Mahvash Ikram
The judiciary must confront the growing culture of courtroom bullying and show greater empathy towards young lawyers, says retiring District Court Judge Mary Beth Sharp.
Speaking at a farewell dinner hosted by The Law Association on Friday night, Judge Sharp said she had heard from young lawyers who felt bullied in court and said as a young judge, she herself had received similar treatment from senior colleagues.
“I loved my work with a passion and had confidence that I was good at it. I had always previously got on very well with people in general,” she said. “It was a surprise and a revelation to be a victim of bullying myself.”
That experience helped her to understand the distress of many young lawyers who now report similar treatment in court, Sharp said. “The divide between the profession and the judiciary seems to be widening because of this inappropriate behaviour and it must stop…. I don’t for a moment condone that type of behaviour on the part of a judge. Young lawyers need encouragement and a kindly audience.”
Acknowledged her own imperfections, Sharp added that if she had ever fallen short of that standard, she apologised and would “endeavour to do so as an acting judge”.
A culture of toughness had long defined parts of the legal profession and too often it excused cruelty, she said. Her message was clear: professionalism and empathy are not mutually exclusive.
“Civility, compassion and excellence can co-exist. Indeed, they must.”
Championing neurodivergent courts
Judge Mary Beth Sharp, Judge Nicola Mathers, barrister Samira Taghavi and TLANZ President Tony Herring
Sharp also used her retirement address to champion the need for a specialist court for neurodivergent defendants, an issue that has occupied her mind for much of her judicial career. For the past 30 years, she has been lobbying the Ministry of Justice to establish an ADHD or neurodivergent court, similar to those operating in parts of the United States.
Drawing on her experience as a mother of two sons with ADHD, Sharp recalled an early case in which an 18-year-old youth appeared before her charged with burglary and unlawfully taking an aircraft.
The teenager had a life-long dream of becoming a pilot. He had almost completed his licence requirements, but after a family upheaval had stopped taking his medication, she said. One night he broke into the aero club where he had been training, took the plane he usually flew, went for a brief joyride and then returned the plane to its hangar and went home.
Sharp said the police threw the book at him, but she made further inquiries, confirmed his diagnosis and arranged for him to resume treatment. After involving his grandmother and doctor, she persuaded the police to withdraw the charges.
“People with ADHD are often hugely intelligent, often very creative and are great lateral thinkers,” she said. “They have skills that others do not. If properly guided, they can do great things. It’s to be hoped that in the future the Ministry of Justice and the Minister for Courts might finally accept that there is a great need in this country for such a specialist court.”
Digital justice
Sharp also turned her attention to the use of technology in courts.
“For 30 years I was told by the powers-that-be to expect a digital court and an e-bench in the very near future,” she said. “Well, it still hasn’t happened and I’ve given up waiting.”
With the current paper-based system, even simple tasks could become procedural hurdles. Something as basic as counsel’s submissions arriving on the judge’s file in a timely fashion cannot always be guaranteed, she said.
But her reflections on technology were not just confined to court systems. Referencing a retirement speech suggested to her by ChatGPT that was packed with clichés about golf, fishing and quiet reflection, Sharp said the use of artificial intelligence in the justice system had its limits.
“Clearly, AI still categorises judges as male, given its references to fishing of which I am not [fond]”.
Some aspects of artificial intelligence hit the mark, she said. But Chat GPT’s suggested speech was a reminder that while AI has potential, it is far from ready to replace human reasoning.
“Beware of using it to generate your legal submissions,” she cautioned. “And, I promise you, no judge I know would dare seek the assistance of AI to write a judgment.”
Baptism of fire
Though there are areas where Sharp believes the profession must do better, it is evident that she holds a deep affection for the system she has served for half a century.
“Let’s just leave this on the basis that I could never have chosen a profession I could have loved more,” she said. “Every day has been a revelation.”
She paid tribute to court staff, describing them as “the unsung heroes” whose professionalism keeps the system running, and reminded colleagues that justice “is not a destination, but a daily effort carried forward by each new generation that takes up the role.”
Sharp graduated from the University of Auckland at the age of 20 and was admitted to the bar at 21. She worked alongside some of the leading barristers of her day before becoming one herself.
Before her appointment to the bench, Sharp co-founded the Criminal Bar Association, helped form the New Zealand Bar Association and was a founding member of the Auckland Women Lawyers’ Association.
Appointed to the District Court in 1995 at the age of 40, Sharp spent her first decade sitting in the Papakura and Pukekohe courts. She described that period as “a baptism of fire”, handling heavy criminal lists while raising a young family.
After a career that has included roles as liaison judge of the Sexual Violence Court and as a visiting professional at the International Criminal Court, Sharp will now serve with an acting warrant. If that work dries up, she joked, she will turn to mediation or marriage ceremonies, along with fellow judge Nicola Mathers, also retiring this year.
“We’re cheap – in fact, we’re free.”
0 Comments