Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Hilary Penfold off to the ACT Supreme Court

54-11 11 December 2007 28

It’s just been announced that Ms Hilary Penfold QC, currently head of the Department of Parliamentary Services, is off to the Supreme Court.

She made her name when, as head of the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, she drafted what became known as the “Tampa Legislation”.  She was unlikely to survive long as a departmental secretary under a Rudd Labor government, partly due to her background with the Libs’ Migration Litigation Review commission, and partly as she had crossed swords at DPS with some pretty influential Labor people.

 If past expereince is anything to go by, she is likely to be pretty tough in sentencing while on the bench.  She cleaned out the Parliamentary administration and did not endear herself to many around her by her ruthless and micro-managing approach.

What’s Your opinion?

Please login to post your comments, or connect with
28 Responses to
Hilary Penfold off to the ACT Supreme Court
Showing only Website comments
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Thumper 12:54 pm 14 Dec 07

Nothing worse than being confronted by an angry woman weilding a cat.

Skidbladnir 12:50 pm 14 Dec 07

Having tried to make sense of her posts and site, she seems to be of the cat wielding & throwing variety of rambly blogger woman, with a grudge against CIT, the court system.

I’ve seen more entertaining & crazier people with better blogs, so she’s not even refreshing or innovative.

johnboy 12:40 pm 14 Dec 07

For those who are wondering, Chester is off the deep end again and has been returned to active moderation for her repeated and deliberate infringements.

Defaming supreme court justices is serious business and having honestly tried to make sense of chester’s grievances I’ll admit to lacking the intelligence or patience to understand them.

Knock yourself out on her site if you’re interested.

chester 8:05 am 14 Dec 07

May I ask ED if you were pressured to censor my post? It’s just I am aware they have applied pressure to various individuals with one member of the medical profession admitting such to me.

I’d hardly say questioning **************************** **************************** **************************** **************************** **************************** **************************** **************************** **************************** **************************** ****************************

**************************** **************************** **************************** **************************** **************************** **************************** **************************** ****************************

**************************** **************************** ****************************

[ED – OK Chester back to the mod queue for you, what you consider to be truth and what we know to be truth are not the same thing, link it to your own publication if you’re that sure of it.]

Just when one might think the SC couldn’t fall into anymore disrepute, it just did. What a joke the ACT judiciary is.

But seeing you insist 😀

You’ll note I even predicted his latest sleazy little move up the old cronyism tree.

el ......VNBerlinaV8 9:42 pm 13 Dec 07

Skitt’s law again as I’ve managed to place a question mark inappropriately.

el ......VNBerlinaV8 9:41 pm 13 Dec 07

Sigh…VN, I do believe I am right.


I assumed you meant to say “you might get some bites if you are lucky”.

Otherwise you’re talking about Ingee’s lucky. Ingee’s lucky what? exactly? Doesn’t make a while lot of sense, does it?

Queenie 8:03 pm 13 Dec 07

Don’t worry about them, Raving Environmentalist, this is the internet. You’ve got to expect that everyone voices their opinion, even if it’s based on nothing but hot air. I’d love to see these people take on her Honour Justice Penfold in just a civil conversation!

Raving Environmentalist 7:39 pm 13 Dec 07

Well well.. what a nasty, mean spirited, little bunch we have here. Hilary Penfold is an extremely intelligent, straight talking and morally strong public servant who did her duty for a government she may or may not have supported – right in the spotlight. When I was in Canberra a few years back she was revered as one of the best senior managers in the APS. How the rats who didn’t have to make the tough decisions desert the ship, when the going gets rough. Looks like some of the mealy mouthed incompetens she was no doubt forced to deal with are now getting their own back – HERE! (Or are you just malicious gossips who don’t know the lady in question and are just enjoying repeating hearsay?)

Deadmandrinking 6:04 pm 13 Dec 07

For most pubes, I think the answer is c)

Sorry, that was completely set up. I had to.

As well, from the looks of it, she seems to be one of the Liberal’s cronies – which is why she’s fleeing to the supreme court.

BBadger 2:13 pm 13 Dec 07


Sure there is nothing good about the way Tampa was handled, or the legislation, But what should pubes do when confronted with instructions from an elected government?
a)do their job
c)do a half arsed job

If you are in the public service sometimes you will find yourself working for the yellow running dog of capitalist imperialism.

All I am saying is wait and see,

Is the judge herself not entitled to the presumption of innocence, or does the golden thread not stretch that far?

Deadmandrinking 1:09 pm 13 Dec 07

Look, shut-up with all the internet laws. Who cares?

Crikey, should the Police be reducing themselves to the levels of violent and abusive subjects?

On the topic, this woman sound very scary. Why should anything to do with the Tampa affair be considered good?

I-filed 8:48 am 13 Dec 07

I wonder how the fellow she replaced is going – Templeton – he was burnt out in the bushfires …

chester 7:36 am 13 Dec 07

Oh and Refshauge (the other one) is ********************. [ED – best to make those claims about a judge on your own site Chester]

He’ll be an excellent mouthpiece for Stanhope on the bench.

He doesn’t have much choice really. Little Jon’s got him by the short and curlies.

chester 7:32 am 13 Dec 07

Nope, you’re wrong. It should have been:

You may get some bites if you’re lucky.

The contraction for

You may get some bites if you are lucky.

smack 10:41 pm 12 Dec 07

you’re – contraction of you are: You’re certain that’s right?

Your – one’s (used to indicate that one belonging to oneself or to any person) As you go down the hill, the library is on your left.

Sigh…VN, I do believe I am right.

el ......VNBerlinaV8 8:11 pm 12 Dec 07

You may get some bites if your lucky!

Sigh…while we’re making spelling/grammar flames, it’s you’re, not ‘your’.

Skitt’s Law

Now, does someone want to mention Hitler/The Nazis so we can invoke Godwin’s Law as well, and finish off the thread immediately?

smack 5:17 pm 12 Dec 07


“you crawl over on our hands and knees”

I think you mean “your hands and knees”

Keep the posts coming, I enjoy highlighting your mistakes. Your attempt to insult me was a lame, yet slightly amusing. I’ll use it next time when I’m pretending to be a drunken uni student who is try to sound intelligent.

sepi 12:05 pm 12 Dec 07

I thought she was just facilities manager of parlt house, dealing with bollards and leaky taps – guess not hey!

Skidbladnir 11:24 am 12 Dec 07

You know, I submitted a post on the same issue that said exactly this would happen and you’d all be immediately attacking the judges and eventually their decisions on character grounds..
But this one got approved and mine didnt. 🙁

There is another judge put up as well, but nobody’s making any fuss.

Ingeegoodbee 11:01 am 12 Dec 07

In the cold hard light of day, she’ll probably fall in line with the rest of ’em and hand out koala stamps …

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Copyright © 2019 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved. | | |

Search across the site