of the matter by comparing it with the definition of “corrupt conduct” in the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988 (NSW). They said that comparison was not called for by the dismissal of Freund’s bullying complaint. The account presents this as the lawyers’ submission, rather than a separate finding by the Court of Appeal. The appeal court’s order returns the matter to the commission, which now has to reconsider whether referral to a conduct division is warranted. The Sydney Morning Herald reports that the court made the order on Friday; the account does not give a calendar date for that Friday. The commission’s reconsideration is the next procedural step identified in the account.
Why it matters
- The Judicial Commission must reconsider whether to refer the matter concerning Deputy Chief Judge Sharon Freund to a conduct division.
- Freund’s complaint alleged that Chief Judge Michael Allen bullied her over an 18-month period; the commission dismissed it in June.
- The commission’s findings concerned Freund’s handling of a 2024 criminal matter involving another magistrate’s adult child, according to submissions by Freund’s lawyers.
What to watch next
- Whether the Judicial Commission refers the matter to a conduct division.
- How the commission deals with the matter under the Court of Appeal’s order to proceed according to law.
How it's being covered
Coverage analysisShow details2 source articles · 2 unique outletsOutlet political mix: Too few rated· 1 Center · 1 unratedWhere the outlets are based: Asia 50% · Unknown 50%
- Coverage is currently limited to 2 outlets.
How outlets' accounts compare
Timeline
Developments from this story's sources, dated background we compiled and fact-checked, and our earlier coverage. Each row says which.- New South Wales enacted the Constitution Act, whose section 53 set out a parliamentary process for removing Supreme Court judges.Background · compiled and fact-checked by Updat3
- The creation of the commission in 1986 established a standing institution for handling complaints about judicial officers, rather than leaving such concerns solely to informal or ad hoc procedures.Background · from our historical context
- The Judicial Commission of New South Wales began operating.Background · compiled and fact-checked by Updat3
How we got here
Before the Court of Appeal’s 2026 intervention, the Judicial Commission of New South Wales had examined a complaint concerning Deputy Chief Judge Sharon Freund and made a decision about how the matter should proceed. The commission’s process also involved member Allen, who was excluded from participating in the examination of matters concerning Freund.
The framework for that process dates to the *Judicial Officers Act 1986* (NSW), which established the Judicial Commission and gave it responsibility for handling complaints about judicial officers. Under that framework, the commission can assess a complaint and, where the statutory threshold is met, refer it to a Conduct Division for further examination.
Original sources
1 of 2 articles · Unknown · Show allEvery story links to the reporting it was built from. How we choose sources
Spotted a factual error, a broken link or a misleading summary? Tell us.