The case of magistrate Jennifer Betts, who explained to the NSW Parliament Wednesday how a mental illness was central to the behaviour that has put her job on the line, is a cautionary tale for workplaces everywhere.

One in three lawyers suffer depression. Photo: Getty.

Mental health issues are as prevalent in the workplace as their complexities are poorly understood by senior management.

Ms Betts, 55, has asked MPs not to discriminate against her because of a depressive illness. Only parliament can dismiss an appointed magistrate.

She told MPs that she had taken medication for depression since 1995 but stopped in 2009 – a period of time that relates to two of the four complaints made against her. Ms Betts said she was medically fit for work and pointed to her many successful years of service.

She told the MPs: “I now understand that I am a person who needs to take medication for life and I undertake to do so.”

“In reality, all judicial officers are at risk of succumbing to the stresses of judicial office, not just those who suffer from a medical condition such as depression,” she said. “Those of us who have had such a condition should not be discriminated against because of it.”

Next week magistrate Brian Maloney will also face MPs to explain why he should not be dismissed. Mr Maloney has disclosed that he has bipolar disorder.

Ms Betts and Mr Maloney are not alone in the legal profession when it comes to experiencing a mental health challenge. Research suggests that one in three lawyers will suffer depression to the point of debilitation at some point during their career.

In response, five of the top law firms banded together last year to roll out the Resilience@Law program to help de-stigmatise depression and raise awareness about its symptoms. 

The program included a DVD featuring senior lawyers speaking openly about their experiences with depression including alcohol abuse and thoughts of suicide.

The initiative was presented at staff events around the country by managing partners and other senior staff from Freehills, Mallesons Stephen Jacques, Allens Arthur Robinson, Clayton Utz and Blake Dawson. As part of the program, the College of Law this year started teaching a module about depression to law students.

The law firms realised that their people were crucial to their competitive edge.

Not all employers are so well informed but should be. I recently spoke at a gathering of HR managers that ended in a discussion about the challenge of assisting an employee with a mental illness while also protecting staff from the impact of that illness.

One HR manager spoke of how grateful he was that he attended a mental health first aid course prior to an incident at his workplace. “I wouldn’t have had any idea of what to do otherwise,” he told the group.

Nor are Ms Betts and Mr Maloney alone in trying to manage a mental health issue while holding down an important job.

Last December the Australian Graduate School of Management released the results of research that suggested that while 20 per cent of the population would experience a mental health issue in their lifetime, the rate for corporate executives was 40 per cent. 

Malcolm Dunn, director of Executive Development Services at AGSM told me back then that the execs taking part were high performers who had volunteered for the research.

He said many of Australia’s business managers and executives were “in distress” that manifested as anxiety, depression and other personality disorders like narcissism. The men taking part in the research scored higher on hostility, depression and psychoticism while the women scored higher on anxiety. 

What about the people who report to them? In talking to experts about this topic the one thing that never comes up – unprompted at least - is the impact on employees working for a manager experiencing a mental illness. Or the legal exposure this might create for an organisation that dismisses complaints about a manager with: “that’s’ just his/her operating style” or “I think there is a clash of personalities going on.” 

I can think of four people off the top of my head who have sought treatment for depression themselves after working for a senior manager displaying behaviours such as aggression, extreme moodiness, erratic decision making or an inability to make a decision. In two cases the senior manager eventually sought medical treatment. 

The head of Harmers Workplace Lawyers Michael Harmer says such cases are already going on but that organisations opt to settle the matter with an individual rather than see their entire workplace culture put on trial in a public court case.

He advises employers to be prepared to intervene if they see a senior manager struggling but to do so with sensitivity to protect the person’s privacy and to ensure they are not stigmatised. In cases where the person is the CEO then the board should intervene. “Arguably it is the people at the top that are most prone to depression,” he says.

Mr Harmer also urges employers to bring their paper policies to life with training and education including for all managers who have responsibilities as individuals under Occupational Health & Safety laws and to also promote a culture where employees are free to speak up.

“We have one matter on at the moment where an executive was described as ‘gutless’ to senior management for taking sick leave,” he said. Mr Harmer said a second employee witnessing such a reaction might decline into severe illness or even attempt suicide rather than take time off to get help and that could expose the employer to punitive damages set by a judge wanting to send a warning to all employers. 

RUOK? Day and the awareness created by organisations such as Beyond Blue and the Black Dog Institute are great but employers need to know what to do if the answer is an employee is not ok.  Organisations also need to create a culture where it is ok to be not ok.

Probably wishful thinking on my part.

63 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • acotrel says:

      07:32am | 17/06/11

      ‘I can think of four people off the top of my head who have sought treatment for depression themselves after working for a senior manager displaying behaviours such as aggression, extreme moodiness, erratic decision making or an inability to make a decision. In two cases the senior manager eventually sought medical treatment.’

      Brodie’s law might make some employers sit up and curb the activities of sociopaths in their workplaces.  It carries a ten year penalty for bullying in the workplace.  What always amazes me is that these morons seem to get promoted because of their personal attributes.  Some senior managers and business owners seem to enjoy seeing their staff suffer under these dangerous ratbags!

    • marley says:

      08:23am | 17/06/11

      Acotrel - there’s a big difference between someone with an untreatable personality disorder (sociopathy) and someone who is behaving aggressively or erratically because of a treatable mental illness (depression; bipolar).  The former need to be removed from the workplace, the latter need to be helped.  This article is about the latter.

    • Baal says:

      09:14am | 17/06/11

      @Marley,
      Personality Disorders are varied and they are treatable. The stigma around personality disorders is worse than any other mental illness even though in many cases “personality disorders” are actually a form of post traumatic stress disorder. Also only a subset of people with personality disorders are sociopaths, most are just sad damaged people. If one of these people are lucky enough to get well enough to hold down a decent job do you really think it would be fair to just fire them becuase they need help to stay well.
      Mental illness is treatable and it is a physical illness affecting the brain, medical science is just slow on developing proper treatments.
      Please next time you use a broad term and then declare anyone falling under than term are unemployable, just remember you are only adding to the stigma.
      @acotrel,
      Do you ever think before you write? Brodies law is a good law but please be carefull when using terms like sociopath and applying it to people who you have never met. I find it remarkable that doctors find is nigh impossible to diagnose people properly but somehow the internet give Joe Bloggs the ability to not only diagnose people but pass judgements on them.

    • acotrel says:

      10:00am | 17/06/11

      @Baal Just speaking from bitter experience! Tolerating some of these idiots is sometimes simply criminal.  Brodie’s law offers a penalty.

    • acotrel says:

      10:39am | 17/06/11

      @Baal I’ll give you a tool which might be useful for differentiating when you are diagnosing.  BULLIES ARE SOCIOPATHS !

    • marley says:

      11:24am | 17/06/11

      @Baal - sorry, I guess I wasn’t very clear - I wasn’t referring to personality disorders in general (don’t know enough about the subject) but just to sociopathy, which as I understand it is not treatable. 

      If a disorder is treatable, I certainly don’t think the person should be excluded from the workforce.

    • acotrel says:

      12:05pm | 17/06/11

      @Marley If you excluded all sociopaths from the workforce, there would be a lot of job vacancies.  Brodie’s law will deal with them.

    • marley says:

      02:13pm | 17/06/11

      @acotrel - well, I dunno. In a workforce of 100, you might have 1 sociopath.  The rest of the jerks may have other issues, but they’re not going to be sociopaths.

    • acotrel says:

      08:35am | 19/06/11

      @Marley I suggest you statistic of 1 in 100 being sociopaths is erroneous.  We have widespread bullying in schools.  Marriage breakdown is endemic.  We have a high incidence of mental illness resulting from poor workplace culture.  Who is actually counting sociopaths?

    • marley says:

      04:36pm | 19/06/11

      @Acotrel - my point is that sociopathy is a reasonably well-defined personality disorder, with clear parameters.  And while it can cause extreme damage in marriage and in the workplace,  it is not responsible for all, or even most, dysfunctional marriages or workplaces.

      Lots of people have other types of disorders which may lead to dysfunction without being sociopaths.  Think narcissists, passive-aggressives, etc.  Not all bullying is a product of sociopathy - childhood bullies can grow out of it, after all.  And you certainly can’t base our high rate of marriage breakdowns on sociopathy - that would mean half the population are sociopaths, and that’s just not true at all.  I know lots of people who have been through marriage breakdowns, my own partner amongst them - and I can’t think of any whose marriage broke down because they or their partner was a sociopath - mostly it’s a question of being unsuited, being selfish, having different interests, drifting apart, or, in a couple of cases, substance abuse.  Not sociopathy.

      And, having done a quick google, it seems most psychiatrists estimate the population of sociopaths at between about 2 and 4% of the population. 

      The point here is that some of the people who bully or are aggressive or anti-social can benefit from counselling, education and other forms of assistance.  Sociopaths will not benefit from any of these interventions.  So before I write off a 112-year old bully as a sociopath, I’d want to be damn sure that he doesn’t have other issues which can change his behaviour.  That’s all I’m really saying.

    • acotrel says:

      05:32am | 20/06/11

      @Marley
      ’ that would mean half the population are sociopaths, and that’s just not true at all. ‘
      So you are telling me that sociopaths are just well-adjusted people who are evil? That a distinction can be made between people who are sociopaths, and the mentally ill?  That bullies don’t have an emotional illness?  It’s my belief that drepressive illness is rampant in our community, and that it is helped along by politicians, and the media.  All you have to do is listen to commercial radio in any capitol city, if you want evidence.  Or read something written by Andrew Bolt!

    • marley says:

      09:58am | 20/06/11

      @acotrel - yes, I most definitely am saying that “a distinction can be made between people who are sociopaths, and the mentally ill.” 

      Sociopathy is a form of anti-social personality disorder - and ASPD is defined in the bible of psychiatry, the DSM as a specific disorder which is entirely distinct from other forms of mental illness, such as depression, narcissism, paranoia, obsessive-compulsive disorder, schizophrenia, etc. 

      Sociopaths are not “well adjusted” people - they have a very specific, untreatable disorder.  And that disorder causes them to be, for want of a less judgemental term, “evil.”

      “Bullies” might be sociopaths, or they might not.  Lots of other issues can lead to bullying, not all of them involving mental illness. 

      And people suffering from depression are not sociopaths.  They have a completely different mental illness which can be transitory and which is treatable.

      It’s important to distinguish between people with anti-social personality disorders and those with other forms of mental illness.  We can’t do much about the former, but we can do something about the latter, through therapy, education, medication.

    • Jolanda says:

      07:40am | 17/06/11

      Mental illness would be prevalent because for the most part of it they have to sell their soul, the system and process being as corrupt as it it and so focused on the rights of the guilty at the expense of the victims.

      Personally I think that if you are in a position of such power and you know you have mental issues then you have an obligation to ensure that your condition is treated, to do otherwise is to put the public at risk of harm.

      Education – Keeping them Honest
      http://jolandachallita.typepad.com/

    • acotrel says:

      08:44am | 17/06/11

      @Jolanda
      ’ I think that if you are in a position of such power and you know you have mental issues then you have an obligation to ensure that your condition is treated’

      How many people are mentally ill, and don’t know it?  And even if they’ve been diagnosed, an episode can be triggered by any intolerable occurrence and require extreme medication.  And that even applies to ‘sane’ people. Do you believe you are personally exempt?

    • Jolanda says:

      09:02am | 17/06/11

      acotrel.  In this situation the Magistrate knew that she had mental issues over many years, as she said that herself, and she chose to stop medication. Knowing that she knew she had mental illness and being in the position of authority that she is in she should have ensured that she was monitored medically and behaviourally for her condition .  It should be required.    If you say that those who are mentally ill cannot always control their mental illness and can have relapses even if they are under medication then one must question the decision to allow the magistrate to continue working.

      If a person is not aware that they have mental illness and they are in a position of power then it is up to those around them to make sure that they bring issues to the attention of the authorities and that any concerns in relation to behaviour are acted upon.  This is for the safety of the people not for anything else.

    • acotrel says:

      10:28am | 17/06/11

      @Jolanda What you’ve said about others moderating the behaviour of people in positions of power applies equally to the ‘sane’ and the ‘mentally ill’. How do you tell the difference?  Should we all rely on labels?

    • AdamC says:

      11:12am | 17/06/11

      Jolanda, I agree with you that there is an appropriate intersection between assisting an employee to deal with an illness, and the responsibility of that employee to deal with their illness and show respect for others. It would be especially concerning if depression became an acceptable excuse for workplace bullying or incompetence.

    • Jolanda says:

      11:22am | 17/06/11

      Wow acotrel do you really not understand what I am saying?  Of course what I say applies equally to all people regardless whether they have been diagnosed with mental illness.

    • acotrel says:

      11:32am | 17/06/11

      @AdamC I’m not aware of any correlation between depressiive illness and bullying.  I believe that the illness is exhibited in emotions, looking at the dark side of everything.  Glass half empty, instead of half full?  I would have thought that a judge would be trying hard to divorce her emotions from judgements affecting others? Perhaps she doesn’t have that ability due to her illness?  But I suggest ‘normal’ people would have the same problem, and may be undiagnosed mentally ill anyway. I’d raise the question as to whether judgements are peer reviewed, on the basis of the court notes.

    • acotrel says:

      11:40am | 17/06/11

      @Jolanda
      ‘If a person is not aware that they have mental illness and they are in a position of power then it is up to those around them to make sure that they bring issues to the attention of the authorities and that any concerns in relation to behaviour are acted upon.  This is for the safety of the people not for anything else’

      Does this apply to policemen?  Good luck next time you are arrested!

    • Tam says:

      01:22pm | 17/06/11

      Can a carpenter work effectively with a broken leg?  No, they get it treated and have it heal before they can get back to their core work.  What is the difference with mental illness if your work is so intellectually based?  You need to be fit for work.

    • acotrel says:

      08:39am | 19/06/11

      @Tam There is difference.  Carpentry doesn’t usually cause broken legs.  Being highly intelligent and doing intellectual work often puts people at risk of having breakdowns.

    • Sony B Goode says:

      07:51am | 17/06/11

      “Only parliament can dismiss an appointed magistrate”

      Now that is a total travesty, how do we get rid of these morons, many of whom are nothing more than chardonnay socialists? There should be an election process with the public having an input if not the final vote.

    • acotrel says:

      10:57am | 17/06/11

      @Sony B Goode While you are democratising, why not try it on with the catholic church, or the Crown? The judiciary are independent for a reason?

    • Phil says:

      08:45am | 17/06/11

      The issue here is that these people sit in judgement over the rest of the population. Their position requires that they are level headed that they apply the law and legal principles in the correct manner.
      If a judge is mentally impaired for any reason (mental illness, intoxication .....or whatever) then they are not fit to sit in judgement over the rest of us. period. 

      It’s got nothing to do with discrimation or about them being sick. It’s simply that those who judge other must be clear and level headed themselves otherwise the system is at risk of becoming an Injustice system.

      The rights of the majority (the population at large) outweight the rights of the few even those poor judges who might feel they are descriminated against. It simply about being fit for the job.

    • acotrel says:

      11:48am | 17/06/11

      @Phil ‘Normal’ people experience emotional highs and lows.  In the mentally ill the experience involves a shift away from reality.  How do you tell when someone is being unrealistic or delusional?  You obviously use your own judgement, but who is to say that you are ‘sane’?

    • sludger says:

      09:03am | 17/06/11

      Good article.  Treatable mental health should not be a reason for any discrimination or dismissal, in my opinion.  Once there is a diagnosis and it is found that medication can provide treatment, I don’t see any problem at all.  That would be like saying a diabetic should be dismissed in case they fall into a coma.  Obviously, many mental health problems do not become apparent until the symptoms are obvious and in that time mistakes can be made.  However, it would seem that once diagnosed any mistakes presumed to have been made can be re-looked at and decisions changed if needed.  Anyway, I think this is a complex problem with many possible outcomes, but it is good to see issues such as this are not being automatically swept under the carpet.

    • acotrel says:

      10:08am | 17/06/11

      @Sludger There is always the question as to whether the mentally ill should face their demons.  If someone has a breakdown because of bullying or harassment, should they return to the same workplace?  If the underlying psychological problem is never resolved, the consequences will be a life of misery.

    • sludger says:

      11:33am | 17/06/11

      @actorel.  I see your point.  Medication by itself is not always enough in some cases, I agree, which is why there is counselling for people to face the underlying problems etc etc.  Personally, I can’t think of one reason why a person would choose to take medication without getting to the underlying reason to help prevent reoccurence where the original trigger was emotional response.  But don’t forget, not all mental illness is caused by emotional response.  Depression is a chemical imbalance, as are many other forms of illness.  No amount of therapy will correct that.  But you see, if the chemical imbalance was the problem, and medication corrects it, what demons are there to face except for the ones we all face every day (guilt, regret etc).

    • acotrel says:

      11:58am | 17/06/11

      @Sludger It’s easy for the medical profession to admit defeat, and ascribe mental illness to a ‘chemical imbalance’.  The medication is used to allow patients to clear their thoughts, and get in touch with reality.  It doesn’t treat the underlying problem.  In fact many psychiatrists have recently criticised the Gillard government for withdrawing support from couselling services, and giving the money to doctors prescribing medication.  Clinical psycholofgy has an important role, both in prevention and cure!  The fact that many doctors declare mental illness ‘incurable’ is simply an indication of their own failure to understand what’s involved.

    • sludger says:

      01:20pm | 17/06/11

      @actorel, yep once again all valid points.  I think though we are talking at cross purpose. Take my case, a chemical imbalance led to morbid depression.  Not a good thing.  Spent 9 months in and out of Rozelle during which I underwent all sorts of therapy combined with ECT and medication.  I needed the time in to sort out the dosage and to continue the therapy.  Here is the thing.  After 2 years of being out the medication was reduced as the imbalance was corrected.  At the same time therapy ceased as was no longer necessary.  My point?  This was chemical, combined with emotional.  But once a correct treatment was administered that was the end of it.  So what I am saying is some people will need ongoing therapy, others ongoing medication, others not.  I agree there are a lot of lazy professionals who simply say incurable and keep the person on medication.  Also no person should ever be prescribed anti-depressants by a GP as the dosage and effect need monitoring. Look, I am not disagreeing with you, quite the opposite.  What I am saying is there are many variables and it is too easy to make sweeping statements.  What I think is needed is more control on off the cuff medicating of people, and also more control on profit seeking psychiatrists.  Hope this is making sense.  Otherwise I will be stressed, and we don’t want that!

    • acotrel says:

      08:29am | 19/06/11

      @Sludger I suggest it’s a chicken a nd egg situation.  A ‘chemical imbalce’ may have caused you illness.  However I suggest that it’s more likely due to a psychological response to something you found intolerable, and submerged to avoid confrontation or upset, the ‘chemical imbalance’ was a result, not a cause?  Mental illness always seems accompanied by delusion, that’s how it’s detected.  It follows that there must be a reason for a shift away from ‘reality’?  If it’s a ‘chemical imbalnce’ medication should affect a cure.  The sad fact is that rarely seems to happen.  I suggest a cure lies in a combination of medication and counselling.  Counselling is becoming more difficult to obtain!

    • Ian Campell says:

      09:33am | 17/06/11

      I was (finally) diagnosed with depression six years ago. With medication and seeing a psychologist I started to control it and began to understand why I suffered. I didn’t like being on medication and after a couple of years felt I could cope without it. I was wrong, without realising it I went back to where I was before. Looking back I can’t believe just how much my behavior changed. This led to my marriage failing and eighteen months ago I suffered a breakdown. As I was self employed but could no longer communicate properly with my clients I lost my business and pretty much everything else. Yes thoughts of suicide were very much on my mind (I did attempt suicide twenty years ago) but with medication and counseling I got though it. Today I am starting to understand why I have it but what I cannot understand is why I can’t just snap out of it. I know I will be on medication the rest of my life. What I don’t know is just how long I can keep fighting just to exist. I am living in a “bubble” and so often it seems, the old saying is true, I take one step forward and two steps back.

    • iansand says:

      09:58am | 17/06/11

      When I made the jump from practising confrontation law (usually called litigation) I told colleagues what I was doing.  The almost universal response was “I wish I had your guts”.  It is a very unhappy profession.  My GP has a few senior lawyers as clients.  He told me that one of his senior and very successful patients (unnamed) was leaving the profession because he was “sick of arguing”.  One of the things that caused me to jump was that I became sick of waking up at 3-00am worrying about someone else’s problems.  You know that your day will be spent playing an intellectual game against an opponent who is at least as smart as you when the stakes for the client can be, literally, millions of dollars.  Or a couple of thousand dollars for someone you know cannot afford to lose that money.

      It is also a thankless profession.  If your client loses you are the worst person in the world, regardless of whether the case was winnable at all.  If the punter wins they resent the vast amount of money they had to spend to achieve the obvious result.

      The way we do dispute resolution is inefficient and rigid.  It also chews human beings up and spits them out.

    • acotrel says:

      10:15am | 17/06/11

      @iansand Some things are worth doing simply because they are good things to do.  Sounds like practising law is not one of them.  Job satisfaction is probably more important than monetary reward.  In my own situation, I’m retired,however I can count my achievements.  And I’m happy with my contribution, even though I suffered under a dropkick for 13 of my 40 year working life.

    • sludger says:

      11:37am | 17/06/11

      @actorel.  I agree with you there.  I am in a job I enjoy, though less pay than others I have had.  The difference is I am not out ruthlessly seeking money at some poor mug’s loss and leave the office at 5, with all my work with it.  I make a difference and I can sleep quite happy at night.  Yep, that to me is worth so much more than the big pay and all the stress that went with it.  Not that it helped: got rich, got divorced, had breakdown and lost the lot **sigh**

    • acotrel says:

      12:24pm | 17/06/11

      @Sludger, Sorry you had that experience.  I believe the biggest candidates for mental illess are the extremely intelligent, and the conscientious.  It’s an emotional illness, and I believe it’s often due to an individual’s lack of tolerance of particular life situations.  We’re all conditioned, and it helps to recognise that - the conditioned response to stress is not always the best one.  One other thing - you haven’t lost ‘the lot’.  You are on the right side of the grass, and life is beautiful.

    • acotrel says:

      12:27pm | 17/06/11

      @Sludger I just love it when people tell me that hadship ‘builds character’! Some things are just not worth it.

    • sludger says:

      01:22pm | 17/06/11

      @ actorel.  Yep, I got me lots of character.  The problem is when the stress starts making you hear the characters!!

    • hot tub political machine says:

      12:34pm | 17/06/11

      The book, Working With Monsters (which is a depressingly stigmatising title for a book with an interesting point) highlights that many executive job and person specifications are pretty close matches to the profile of a psychopath. Changing the J&P’s for executive positions might be a good step for any business owners out there who find they can’t keep any frontline staff for very long due to bullying.

    • Ben C says:

      12:50pm | 17/06/11

      One thing that concerns me is that depression is declared AFTER something has happened and has put a person’s career/reputation/freedom in jeopardy. Look at some of the recent high profile declarations of depression: Andrew Johns, the two above magistrates, Matthew Newton (although this was mixed with other mental illnesses as well) - at what point did they come out and announce their depression? When they were in trouble. It’s starting to feel like people claiming to have ADHD when they went and did something stupid.

      I can understand where the sufferer may not have been diagnosed with depression until after the indiscretion, and thus announce it when the indiscretion became public, but in these cases, the sufferer knew about their depression long before they stuffed up. It seems as though depression is used to garner sympathy. Would it not be more helpful if people came out and declared their depression once diagnosed, so that others would be more able to understand and learn about how to handle the issue? Or is the stigma still too negative for any pro-active measures? If so, how can we change social perception so that people are more upfront about their condition?

    • Ray says:

      12:51pm | 17/06/11

      Acotrel and Marley. The saving grace for Mrs Betts is that she is female. If not she was a goner. The bloke will follow suit so can count his chickens at fronting parliament at the same time as one of the protected species.

      No one is saying kick her out of employment, but there are some positions , or should be some positions, that must be utterly and totally above reproach.

      But that would make logical sense that a woman would not comprehend.

      Why are women always excused. Bit like today’s paper where a ‘mother’ got 2 years fro drowning her child. A bloke would never again see the light of day again. Go on make some more arbitary excuses, but they just don’t hold water

    • acotrel says:

      08:45am | 19/06/11

      @Ray ‘No one is saying kick her out of employment, but there are some positions , or should be some positions, that must be utterly and totally above reproach.’

      Zero tolerance never works, it’s impracticable.  With mentall illness there’s a whole spectrum involved.

    • Kassandra says:

      02:20pm | 17/06/11

      Hmm. Anyone seen any transcripts of the antics of this magistrate in a courtroom that led to the complaints against her? Read a couple this morning (eg. Richard Ackland’s column) but don’t have links sorry. It seems every lawyer (footballer, entrepeneur etc) who gets into trouble plays the mental health card. Depressed people are sad, gloomy, pessimistic and self-deprecating. They can be tense, irritable and hard to live with, true, but they don’t turn into arrogant, rude, abusive morons because of depression. It’s far more likely that they are obnoxious anyway. I think this use of “It’s not my fault I suffer from mental illness” to excuse bad behaviour is grossly unfair to the many people who really do suffer but who would never behave like these people do.

    • Jolanda says:

      04:34pm | 17/06/11

      What concerns me the most Kassandra is that now the ‘after the fact mental illness’ excuse will be able to be used for this type of bullying behaviour and so those in positions of power will find it even easier to get away with what they do and maintain their positions of power even when they have abused their power and inflicted harm.?  It seems that the protection of bullies continues to grow.

      What also bothers me is that so many people would have witnessed this Magistrates erratic and bullying behaviour over this long period of time.  You have to wonder why nobody said anything about it or did anything about it.  And, if they did bring it to the attention of the relevant authorities, why the system didn’t do anything about it for so many years?  I actually believe I know why nothing was done, they probably just asked the Magistrate to respond to the allegations and she responded by saying that the complainant was just disgruntled and vexatious because things didn’t go their way and the Magistrate would have been believed because Magistrates don’t lie do they and the matter would have been deemed closed.  Never to be re-opened again no matter what the complaint says or presents.  This is the way of the system.

      I get that this Magistrate had issues so that we can attribute her behaviour to her mental issues.  But what about the rest of the people who stood by and witnessed the bullying and unfair treatment and what about the system that allowed it to continue for so long.  Surely they must also shoulder some of the blame.

      Education – Keeping them Honest
      http://jolandachallita.typepad.com/

    • mike j says:

      06:38pm | 17/06/11

      Look, mental health is a serious issue, but so is judicial responsibility. This isn’t a chick who works at Macdonald’s - her capability doesn’t just affect her workmates, it can have enormous repercussions on the application of justice and legal precedent. I don’t care if she’s a disabled Aboriginal lesbian with depression; if she can’t act as an impartial arbiter of the law, she has to go.

      I’m not particularly familiar with the case; most of the complaints seem to be about bullying of counsel, which may just go to interpersonal work relations. However, she admits that she “took over the questioning of the appellant” in one case, which is a violation of due process.

      I reiterate that mental health is a serious and sensitive matter, but Betts’s excuses for her actions include: ‘a lapse in taking her medication, the death of a relative on June 4, 2009 and a “marriage complaint”’. Sounds kind of weak. Everyone has medical concerns, everyone’s relatives die, and everyone has relationship problems.

      Magistrates who are unable to identify when personal circumstances are affecting their judgement shouldn’t be doing the job.

    • acotrel says:

      09:02pm | 17/06/11

      @mike J
      ‘Magistrates who are unable to identify when personal circumstances are affecting their judgement shouldn’t be doing the job.’

      You are assuming that a mentally ill person is capable of perspective and self- analysis?  Many are delusional lining in their own world with a totally different paradigm.  Where does this start and finish?

    • mike j says:

      05:45pm | 18/06/11

      acotrel, I’m not assuming that. I’m saying that if someone’s personal circumstances raise unacceptable risk in such a critical role, they shouldn’t be doing it. Betts has a drug dependency that is obviously affecting her work, and mental illness might be an explanation, but it’s not an excuse.

    • marley says:

      04:39pm | 19/06/11

      @MikeJ - I’m sorry, but is that correct?  That she has a drug dependency?  The way I read the story, she suffers from depression and has to take anti-depressants to manage the depression, but went off the rails when she stopped taking the drugs.  That’s not the same thing as saying that the drugs affect her work (except in a positive way).

    • mike j says:

      05:39pm | 21/06/11

      I don’t think antidepressants come under the strict clinical definition of substance dependency. But, as you say, she went off the rails when she stopped taking them. She needs drugs to regulate her beaviour, but doesn’t have a great track record with self-medication. How much blind trust do we give to someone with so much power and responsibility?

    • stephen says:

      08:45pm | 17/06/11

      No.
      Many people are in positions from good character, and much effort, but they shouldn’t be there because they don’t have the talent, and they are put there because their bosses don’t have the talent.
      The Law, especially, values the dumb rote-learner and these legal guys and gals who watch sexy telly want to meet the mate of their dreams, (the students always take a briefcase and high-heels into class) and then their dramas and ideals and TV personalities are complete.

      In 1997 I was a legal proof-reader for the Compensation-Court of NSW in the John Madsen building. Only ear phones, (I was not legally trained at all) and I remember hearing this bloke Maloney, the defence lawyer, rambling on like a stupid half-wit, ( he was considered even then a liability) checking his voice against the transcript.
      As untrained as I was, I was amazed how such a nincompoop could get away with it.

      But now I know, cause I’ve met a few QC’s at the Criterion.
      We are in big trouble.

    • Peter Thornton says:

      11:25pm | 17/06/11

      But who counsels the counsellors? Along with the “edumacation” lark, the therapy industry is just another fast buck industry. Here’s the fast track version: do a wacko you beaut course, maybe infiltrate a few 12-step program meetings (having the actual problem the meeting is dedicated to is not a requirement). Make broad brushstroke diagnosis about absolute strangers who struggle to stay in reality and whose logic, common sense and ability to see themselves as others see them is often severely comprised by legal (i.e., prescribed) substance abuse and/or their previous audiences with other unhinged therapists (i.e., those who probably prescribed the meds). Then, hang your shingle out and you’re away. You’re a guru, baby!
      The alternative method of getting well? Strive for honesty - defined as when thoughts, words and deeds are unified (as opposed to having them in different rooms, decades or countries), remain mentally and emotionally in the here and now, and try running all of the really inspired ideas past someone whose rather conventional, rather boring (say, someone whose raised a family, kept stable employment and been forever responsible), and finally,  try on a moment by moment basis to accept others for what they are. Doesn’t mean they should be liked or, that their society is worth seeking out (quite the opposite), but trying to change others is, in itself, just another form of insanity.
      Rant over.
      Carry on.

    • acotrel says:

      05:48am | 20/06/11

      @Peter Thornton
      ‘The alternative method of getting well? Strive for honesty - defined as when thoughts, words and deeds are unified (as opposed to having them in different rooms, decades or countries), remain mentally and emotionally in the here and now, and try running all of the really inspired ideas past someone whose rather conventional, rather boring (say, someone whose raised a family, kept stable employment and been forever responsible), and finally,  try on a moment by moment basis to accept others for what they are. Doesn’t mean they should be liked or, that their society is worth seeking out (quite the opposite), but trying to change others is, in itself, just another form of insanity’

      Good advice, but sometimes the paradigm you live and work within must be changed.  There are usually ways of doing that, and if you think laterally you may find them.  Trying to change the behaviour of other individuals on a person by person basis is futile.  You need to look at things such as the legislation and rules which affect workplaces, and your family situation. Then you have a chance of finding a way out of your dilemma.

    • stephen says:

      12:14am | 18/06/11

      Mr. Maroney was then a good bloke, a drinker and fun.
      That was not enough.
      I heard.

    • MrEd says:

      07:05am | 18/06/11

      Whilst people should not be discriminated against for illness, we must also recognise that illness, particularly a long term one, will mean someone is unable to perform some jobs.


      A Mental illness would certainly make a judge unfit to serve on the bench. If she wont resign, she should be terminated on medical grounds.

    • graham says:

      09:51am | 18/06/11

      This is a no-brainer. Half the defendants she would rule on are going to play the depression card. Some of them may be fair dinkum. Will she be able to tell which ones she should sympathise with, or, having been there herself, will she give them all a break? Will she deal harshly with them because they knew that they should have stayed on medication?
      Too many questions that no-one can answer. Better to err on the side of caution in this case and to ensure that justice, at least to our best efforts, be seen to be done.
      Having said all of the above, I feel that only good people would be stressed by the type of decisions magistrates are called upon to make. The less principled occupiers of the bench, (and their numbers are not small), are not affected by “having” to send young mothers, teenage boys badly raised, or anyone in mitigating circumstance to gaol. It’s part of their ego trip. The power thing. They are called “lip-lickers” for very good reason, and they’ve been with us forever.
      Hopefully this particular magistrate, when dismissed from the bench, will find work that can utilise her experience without her having infuence on any final decisions. Just to be suer.

    • acotrel says:

      05:59am | 20/06/11

      @graham
      ’ Will she deal harshly with them because they knew that they should have stayed on medication?’

      Your post shows that you are ignorant of what’s involved.  How do you convince a mentally ill patient that the medication is essential, when you know that may not be the truth?  A patient may feel so good that they come to believe they don’t need the pills, it’s part of the illness!  It’s all about delusion!  And you can judge others’ mental state by simply asking yourself ‘is this statement realistic or is it simply based on personal belief (delusion)?’ When you do that you need to recognise that you are doing it in the light of your own version of reality!

    • acotrel says:

      06:12am | 20/06/11

      @Anon As a middle manager you must become aware quickly when someone is seriously delusional.  It should be evident at interview when you are hiring, or show up in the six months statutory probationary period.  There is no way of estimating potential for erratic behaviour except by talking to referees, and they could be anxious to divest themselves of the applicants services. If mental illness occurs in a worker during employment, their manager should consider whether they are themselves part of the problem!

    • Robina Tanveer says:

      11:55pm | 23/06/11

      Raical Discrimination and Violation of Human Rights by Australian Authorities in case of my Husband Tanveer Mehmood
      The Conduct/Acts of Australian Authorities particularly of Mentally Sick Magistrate Pat O’Shane is in Australian Judiciary System which clearly reflect to offend, insult, humiliate and intimidate my Husband Mr.Tanveer Mehmood on the basis of race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin.
      The way Australian Authorities has discriminated (Unlawful Discrimination) against Mr. Tanveer Mehmood amounts to absolute violation of Human Rights and desecration of the inherent dignity and worth of the human person and is complete disregard of Human Dignity.
      My husband Mr.Tanveer Mehmood was only Charged and prosecuted as he belong to a particular race and being from Pakistan and Muslim he was the prime target. There has been severe Racial Discrimination against my husband Mr.Tanveer Mehmood.
      A person who is not all that educated and does not understand English and Law and is suffering from Tuberculosis and Mental Illness and does not have a single Dollar to Survive in an Alien Country-How can he fight against Big Authorities In Australia.

      This is what is termed as” Cold-Blooded Murder”.
      Robina Tanveer
      Email:robinatanveer79@yahoo.com

    • Trent W. Jackson says:

      05:24am | 27/08/11

      I personally don’t buy any of this mental health crap in most cases, because it is all opinion-based diagnosis. With this in mind, there is always going to be a degree of subjectivity involved. Heavily biased opinions. I don’t like this person’s attitude; they are different to me, so I think that there is something wrong with them. They don’t talk like me. Their views are different than mine, so I therefore feel that they have a problem. That is absolutely absurd.

      However, a person who is climbing the walls and genuinely experiencing hallucinations (or similar) and can’t be reasoned with in any way whatsoever then clearly has some form of underlying problem; this is the job of a mental health doctor to sort out. .

      Few people know that medicine was considered by most to be a “hokus pokeus” I really have my doubts, until the advent of penicillin. Now we see it as a science in infancy stage.

      Lawyers tend to play on a lot of these mental health dialogises to get their clients off the hook and reap financial success for themselves. There is no scientific support for any of it. Consequently, people in law enforcement don’t buy it; they just see it as an excuse. Playing on a person’s compassion with a load of bull.

      Trent Jackson

    • Trent W. Jackson says:

      08:33am | 27/08/11

      Moreover – one needs to try putting themselves in another person’s shoes for a moment. Most people’s attitudes are usually the end result of much reason. It is perfectly normal for a person to express anger and other emotions in most walks of life. Defensive mechanisms, which switch ON are also natural attributes.

      If I were a magistrate, then I think that I would be grinding my teeth with the occasion comment that is likely to offend to with each successive repeat offender that I send to LONG BAY prison for defamation of character (or similar)

      Not a very nice job. Don’t be too quick to judge the judge.

      People are not arseholes without good reason.

      Not a very nice world.

      Trent Jackson

    • Trent W. Jackson says:

      07:00pm | 27/08/11

      The future looks like this, if we are to consider this protocol.

      Yes your Worship, it is true that my client committed first-degree murder, but a number of doctors on my PAYROLL have all diagnosed my client with schizophrenia through opinion-based analysis, and they feel that there will not be a repeat offence whilst my client is taking their medication.

      Therefore my client is safe to be released into the community; request the case to be dismissed.

      You’ve gotta be joking mate.

      Trent Jackson

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Anthony Sharwood

Dementor doing a good job for sweden #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

Ukraine song pinches chord progression from The Verve's Bittersweet Symphony. Fo real #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

RT @GerardDaffy: @antsharwood all the talk over there is the grannies will win.they entered to get a church built,feelgood story

Anthony Sharwood

These peole insult my grandmothjer, who was born in minsk, belarus #sbseurovision

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

An email was sent to almost every politician in Australia this week saying that someone should cut off…

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

We admire them, but we’re not entirely sure why. We allow them to operate in the shadows; we rarely…

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

Like a fat full-stop, it lay in my hand. A small orange – not exactly fresh, but purchased anyway…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter