With impeccable timing, Walter Sofronoff KC has blown the whistle on “narcissists and zealots” who he believes are threatening the rule of law.

Sofronoff, who is a former president of the Queensland Court of Appeal, did not name anyone. That left his audience at a Sydney dinner last week to speculate about who he had in mind.

A little context might help.

Sofronoff’s remarks come soon after a series of incidents involving prominent officeholders in several jurisdictions who had traditionally been regarded as guardians of the rule of law.

These incidents, which all concern the handling of sexual assault cases, come amid growing debate about the future of two of the key principles of the rule of law - the right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence.

An inquiry into sexual assault law by the Australian Law Reform Commission has also sparked calls to lower the standard of proof in these cases and abolish the right to silence in order to achieve more convictions.

All of this formed the unspoken context last week when Sofronoff rose to deliver this year’s Robin Speed memorial address on the rule of law.

On any objective assessment, the core ideas that underpin the fairness of criminal justice in this country are under challenge by those believe it is time to adopt a different approach.

How should those in the justice system respond? Is it time to fall into line with the fashion of the day?

Sofronoff’s address does not deal directly with the push for a new approach to sexual assault law.

But after a long, slow build-up it might provide some guidance. His address  amounts to a call for those in the criminal justice system to adhere to the principles of the rule of law and leave policy changes to politicians.

But before examining that call in detail, it is worth pointing out that he had a second message that draws a link between press freedom, constitutional democracy and the rule of law.

And that part of his talk might cast fresh light on the issues at stake in his own difficulties in the ACT.

 Sofronoff is under investigation in the territory because he did something that many would view as standard practice - he provided two journalists with embargoed copies of the report of his inquiry into the failed rape trial of Bruce Lehrmann.

He made no mention of that inquiry last week.

But he did say that governments that wrongly prevent journalists from gaining access to information are encroaching on the rule of law and constitutional democracy.

He is, however, no free speech absolutist.

While he believed many aspects of government work needed to remain confidential, he made the point that the existence of constitutional democracy depends upon people being promptly and accurately informed about the activity of government.

And that means governments that seek to wrongly restrain journalists’ access to information are encroaching on constitutional democracy and the rule of law by preventing voters from obtaining knowledge that would guide their decisions on how to vote.

“One of the things that you need to know about as a citizen is what the government is doing. And one of the things that most governments would rather you not know about is what they are doing.”

But let’s get back to those narcissists and zealots.

He told an audience dominated by lawyers that while the nation’s institutions were sufficiently robust to withstand external assault, “The risks we face are much more subtle. I think that they are internal.”

He was concerned by the threat of incremental intrusions into courts and court practices by “wrong headed narcissists and zealots” who did not appreciate that their ideas were in conflict with “essential principles that ought to be eternal”.

“None of those sorts of people are going to lead a revolution or try to promote a sudden change in the way that our system of government works,” he said.

“What those sorts of people do is to intrude incrementally so that damage is done. And if it’s allowed to be done, it may be done so many times that we become habituated to it.

“We need impartial judges. We need judges who are independent of the executive. What we mean is judges who are independent of politics.”

A judge had ‘’no right to conduct a trial according to his or her own special ideas about what a fair trial should look like in order to achieve some idiosyncratic personal aim”.

“A judge who seeks to conduct a trial that way is incrementally damaging the rule of law.

“Moreover, a judge who enters the political arena to advocate policy about how trials should be conducted generally, or in specific circumstances, is also engaging in activity that is unbecoming a judge, because a judge must remain impartial and independent. 

“And as soon as you wed yourself publicly to a policy that you advocate, you become a politician. So that’s the kind of danger you have . . . “.

So based on that, it looks like Sofronoff’s targets might include some people in and around the justice system who have lost sight of the principles that underpin the rule of law.

If he is right, it means the justice system needs to confront an incipient threat of politicisation. It might be well-intended but if justice can be abridged once, it can happen again.

Chris Merritt is vice-president of the Rule of Law Institute of Australia and the Rule of Law Education Centre. A video of Walter Sofronoff’s Robin Speed memorial address is available on the website of the Rule of Law Education Centre.