Before an audience that included two High Court Justices, Wilson said Carmody had failed to demonstrate the administrative, political or personal skills required of his role. He had called his fellow judges 'snakes' and 'scum'. He had absconded from his judicial and administrative duties. Carmody had inappropriately involved himself in the Ferny Grove electoral dispute and sacked the Senior Judge Administrator. Wilson described the Chief Justice as a man "for whom most now lack all respect".

Wilson took sole responsibility for these views, but his comments indicated that his grievances were shared by "judges at all levels of seniority, including quite young ones" who had reportedly spoken of resigning from the court due to problems caused by the Carmody.

Public criticism of judges, especially by their peers, is incredibly rare - and for good reason. The judiciary wields considerable power. Judges resolve disputes that touch on every facet of daily life. We never know when we might come into contact with the law, but when we do, our confidence in the skill of the judge and the integrity of the court is imperative.

Public confidence in the courts is fundamental to stable government and the rule of law. Criticism of judges risks that confidence. That risk is heightened when that criticism is levelled at a Chief Justice by his peers.

Wilson was undoubtedly aware of this risk as he delivered his address. But what else might he have done? Are judges condemned to quietly put up with what they perceive to be serious problems?

The law provides a clear avenue by which complaints may be made against a judge and his or her removal sought. A judge cannot simply be fired or chastised by the HR department for not meeting performance indicators. A judge can only be removed from office on grounds of proven misbehaviour or incapacity. In Queensland this proof must be established by a tribunal and accepted by parliament. Beyond this, his or her job is secure.

Instances of removal in Australia are incredibly rare. Only one Queensland judge has been removed: Justice Angelo Vasta in the context of the Fitzgerald Inquiry.

The concerns raised by Wilson are serious, and deserve attention. They point to problems that have been flagged since Carmody's appointment as Chief Justice. However, they are likely to come-up short of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. If the Chief Justice grossly fails to attend to his duties he may well be accused of incapacity and his removal sought. This would be unprecedented, but it would allow a tribunal to become involved in this affair.

Perhaps it is simply important that the public is made aware of the strife that seems to have settled on Queensland's judiciary. However, beyond public awareness, the outcome of Wilson's address is far from certain. Carmody has resisted calls for his resignation and, ultimately, it seems unlikely that the judiciary will resolve this friction itself.

A new solution may be required to resolve this crisis. That solution should come from within the government, and be dealt with in an independent and discreet way with a view to addressing the very real problems facing the Supreme Court, whilst preserving public confidence in the judiciary. What that solution might look like is open for debate, but Wilson's comments should alert the government that it is time to start considering options, lest the actual or perceived quality of Queensland's excellent judicial system suffer.

Dr Rebecca Ananian-Welsh is a Lecturer at the TC Beirne School of Law.