New South Wales Supreme Court Chief Justice Andrew Bell has attracted criticism following an email he circulated to fellow judges, which harshly criticized Federal Court judge Ian Jackman over remarks Jackman made regarding judicial delays. The email, sent last week, has sparked debate about the appropriate role of judges in public discourse and raised questions about judicial impartiality and conduct.

Bell’s email targeted Jackman’s speech to the Rule of Law Institute, in which Jackman highlighted the prolonged time—some cases taking more than two and a half years—for reserved judgments in the Federal Court. Jackman described such delays as “egregious” and warned that they undermine public trust in the rule of law. He emphasized that trust and confidence in institutions should be earned, not simply demanded. Bell’s email cited section 5.7 of the Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration’s guide to judicial conduct to question Jackman’s collegiality and propriety in publicly naming judges involved in delays.

However, critics say Bell’s application of section 5.7 was misplaced. That section advises judges to avoid public commentary that could create perceptions of bias or prejudgment, particularly on political issues. Jackman’s speech, supporters argue, addressed a matter of judicial administration rather than political controversy, focusing on internal court processes rather than partisan disputes. Moreover, Bell’s email is being scrutinized in light of his own public remarks, which have involved political matters.

Bell has publicly criticized former Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s comments about judicial authority over political protest decisions, as well as Australian government efforts to regulate misinformation, opposing billionaire Elon Musk’s objections on this topic. He also condemned former U.S. President Donald Trump’s pardons of January 6 rioters, while not commenting on comparable pre-emptive pardons issued by President Joe Biden. Observers note that such interventions risk compromising the perceived neutrality expected of the judiciary.

The controversy arises amid wider tensions over judges participating in political discussions. For instance, Chief Justice Lucy McCallum of the ACT Supreme Court has offered public acknowledgments of country with statements referencing historic injustices toward Indigenous Australians. Similarly, Federal Court Chief Justice Debra Mortimer has included social commentary on First Nations peoples’ treatment in the justice system in her public addresses. These gestures, while seen by some as vital recognition, have faced backlash from segments of the Australian public, especially following the recent defeat of the Indigenous Voice referendum.

Bell’s email also follows earlier incidents such as the May speech by High Court Justice Robert Beech-Jones, in which Beech-Jones criticized U.S. Supreme Court justices and the Samuel Griffith Society, a group focused on judicial restraint. Unlike Bell’s response to Jackman, no public rebuke was issued in response to Beech-Jones’s remarks, prompting accusations of inconsistency in how judicial conduct guidelines are enforced.

Legal observers say that while judges have a duty to maintain independence and integrity, publicly engaging in contested political debates can jeopardize the judiciary’s reputation as impartial arbiters of the law. The developments underscore an ongoing debate within Australia’s legal community about the boundaries between judicial responsibility and political expression.