No more excusing “brilliant” men for their “dirty deeds”

Dismantling Systems That Shield Predators: A Call for Accountability Across Professions

Rachael Patterson Collins’ courageous article (27 June 2025) exposing former High Court judge Dyson Heydon’s systemic sexual harassment and alleged indecent assault reveals a corrosive truth: entrenched systems across industries and institutions shield predators while silencing victims. At the core of this scandal lies a climate of moral disengagement, where those in power justify egregious behaviour to maintain their status, excusing themselves from accountability. Collins’ account, as Heydon’s associate in 2005, demands we dismantle cultures that prioritise intellect or “contributions” over justice. This is not just a legal failing, it’s a societal one, with parallels in medicine, politics, and beyond, requiring urgent reform.

A Culture of Predation, Enabled by Power

The High Court’s investigation into Heydon confirmed a “pattern of conduct of sexual harassment,” including attempts to kiss subordinates, inappropriate touching, and luring young women into hotel rooms. Collins describes the judge-associate relationship as one of unchecked authority, enabling Heydon to exploit those whose careers depended on him. Chief Justice Susan Kiefel’s public apology and the Commonwealth’s settlements with victims, including Collins, underscored the harm. Yet, efforts to rehabilitate Heydon persist: his book launch in March 2025 drew legal elites, and he is set to speak at the Samuel Griffith Society conference in August 2025 on a topic that mocks the gravity of his actions.

This signals a dangerous message: power and intellect can trump accountability.

Moral Disengagement: The Engine of Injustice

At the heart of this issue is moral disengagement, a concept articulated by psychologist Albert Bandura through eight mechanisms that allow individuals to justify harmful actions: moral justification, euphemistic labelling, advantageous comparison, displacement of responsibility, diffusion of responsibility, distortion of consequences, dehumanisation, and attribution of blame. These mechanisms are evident in efforts to downplay Heydon’s actions, particularly in Janet Albrechtsen’s commentary in The Australian (April 2025), which frames Heydon as a victim of “moral wardens.” Her remarks exemplify how power structures excuse misconduct to protect their own.

Assessing Albrechtsen’s Statements (April 2025) Using Bandura’s Mechanisms

• Moral Justification (4/7): Albrechtsen does not explicitly claim Heydon’s actions were morally right but implies his intellectual contributions outweigh his misconduct, suggesting a partial justification of his behaviour to preserve his legacy. Rating: Neutral leaning toward disengagement.

• Euphemistic Labelling (5/7): By avoiding mention of the alleged indecent assault and focusing on “harassment” as a lesser issue, Albrechtsen softens the severity of Heydon’s actions, using language that downplays harm. Rating: Moderate disengagement.

• Advantageous Comparison (6/7): Her comparison of Heydon’s treatment to that of a “murderer who later contributes to society” trivialises his actions by suggesting worse crimes receive less scrutiny, framing his punishment as excessive. Rating: Strong disengagement.

• Displacement of Responsibility (3/7): Albrechtsen does not fully shift blame to external forces but implies the investigation’s process was flawed, subtly questioning its legitimacy. Rating: Mild engagement.

• Diffusion of Responsibility (4/7): She does not explicitly distribute blame across a group but suggests a broader societal overreach in punishing Heydon, diluting individual accountability. Rating: Neutral.

• Distortion of Consequences (6/7): By claiming Heydon’s punishment has gone too far, Albrechtsen minimises the lasting impact on victims, ignoring the trauma and career damage caused. Rating: Strong disengagement.

• Dehumanisation (3/7): There is no overt dehumanisation of victims in her commentary, though her focus on Heydon’s reputation over their experiences implicitly diminishes their agency. Rating: Mild engagement.

• Attribution of Blame (5/7): Albrechtsen’s portrayal of “self-appointed moral wardens” shifts some blame to those holding Heydon accountable, framing critics as overzealous rather than justified. Rating: Moderate disengagement.

Albrechtsen’s commentary reflects a broader climate of moral disengagement, where loyalty to a powerful figure overshadows the harm inflicted on victims. Her dismissive response to Collins’ 2005 disclosure, when Collins confided about Heydon’s attempt to kiss her, further illustrates how inaction perpetuates abuse.

A Broader Systemic Failure

Dyson Heydon’s case is a stark reflection of systemic failures that extend far beyond the legal profession, permeating fields like medicine and politics, where powerful figures are shielded by a climate of moral disengagement. During the 2025 federal election, a prominent Melbourne surgeon filmed himself brazenly defacing election signs and advocating violence against women, only reporting himself to the medical board after public outrage and front-page headlines forced his hand. This incident underscores a pervasive truth: medicine, like law, protects its “stars” at the expense of accountability. Speak to any nurse, and you’ll hear stories of senior doctors’ misconduct, sexual harassment, bullying, or negligence, routinely swept under the rug. Complaints are buried in bureaucratic quagmires, dismissed as “unsubstantiated,” or met with retaliation, leaving victims silenced and predators emboldened.

Then there is politics, where systemic cover-ups are equally rampant. The previous Australian government’s handling of Brittany Higgins’ 2019 sexual assault allegations exemplifies this. Higgins, a former parliamentary staffer, alleged she was raped in Parliament House, yet the government’s response included efforts to downplay the incident, pressure her to stay silent, and prioritise political optics over justice. The 2021 independent inquiry into the handling of her case exposed a culture of obfuscation, with senior figures deflecting responsibility and minimising harm to protect their own. In law, constitutional protections like judicial independence insulated Heydon, exposing critical gaps in accountability. Medicine mirrors this with medical boards, often dominated by insiders, prioritising reputation over justice, while hospital hierarchies discourage whistleblowing. A 2024 Australian Medical Association report revealed that 1 in 3 healthcare workers experienced or witnessed harassment, yet fewer than 10% of complaints led to formal action.

This culture of cover-up thrives on Albert Bandura’s mechanisms of moral disengagement: euphemistic labelling of abuse as “workplace tension” or “misunderstandings,” advantageous comparisons to downplay harm, and diffusion of responsibility across institutions. Whether in courtrooms, operating theatres, or Parliament House, these systems enable predators to flourish, betraying victims and eroding public trust.

A Call for Transformative Change

The rehabilitation of figures like Heydon betrays victims and undermines justice. To dismantle these systems, we must:

• Strengthen Accountability Mechanisms: Independent, transparent processes in law, medicine, and beyond must hold wrongdoers accountable, ensuring judicial or professional status is no shield.

• Amplify Victims’ Voices: Cultural shifts must empower victims to speak without fear, prioritising their experiences over the reputations of the powerful.

• Reject Excuses: Intellectual or professional contributions must not excuse misconduct. Platforms like the Samuel Griffith Society must deny predators a stage.

• Reform Systemic Flaws: From constitutional protections to workplace hierarchies, structures enabling abuse require overhaul, including mandatory training and clear reporting pathways.

No More Excuses

Heydon’s case exposes a truth we cannot ignore: systems built to protect power also protect predators, fuelled by moral disengagement. Collins’ bravery in confronting this hypocrisy, despite personal cost, is a catalyst for change. The legal profession, medicine, and society must act.

No more excusing “brilliant” men for their “dirty deeds.”

It’s time to dismantle these flawed systems and build ones that uphold justice, accountability, and dignity for all.

Onward we press