Over the 2023–24 reporting year, Judicial Conduct Commissioner Michael Boylan said there were just over 60 complaints, including one that alleged an unnamed judicial officer “did not accommodate a person’s position about pronouns” in their written reasons for judgment.
After being asked for a response, the judicial officer reviewed their reasons and drafted an amended judgment with the revisions.
“In those circumstances, I was satisfied that further consideration of the complaint would be unjustified,” Boylan said.
Court’s accommodation of pronouns over past 12 months
Although the report never identified the judicial officer or the court, a review of the state’s published judgments revealed several instances in which other officers accommodated a party’s preferred pronouns.
In VWA v OMH, after a child known only as “Z” requested that pronouns not be used, the tribunal “respected this request … and the tribunal’s orders are reflective of this wherever possible”.
In the CIT v Department of Human Services judgment, which concerned explicit details of a child’s genitalia, the tribunal made a specific mention that it did “not mean to cause distress, or be disrespectful of” the child’s preferred pronouns.
For the judgment of R v Soergel last July, the District Court of South Australia said while it had to refer to female pronouns – as this was the case at the time of the offending – it mentioned the person in question had begun using male pronouns.
Source: Judgment revisited after pronoun complaint – Lawyers Weekly