DOCSLIB.ORG

The 2013 Sir Maurice Byers Address

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The 2013 Sir Maurice Byers Address THE JOURNAL OF THE NSW BAR ASSOCIATION | WINTER 2013 THE JOURNAL OF THE NSW BAR ASSOCIATION | WINTER 2013 FINALITY: The 2013 Sir Maurice Byers Address Marriage equality before the US Supreme Court Lawyers and commercialism: help or hindrance Our reconciliation action plan Barristers and elected office BarNews Winter13 30Jul13 p.indd 1 30/07/13 2:28 PM Contents 2 Editor’s note 66 Bar history 3 President’s column The conviction of Frederick Lincoln McDermott 5 Bar Practice Course 01/2013 Kevin Ross Murray: barrister 6 Opinion and citizen soldier Barristers and elected office Cover: Te Australian Senate. Photo: Alex John Mortimer: an appreciation Proimos 12 Recent developments Judges, barristers and NT reminiscences 33 Maurice Byers Address Finality 86 Appointments 42 Features 92 Obituary On deployment to Afghanistan 93 Crossword by Rapunzel 94 Bullfry Marriage equality 96 Book reviews Lawyers and commercialism Our Reconciliation Action Plan 99 THe Last Word 64 Bench and Bar Dinner 2013 100 Poetry barnewsTHE JOURNAL OF THE NSW BAR ASSOCIATION | WINTER 2013 Bar News Editorial Committee ISSN 0817-0002 © 2013 New South Wales Bar Association Views expressed by contributors to Jeremy Stoljar SC (Chair) THis work is copyrigHt. Apart from any use as permitted Bar News are not necessarily tHose of Greg Burton SC under the Copyright Act 1968, and subsequent tHe New SoutH Wales Bar Association. amendments, no part may be reproduced, stored in Arthur Moses SC Contributions are welcome and sHould a retrieval system or transmitted by any means or Richard Beasley SC be addressed to tHe editor, Jeremy process without specifc written permission from the David Ash copyrigHt owner. Requests and inquiries concerning Stoljar SC. reproduction and rigHts sHould be addressed to Kylie Day tHe editor, Bar News, c/- THe New SoutH Wales Bar 8th Floor Selborne Chambers Daniel Moujalli Association, Basement, Selborne CHambers, 174 PHillip 8/174 PHillip Street Nicolas Kirby Street Sydney, NSW 2000. Sydney 2000 Daniel Klineberg DX 395 Sydney Catherine Gleeson Victoria Brigden Contributions may be subject to editing Caroline Dobraszczyk prior to publication, at tHe discretion of Kathryn Millist-Spendlove the editor. Susan Cirillo Fiona Roughley Chris Winslow (Bar Association) Bar News | Winter 2013 | 1 EDITOR’S NOTE THe doctrine of advocate’s reacHed by tHe court below. years after McDermott’s conviction immunity is of particular interest and tHirty six years after His death This issue of Bar News also to barristers. THe decision of tHe in 1977, tHe Court of Criminal includes a piece by CHief Justice High Court in D’Orta-Ekenaike v Appeal reviewed McDermott’s BatHurst on tHe question wHetHer Victorian Legal Aid (2005) 223 conviction on a reference by tHe lawyers are a Help or a Hindrance CLR 1 establisHed tHat tHe central attorney general. In tHe ligHt of to commercialism. THe cHief public policy sustaining tHat new and cogent evidence tHat justice concludes tHat lawyers and immunity is the need for fnality in Had come to ligHt since His trial, tHe legal system play an important litigation. tHe court entered a verdict of role in facilitating effcient business acquittal. As tHe HigH Court observed in operations. D’Orta-Ekenaike, ‘A central and In tHis issue we also examine tHe Later in tHis issue Ian Barker QC pervading tenet of tHe judicial lives of two notable barristers. recounts some of His favourite system is tHat controversies, once PHilip SeltH Has a piece on Kevin anecdotes of life at tHe bar, resolved, are not to be reopened Murray QC, a prominent and drawing on his more than ffty except in a few narrowly defned formidable Sydney silk in His day. years in practice. cases’ (at [23]). And Emily Pender Has a piece on In His discussion of tHe principle JoHn Mortimer QC, well known as THis central and pervading tenet in of fnality in the Sir Maurice Byers the author of Rumpole and otHer its many guises is explored in tHis Address Gleeson AC QC remarks: works. year’s Sir Maurice Byers Address by tHe Hon A M Gleeson AC QC, In the criminal area, a striking OtHer articles in tHis edition of which Bar News is deligHted to example of the collision between the Bar News include James Renwick publisH in tHis issue. interest of fnality and the need to SC on His recent deployment recognize, and where possible, in AfgHanistan, a look at two As tHe address sHows, tHe principle remedy a miscarriage of justice is a important recent decisions by tHe of fnality is an important part of case where, after rights of appeal have US Supreme Court on marriage many areas of tHe law. been exhausted or time for appeal has equality by JonatHon Redwood, elapsed, there is evidence that a For example, tHe variety of conviction was wrongful. and a discussion by Rebecca Gall estoppel wHicH prevents a party of two cases wHicH examine tHe taking a point wHicH could One sucH collision is discussed extent to wHicH a judge can rely reasonably Have been raised in elsewHere in tHis issue in an article on ‘cutting and pasting’ counsel’s earlier litigation is sustained largely by Caroline Dobraszczyk on submissions into judgments. by the public interest in the fnality tHe McDermott case. Frederick of litigation. McDermott was an itinerant sHearer wHo was found guilty in Likewise the need for fnality is 1947 of tHe murder of a man in an important consideration for Grenfell. an appellate court in determining wHetHer to disturb tHe conclusions In May of tHis year, some sixty six 2 | Bar News | Winter 2013 | PRESIDENT’S COLUMN No public beneft in single-member corporations model By Phillip Boulten SC services – especially legal aid Inventive new structures Have not services. Barristers can even form been on the bar’s horizon. associations witH solicitors and But now suffcient members have otHer non-barristers to allow tHe signed a petition requisitioning pooling of risks and resources. It a general meeting of tHe Bar is a brave new world for English Association to consider a barristers. resolution calling on tHe Bar Time will tell wHetHer tHese Council to amend tHe Barristers’ changes deliver public benefts Rules to permit barristers to offer but tHey are clearly aimed at services tHrougH a single-member, reducing tHe costs of legal services sole director company. I oppose and making barristers’ practices this move. fexible and effcient. THe general meeting will be Held on 17 September 2013. I trust tHat At its essence, practise as a tHe meeting considers tHe issues barrister involves independence. What seems clear is that the carefully. Prior to tHe meeting All of us at tHe private, tHe Bar Association will distribute independent bar are sole only rationale for this model tHree legal opinions tHat tHe Bar practitioners – employed by no of incorporation is to reduce Council Has sougHt on tHe issues. one, in partnersHip witH no one and bound by tHe cab rank rule. We barristers’ exposure to tax. No WHat seems clear is tHat tHe are different from solicitors. We other policy is advanced by only rationale for tHis model play a different role to solicitors. the move. of incorporation is to reduce THe justice system would be very barristers’ exposure to tax. No different witHout independent otHer policy is advanced by tHe barristers. move. No one is suggesting tHat Our association’s Practice single-member corporations will THe basis of our practice Has been Development Committee Has provide more work opportunities developed over centuries. Because considered some of tHese English for tHe bar or tHat tHey will cut tHe we are not bound professionally proposals witHout formulating a costs of barristers’ services or tHat to any otHer person or entity we decided or committed view about they will lead to a more effcient exercise our skills and abilities tHeir utility. It is inevitable tHat tHe administration of justice. for the beneft of our clients, no Bar Council will need to consider matter wHo tHey are or wHat tHey various aspects of barristers’ To my mind, cutting barristers’ tax Have done. Solicitors are free practice. payments is a wHolly unacceptable to decline to act wHere we are reason to seek a cHange in In tHe moves over tHe last few required to act. tHe rules and to convince tHe years to establisH a national set government to make tHe necessary Yet, tHe pressure of tHe legal of Barristers’ Rules and a national amendments to the Legal market Has led to major cHanges legal profession, tHe New South Profession Act 2004 to acHieve to barristers’ practices in England Wales Bar Association fougHt Hard tHis objective. If we are going to wHere barristers can now to maintain tHe existing concept of attempt to cHange tHe basis of initiate and conduct litigation an independent bar bound by tHe practice at tHe bar, we ougHt to do and form corporations for tHe cab rank rule, separate and apart it to deliver a clear public beneft. purpose of contracting legal from legal practice as a solicitor. Bar News | Winter 2013 | 3 If we are going to attempt to THe proposal would not only MucH work needs to be done. THe require amendment to tHe New onus will fall Heavily on our bar to change the basis of practice at SoutH Wales Barristers Rules, botH develop and tHen advocate the bar, we ought to do it to but also signifcant changes to appropriate policies tHat will make tHe Legal Profession Act and tHe a difference. deliver a clear public beneft. upcoming national legal profession MeanwHile, tHe Bar Association legislation. is continuing its fght against the To actively seek tHese cHanges FurtHer, tHe proposed cHanges New SoutH Wales Government’s on tHe basis of tax minimisation would not be of any assistance proposed cHanges to tHe motor would endanger tHe standing and to tHose members of tHe bar in veHicle accident scHeme.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Devil's Triangle
    THE DEVIL’S TRIANGLE Civil liberties and the relationship between the law, the media and the parliament Bob Debus Attorney General of New South Wales 2000-2007 Sir Frank Kitto Lecture, University of New England, November 23rd 2012. This Lecture commemorates the great figure in Australian legal history Justice Sir Frank Kitto, who served on The High Court of Australia from 1950 to 1970 and was thereupon elected Chancellor of this University. As long ago as 1998 Justice Michael Kirby used this lecture to describe not only Sir Frank’s contribution to the law but his high integrity, demonstrated for instance, in the unequivocal judgment in which he joined the majority in Communist the seminal decision to strike down the Menzies Government’s Party Dissolution Act 1950. It was the beginning of the Cold War but Kitto was immune to the politics of the situation: “…it may have been thought (although never said in those more graceful days) that Justice Kitto was a ‘capital C conservative’. His skills were in the black letter law… He had just succeeded in a substantial brief for the banks in striking down the nationalisation scheme of the former Labor Government. Yet in less than a year, he performed his function as a judge of our highest court, in accordance with his understanding of the law and the Constitution precisely and only as his learning and 1 conscience dictated.” In the period 1976 to 1982 he was inaugural Chairman of The Australian Press Council. I venture to believe that he may have grudgingly approved the national defamation law finally achieved by the Commonwealth and State Attorneys General in 2005 after years of difficult negotiation.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of the Governor-General
    Chapter Eight The Role of the Governor-General Sir David Smith, KCVO, AO My brief is to speak about the role of the Governor-General, as we know that office today. I shall speak about the history of the office, about the duties of the office, and about current proposals to alter the Australian Constitution by changing its provisions relating to the office. Foremost among the reasons given for constitutional change is the claim that the republic will give us an Australian Head of State. This claim is as mischievous as it is dishonest. Its success is dependent on the notorious ignorance of the vast majority of Australians about their Constitution. 1 The truth is that Australia has two Heads of State. The Queen is our symbolic Head of State, the Governor-General is our constitutional Head of State, and we have had Australians in the office of Governor-General since Lord Casey's appointment in 1965. The claim that the Governor-General is our constitutional Head of State is not some bizarre theory dreamed up for the purposes of the current debate, for it has been so since the beginning of federation, and there is much supporting evidence, both anecdotal and legal. A Canadian Governor-General, Lord Dufferin, described a Governor-General as a constitutional Head of State in a speech given in 1873. 2 Even Paul Keating referred to the Governor-General as our Head of State in the very speech in which he announced in Parliament on 7 June, 1995 his Government's proposals for the republic.
    [Show full text]
  • Victorian Bar News
    ISSUE 153 WINTER 2013 VICTORIAN The Formidable Sir Hayden Starke By JD Merralls BAR Legal Aid in NEWS Chronic Decline Punch Drunk The Paris Bar The Law of Drugs in Sport A Study in Contradictions QC or not QC? IBAC A Sheep in Wolf’s Clothing? 153 The 2013 Victorian Bar Dinner All the Highlights and Photos BAR MEMBERS... SAVE THOUSANDS ON ANY NEW CAR Save time and money by buying your next new car Should you have a trade-in or require nance and through your own personal buyer’s advocate. insurance, your consultant will be able to ensure that Members can now enjoy the eet-buying power of MBA the entire process can be completed simply, with Car Assist. Vehicles are purchased at signicant savings maximum savings of your time and money. over the retail prices, whilst avoiding all the hassles and To ensure you’re getting the absolute best price for your upsells of the dealership sales process. We also arrange new vehicle, your personal consultant will include a all of the paperwork and keep you updated on the number of dierent dealerships (including your local) in progress of your vehicle’s preparation or production. the tender process, with each competing for your Your new car is even delivered to your home or work business. with a full tank of fuel. So how does it work? MBA Car Assist purchases new Are you looking to buy a new luxury vehicle from BMW, vehicles every week, which gives them access to eet Mercedes-Benz, Audi, Mini, Lexus, Jaguar, Land Rover or pricing.
    [Show full text]
  • Murray Gleeson the Smiler
    BOOK REVIEWS Murray Gleeson The Smiler By Michael Pelly | The Federation Press | 2014 On 27 May 2014 the Hon James Spigelman AC QC delivered the following speech at the launch of Michael Pelly’s book Murray Gleeson The Smiler before a full house in Queens Square. in Kabuki theatre. Anyone who has professional trajectory is a chronology experienced that genre will know that the of the luminaries of the Sydney Bar: Japanese audience will wait breathlessly Garfield Barwick, Jack Cassidy, Jack for, say, the middle of Act 2 when the Smythe, Nigel Bowen, Bill Deane, Tony lead actor performs The Look. It is a great Mason, Maurice Byers, Laurence Street, tribute to that nation’s cultural unity that Michael Kirby, Michael McHugh, Roddy every member of the audience knows it is Meagher, Tom Hughes, Bob Ellicott, coming. If executed perfectly, The Look Mary Gaudron, Bill Gummow, Dyson will draw shouts of encouragement from Heydon, Dennis Mahoney, David Hunt, the audience – such as ‘matte imashita’ Ken Handley, Roger Gyles, Peter Young, – ‘We have been waiting!’ – by way of Graham Hill, Terry Cole, Bob Stitt, applause. Murray was always content with David Jackson. Each person on this list a shudder. features in the book as an actor; some as a commentator. To the ‘stare’ anecdotes in the book, I will add one. As chief justice, Murray sat as This extraordinary range of talent deserves a trial judge in murder trials – something emphasis. For it was out of this ruck that I never dared to do. As I recall the story, Murray Gleeson rose to pre-eminence as the first such occasion was in Taree, a an advocate, as a leader of the profession I am constrained by the subject matter triumphal return to his home district.
    [Show full text]
  • An Examination of the Parliamentary Disqualification Provisions of the Commonwealth Constitution*
    Who May Sit? An Examination of the Parliamentary Disqualification Provisions of the Commonwealth Constitution* John Kalokerinos THE PLACE OF SECTION 44 IN CONTEMPORARY AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY The right to choose political representatives is a fundamental right of the citizens of a democratic polity. Section 441 of the Commonwealth Constitution sets out the disqualification provisions for persons seeking to sit in the Senate or the House of Representatives in order to ensure that Australia’s parliamentarians have an undivided loyalty to Australia and to the Parliament. Using the 1890s Convention Debates, decisions of the Court of Disputed Returns, government reports, and academic commentary, this paper explores the purposes and justification for s 44, and its operation in the contemporary Australian context, to argue that reform is necessary. The paper reviews the latest developments in this dynamic area of the law, examining the most recent litigation, including the Hill2 decision. Particular consideration is given to Sykes v Cleary,3 where the High Court held that three of the candidates for election to the seat of Wills were ineligible, raising the question whether this rate of disqualification is extraordinary or simply demonstrative of the pressing need for reform of s 44. * This is an edited version of an Honours Thesis submitted for the Research Unit, Faculty of Law, the Australian National University, June 2000. 1 The full text of ss 44 and 45 is set out in the Appendix below. 2 Sue v Hill (1999) 163 ALR 648. 3 Sykes v Cleary (1992) 176 CLR 77. I conclude that the existing disqualifications are deficient.
    [Show full text]
  • Office of Profit Under the Crown
    RESEARCH PAPER SERIES, 2017–18 14 JUNE 2018 Office of profit under the Crown Professor Anne Twomey, University of Sydney Law School Executive summary • Section 44(iv) of the Constitution provides that a person is incapable of being chosen as a Member of Parliament if he or she holds an ‘office of profit under the Crown’. This is also a ground for disqualification from office for existing members and senators under section 45. There has been considerable uncertainty about what is meant by holding an office of profit under the Crown. • First the person must hold an ‘office’. This is a position to which duties attach of a work-like nature. It is usually, but not always the case, that the office continues to exist independently of the person who holds it. However, a person on the ‘unattached’ list of the public service still holds an office. • Second, it must be an ‘office of profit’. This means that some form of ‘profit’ or remuneration must attach to the office, regardless of whether or not that profit is transferred to the office- holder. Reimbursement of actual expenses does not amount to ‘profit’, but a public servant who is on leave without pay or an office-holder who declines to accept a salary or allowances still holds an office of profit. The source of the profit does not matter. Even if it comes from fees paid by members of the public or other private sources, as long as the profit is attached to the office, that is sufficient. • Third, the office of profit must be ‘under the Crown’.
    [Show full text]
  • Samuel Griffith Society Proceedings Vol 2
    Proceedings of the Second Conference of The Samuel Griffith Society Upholding the Australian Constitution Volume Two The Windsor Hotel, Melbourne; 30 July - 1 August 1993 Copyright 1993 by The Samuel Griffith Society. All rights reserved. Table of Contents Foreword (P4) John Stone Foreword Dinner Address (P5) The Hon. Jeff Kennett, MLA; Premier of Victoria The Crown and the States Introductory Remarks (P14) John Stone Introductory Chapter One (P15) Dr Frank Knopfelmacher The Crown in a Culturally Diverse Australia Chapter Two (P18) John Hirst The Republic and our British Heritage Chapter Three (P23) Jack Waterford Australia's Aborigines and Australian Civilization: Cultural Relativism in the 21st Century Chapter Four (P34) The Hon. Bill Hassell Mabo and Federalism: The Prospect of an Indigenous People's Treaty Chapter Five (P47) The Hon. Peter Connolly, CBE, QC Should Courts Determine Social Policy? Chapter Six (P58) S E K Hulme, AM, QC The High Court in Mabo Chapter Seven (P79) Professor Wolfgang Kasper Making Federalism Flourish Chapter Eight (P84) The Rt. Hon. Sir Harry Gibbs, GCMG, AC, KBE The Threat to Federalism Chapter Nine (P88) Dr Colin Howard Australia's Diminishing Sovereignty Chapter Ten (P94) The Hon. Peter Durack, QC What is to be Done? Chapter Eleven (P99) John Paul The 1944 Referendum Appendix I (P113) Contributors Appendix II (P116) The Society's Statement of Purposes Published 1993 by The Samuel Griffith Society P O Box 178, East Melbourne Victoria 3002 Printed by: McPherson's Printing Pty Ltd 5 Dunlop Rd, Mulgrave, Vic 3170 National Library Cataloguing-in-Publication data: Proceedings of The Samuel Griffith Society Upholding the Australian Constitution Volume Two ISBN 0 646 15439 7 Foreword John Stone Copyright 1993 by The Samuel Griffith Society.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Advocates Sir Maurice Byers Lecture
    Legal Change — The Role of Advocates Sir Maurice Byers Lecture Chief Justice Robert French AC 22 June 2016, Sydney Introduction I learned from Maurice Byers a great advocate's perspective on the High Court — 'they're just chaps Bob, just chaps' — or so he told me, as we prepared for the hearing in Koowarta v Bjelke-Peterson1 in 1982. As a description of the gender of the Court it was accurate. I learned from him in Fencott v Muller2 in 1983 that one line of dismissive humour could do more for a wide view of the corporations power than an hour of earnest argument. In 1986 on my appointment to the Federal Court he sent me a note expressing confidence that I would eventually be appointed to the High Court. Perhaps he was encouraging me to stay on for the long haul and was relying upon the proposition, a little like the one about monkeys typing Shakespeare, that given enough time almost anything has a finite probability of happening. Six years later, in 1993, I barely found the strength, when he appeared before me for the plaintiff in Newcrest Mining (WA) Ltd v Commonwealth,3 on remitter from the High Court in all respects save for the constitutional question, to resist his siren song invitation to have a go at the constitutional question anyway. Our encounters were brief, but each a delight in its own way. I have been invited to present many lectures named after significant legal personalities. None has given me greater pleasure than the invitation to present this the 16th Lecture in the series established by the New South Wales Bar Association to honour his memory.
    [Show full text]
  • 'Executive Power' Issue of the UWA Law Review
    THE UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA LAW REVIEW Volume 43(2) March 2018 EXECUTIVE POWER ISSUE Introduction Dr Murray Wesson ............................................................................................................. 1 Executive Power in Australia - Nurtured and Bound in Anxiety The Hon Robert French AC ............................................................................................ 16 The Strange Death of Prerogative in England Thomas Poole .................................................................................................................... 42 Judicial Review of Non-Statutory Executive Action: Australia and the United Kingdom Amanda Sapienza .............................................................................................................. 67 Section 61 of the Commonwealth Constitution and an 'Historical Constitutional Approach': An Excursus on Justice Gageler's Reasoning in the M68 Case Peter Gerangelos ............................................................................................................. 103 Nationhood and Section 61 of the Constitution Dr Peta Stephenson ........................................................................................................ 149 Finding the Streams' True Sources: The Implied Freedom of Political Communication and Executive Power Joshua Forrester, Lorraine Finlay and Augusto Zimmerman .................................. 188 A Comment on How the Implied Freedom of Political Communication Restricts Non-Statutory Executive Power
    [Show full text]
  • Ryan William Haddrick LLB Jamescook, LLM Qldut, Graddiplegprac ANU
    The Queen’s Ministers of State for the Commonwealth: The Relationship between the Prerogatives of the Crown and the Executive Power of the Commonwealth Ryan William Haddrick LLB JamesCook, LLM QldUT, GradDipLegPrac ANU A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at The University of Queensland in 2017 T.C. Beirne School of Law i ii ABSTRACT The orthodox view is that the prerogatives of the Crown are textually incorporated, or sourced, in the language of s 61 of the Australian Constitution. This work challenges that assumption by examining the text, structure and history of ss 2, 61 and 64 of the Constitution. In particular, the inclusion of the words “under the Crown” and “shall be the Queen’s Ministers of State for the Commonwealth” in the preamble and s 64 respectively are, it is argued, textual indicators (and devices) that the prerogative is textually recognised or affirmed by those provisions, and ought to be seen as emanating from the Crown, and recognised by common law – and not as emanating from s 61 of the Constitution. Having argued that the executive power of the Commonwealth (that is, s 61) is not the textual source, or recognition, of the prerogatives of the Crown, this dissertation then posits a theory as to how s 61 should be construed. True to its Montesquieuian heritage, it is argued that the executive power of the Commonwealth ought to be understood in a functionalist sense. The evidence considered to support these propositions is the text, structure and history of the constitutional provisions. In particular, this dissertation examines the historical concept of the prerogatives of the Crown; the way that body of constitutional doctrine became part of the Australian constitutional landscape; and how the prerogative was understood to operate in pre-Federation Imperial and colonial case law.
    [Show full text]
  • An Australian Head of State: an Historical and Contemporary Perspective
    An Australian Head of State: An Historical and Contemporary Perspective An Australian Head of State: An Historical and Contemporary Perspective 1 Sir David Smith Today’s lecture on the topic of ‘An Australian Head of State: An Historical and Contemporary Perspective’ follows the lecture given earlier this year by Senator Baden Teague on the topic of ‘An Australian Head of State: The Contemporary Debate’.2 In his lecture Senator Teague spoke of the Queen as our head of state and argued for her replacement by an Australian head of state. In his replies to questions after the lecture he spoke of the Governor-General as our head of state. The switch from Queen to Governor-General was entirely automatic and unselfconscious. Senator Teague is not alone in his ambivalence. After Mr Bill Hayden’s speech to the Royal Australasian College of Physicians earlier this year, the Australian published an edited version under the heading ‘The Governor-General has made one of the most controversial speeches ever delivered by an Australian head of State’.3 The next day’s editorial in the same newspaper said that ‘it is perfectly appropriate at this stage of our constitutional development that the head of State address important issues of social policy’.4 These media references to the Governor-General as head of state are not just a recent phenomenon: for example, the 1 I am indebted to the Dean of the Faculty of Law, the Australian National University, for his great courtesy in extending to me the hospitality of the Law School to enable me to carry out the research for this lecture and other writings.
    [Show full text]
  • Sir Maurice Byers Kt CBE QC 10 November 1917 – 17 January 1999 President of the New South Wales Bar Association, November 1965 – November 1967
    Stop Press No. 58, February 1999 Sir Maurice Byers Kt CBE QC 10 November 1917 – 17 January 1999 President of the New South Wales Bar Association, November 1965 – November 1967 On the 17 January 1999 the New South Wales Bar lost one of its most senior members and one of its most devout and articulate supporters. He was also one of the finest lawyers ever to practise in this country. After attending St Aloysius College, Sir Maurice took his law degree at the University of Sydney and was admitted to the Bar on the 26th May 1944. He practiced initially from University Chambers at 167 Phillip Street. In 1957 he moved to the 10th floor of the then newly built Wentworth Chambers where he joined, amongst others, John Kerr QC and Gough Whitlam. His practice as a junior and later as a Silk was primarily in the fields of equity, taxation, company and constitutional law and he appeared frequently before the Privy Council. He took Silk in 1960 and continued his extensive practice at the private bar until he was appointed Solicitor General for the Commonwealth in 1973 which office he held for 10 years. He was President of the Bar in the years 1966 and 1967. In his long career at the Bar both as Commonwealth Solicitor-General and in private practice there was virtually no constitutional law case of any moment in which he was not involved. He had as much to do as anyone who lived in the twentieth century with the exploration of the Constitution. His arguments were disarming, innovative and succinct.
    [Show full text]