A South Australian magistrate accused of sexual harassment has lost a bid to have an investigation into his behaviour quashed.
Magistrate Simon Milazzo has been accused of sexual and other misconduct against five women spanning eight years between 2012 and 2020.
Mr Milazzo — who denies all the allegations — has been suspended while the Judicial Conduct Panel conducts an inquiry into the allegations.
No charges have been laid and the probe is not a criminal investigation.
It is alleged that at least some of alleged incidents occurred in the Magistrates Court building.
In June last year, the panel was appointed to inquire into, and report on, the eight complaints of misconduct — the first of such investigations in South Australia.
The then-judicial conduct commissioner Ann Vanstone QC did not believe the Chief Magistrate Mary-Louise Hribal would be able to "satisfactorily deal with the complaints", given some had already been brought to her attention and the attention of her deputy, and wrote to then-attorney-general Vickie Chapman recommending the panel.
However, Mr Milazzo sought a judicial review of that recommendation in the Court of Appeal in November, claiming the commissioner did not follow the proper process and "acted without jurisdiction and beyond power".
Mr Milazzo also claimed the decision of the Judicial Conduct Panel to inquire into the allegations was "invalid", as was the panel's decision to allow a witness to have legal representation.
"It is in connection with what the applicant described as the commissioner's 'gate-keeper role' that consideration is necessarily given to dismissal.
"At the outset, it is appropriate to observe that, whatever the terminology, these submissions amounted to the same point: The applicant was not given proper notice of the conduct to be examined by the commissioner and which was then the subject of recommendation by the commissioner and inquiry by the panel.
"The applicant contended that these failings were followed by a failure to undertake the exercise contemplated in a preliminary examination, namely, to make some assessment of [the claims'] veracity and seriousness in light of the response of the judicial officer."
Court raised concerns about proposed redactions
In the redacted judgement published on Monday, Justice Livesey, Justice David Lovell and Justice Sam Doyle dismissed Mr Milazzo's application for judicial review on all grounds.
"The judicial officer was fairly placed in a position to respond and to provide the commissioner with information to be evaluated for the purposes of undertaking the preliminary examination," Justice Livesey wrote.
"Finally, there is no reason to doubt that the commissioner conducted a preliminary investigation.
"The panel's decision to permit a limited right of appearance to counsel for witness A was not beyond jurisdiction."
On Friday, during a hearing on the matter, the Court of Appeal raised concerns about the proposed redactions Mr Milazzo's counsel had sought to the judgement before it was published.
"First is the power that we might be exercising in undertaking the redactions," Justice Livesey said.
"We have some concerns about the extent of the proposed redactions."
Mr Milazzo's lawyer, Jonathan Wells QC, asked for the court to be closed to media so that he could "speak openly and frankly about these matters, not in code".
Justice Doyle closed the court, saying "significant hearings" had already been held in closed court.
The Judicial Conduct Panel is now free to investigate the allegations.
Once the inquiry is complete, the panel must provide a report to the Attorney-General, which will be tabled in parliament.
