“Perverting the Course of Justice and Lying”: NSW Deputy Chief Judge Sharon Freund's Declaration in Her Complaint Against Chief Judge Michael Allen - Two Conflicting Judicial Accounts
NSW Local Court Deputy Chief Judge Sharon Freund commenced judicial review proceedings in the NSW Court of Appeal, challenging two Judicial Commission decisions. The matter was heard on Friday, 23 October 2026. See article
During the proceedings in Freund v Attorney General of NSW, Arthur Moses SC, of New Chambers, appearing for Freund, referred to allegations recorded in her statutory declaration supporting a bullying complaint lodged against NSW Local Court Chief Judge Michael Allen with the Judicial Commission of NSW.
The complaint included an alleged incident during a meeting in which Allen threw a file onto a table and accused Freund of “perverting the course of justice and lying” in connection with criminal proceedings involving another judicial officer's adult child.
Mr Moses SC also confirmed in his submissions that Allen had denied the allegations contained in Freund's bullying complaint to the Judicial Commission of NSW.
The competing accounts of these two judicial officers raise significant questions concerning allegations of a serious nature.
A Statutory Declaration and Conflicting Accounts
As submitted by Mr Moses SC, Freund’s allegations were recorded in a statutory declaration, accompanied by a covering letter, and submitted to the Judicial Commission of NSW by her solicitor.
In June 2026, the Judicial Commission dismissed Freund’s bullying complaint against Chief Judge Allen as unsubstantiated.
During the proceedings, it was submitted that the Commission had also made adverse observations concerning whether Freund’s bullying complaint had been made in bad faith.
Mr Moses SC further submitted that, following Freund’s complaint, Allen communicated concerns regarding her conduct to the NSW Attorney-General, who subsequently referred the matter to the Judicial Commission. In August 2026, the Commission referred concerns regarding Freund’s conduct to its Conduct Division.
The dismissal of Freund’s bullying complaint did not conclusively resolve the competing factual accounts.
The Judicial Review Proceedings
In Freund v Attorney General of New South Wales, with the Judicial Commission of NSW as the second respondent, Freund challenges two Commission decisions:
The dismissal of her bullying complaint against Chief Judge Allen; and
The subsequent referral of concerns regarding her own judicial conduct to the Commission's Conduct Division.
The proceedings, heard on Friday, 23 October 2026, concern the legality and procedural fairness of those decisions and the processes by which they were made.
The dismissal of Freund's bullying complaint and the referral concerning her conduct represent distinct decisions.
The referral is a preliminary step in the Commission's statutory processes and does not, of itself, constitute a final determination of the allegations concerning her conduct.
The judicial review proceedings do not determine the underlying factual allegations recorded in Freund's statutory declaration.
The judicial review proceedings resumed on Tuesday, 27 October 2026, concerning the outstanding apprehended-bias grounds. The parties submitted proposed consent orders for the Court's consideration, prompting extensive discussion and submissions concerning the Court's role, the practical relief available in the proceedings, and the potential consequences and practical effect of any orders made.
The Court made directions affording two members of the Judicial Commission an opportunity to be heard, including by providing them with a copy of the court transcript. The members are to notify the Court by Friday, 30 October 2026, whether they wish to be heard.
The Court's determination remains pending.
The eventual outcome may affect the Commission's decisions and the status of the referral concerning Freund's conduct.
Whether the underlying factual allegations will be examined or resolved through subsequent statutory processes remains to be seen, subject to the outcome of these proceedings.
The Question of Judicial Accountability
An allegation of “perverting the course of justice and lying”, in this case concerning criminal proceedings involving another judicial officer's adult child, carries serious implications for the judicial officers concerned and, more broadly, public confidence in the integrity of the administration of justice.
It is in the public interest that allegations of this nature receive appropriate independent scrutiny.
The fundamental public-interest questions remain:
How are materially conflicting accounts between judicial officers independently examined, tested and resolved when the complaint giving rise to those accounts has been dismissed?
What obligations does the Judicial Commission have to scrutinise such serious allegations, and how is judicial accountability ensured when the underlying factual disputes remain unresolved?
------------------------------
Disclaimer: This article is an independent public-interest report and commentary based on observations of open court proceedings. Allegations and submissions are reported as such and should not be construed as established findings of fact. The questions and views raised are commentary on matters of public interest, based on the matters set out above. The judicial review proceedings remain pending at the time of publication.
Comments