Challenges to the Survival of the Common Law
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
CRITIQUE AND COMMENT INAUGURAL MELBOURNE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW ANNUAL LECTURE CHALLENGES TO THE SURVIVAL OF THE COMMON LAW STEPHEN MCLEISH* Modern conditions appear to pose challenges to the future of the common law. The range, volume and complexity of relevant and accessible material with which the common law has to deal have all grown rapidly. Statutory law has undergone corresponding growth, in a context where fundamental issues concerning the interaction between statutory and common law remain unresolved. Recalling the constitutional and democratic function of the courts may help meet these challenges. A court may only decide the case that is before it, and must do so according to law. This justifies regulating and if necessary confining the legal source materials to be accessed and relied upon in arguing and resolving a case. And recognition of the constitutional primacy of statute law is an essential starting point in ensuring cohesion of the body of statutory and common law. CONTENTS I Introduction .............................................................................................................. 818 II Growth and Complexity of the Common Law .................................................... 821 III Statutes and the Common Law .............................................................................. 825 IV Constitutional Considerations ............................................................................... 829 V Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 835 I INTRODUCTION In preparation for this lecture I thought it only fitting to delve into the past and look at the early issues of the Melbourne University Law Review and its * BA, LLB (Hons) (Melb), LLM (Harv); Solicitor-General for Victoria. I wish to thank Olaf Ciolek for his very considerable assistance in the course of preparing this paper and the Editors for their helpful comments and suggestions. 818 2014] Challenges to the Survival of the Common Law 819 predecessor publication, Res Judicatae. The journey up one of the perilous ladders that grant access to the upper shelves of the Supreme Court Library was well worth the effort. The first issue of Res Judicatae appeared in September 1935. While it was produced by the Law Students’ Society, and revived an earlier journal or magazine, it was a scholarly journal that, as Dr John Waugh’s history of the Melbourne Law School recounts, also embraced the school’s own goals.1 He explains that, as the only Australian university law journal at the time and one of very few Australian law journals at all, it rapidly distinguished itself as a forum for serious research. By 1939 Dean Professor Kenneth Bailey was able to report to the University Council that articles had been cited in the Com- monwealth Law Reports and in the Victorian Parliament.2 The first issue gives the flavour of what was to come, with articles by a collection of men who overwhelmingly went on to be leaders of the profession or the academy, and several already were. Professor Bailey himself wrote on the Privy Council,3 Professor George Paton on invitees,4 future judges Arthur Dean and Alexander Adam wrote on the Judicature Act 1873 (Imp) 36 & 37 Vict, c 665 and forgeries under the Transfer of Land Act 1928 (Vic)6 respective- ly. A young Edward Sykes wrote on the rule of law in the modern world.7 Other names familiar from various branches of Victoria’s later legal develop- ment included Norris,8 Menhennitt,9 Lush,10 Bradshaw11 and Harper.12 Later 1 John Waugh, First Principles: The Melbourne Law School 1857–2007(Miegunyah Press, 2007) 132–3. 2 K H Bailey, ‘Report of the Dean of the Faculty of Law’ (CP 1939/175, File No RC 1939/188: Registrar’s Correspondence, The University of Melbourne Archives) 2, cited in John Waugh, Diploma Privilege: Legal Education at the University of Melbourne 1857–1946 (PhD Thesis, The University of Melbourne, 2009) 216 n 33. 3 K H Bailey, ‘Appeals to the Privy Council in Constitutional Cases: A Proposal Examined’ (1935) 1 Res Judicatae 1. 4 G W Paton, ‘Invitees and Related Problems’ (1935) 1 Res Judicatae 6. 5 Arthur Dean, ‘What Did the Judicature Act Really Do?’ (1935) 1 Res Judicatae 13. 6 A G Adam, ‘The Transfer of Land Act and Forgery’ (1935) 1 Res Judicatae 16. 7 Edward I Sykes, ‘The “Rule of Law” in the Modern World: W Ivor Jennings, The Law and the Constitution’ (1935) 1 Res Judicatae 57. 8 J G Norris, ‘The Wife’s Position as a Secured Creditor in Her Husband’s Bankruptcy’ (1935) 1 Res Judicatae 20. 9 C I Menhennitt, ‘Administrative Tribunals in Victoria’ (1935) 1 Res Judicatae 28. 10 G H Lush, ‘Imprisonment in Civil Cases’ (1935) 1 Res Judicatae 38. 11 F Maxwell Bradshaw, ‘The Liability of Statutory Corporations for Ultra Vires Torts’ (1935) 1 Res Judicatae 44. 12 J B H, ‘The Imprisonment of John Bunyan’ (1935) 1 Res Judicatae 47. 820 Melbourne University Law Review [Vol 38:818 in the first volume we find contributions by Chief Justice Latham (on the law student),13 Justice Evatt (who gave two addresses to the society in succeeding weeks in 1937 on amending the Constitution),14 and Justice Dixon (on de facto officers).15 If the subject matter and the authors were scholarly, the Law Students’ Society itself was a serious body as well. Its eponymous name reflected the fact that there was only one Victorian law school. Comprised not only of law students but recent graduates, the first issue ofRes Judicatae records, surpris- ingly to modern readers, that the society sought as far as possible at its meetings to observe the procedure of the courts.16 By way of explanation, we are told that the society existed ‘to enable members to cultivate the art of forensic speaking, and also to provide for social intercourse’.17 At least by the 1980s and doubtless long before, those priorities had been somewhat reordered. Another glimpse into the world of the first issue of Res Judicatae tells us what were the recent legal developments of note. The first case notes were about Woolmington v Director of Public Prosecutions18 and the ‘golden thread’ of the criminal standard of proof19 and New South Wales v Bardolph,20 confirming the executive power of the States to contract without a prior parliamentary appropriation.21 The first editors clearly recognised a case of lasting importance when they saw one. As well, there was a review of a major new publication, called The Australian Digest.22 What is especially striking about the first issue of Res Judicatae is the length of the articles. Most were around three to five pages in length. There was but a sprinkling of footnotes. The seriousness of purpose and the quality of the publication continued, despite a wartime hiatus, and in 1957 Dean Zelman Cowen, following the 13 Chief Justice John Latham, ‘The Law Student’ (1937) 1 Res Judicatae 253. 14 Justice H V Evatt, ‘Amending the Constitution’ (1937) 1 Res Judicatae 264. 15 Justice Owen Dixon, ‘De Facto Officers’ (1938) Res1 Judicatae 285. 16 F M Bradshaw, ‘The Law Students’ Society of Victoria’ (1935) 1Res Judicatae 80, 80. 17 Ibid. 18 [1935] AC 462. 19 Notes and Comments, ‘The Burden of Proof in Criminal Cases: R v Woolmington’ (1935) 1 Res Judicatae 59. 20 (1934) 52 CLR 455. 21 K H B, ‘Contracts with the Crown: New South Wales v Bardolph [1935] ALR 22’ (1935) 1 Res Judicatae 63. 22 C I M, ‘The Australian Digest’ (1935) 1 Res Judicatae 72. 2014] Challenges to the Survival of the Common Law 821 model of the Harvard Law Review, was instrumental in the publication of the first volume of the Melbourne University Law Review (‘Review’).23 Still a student-run scholarly journal, the new entity entered the world without fanfare or even a preface, noting simply ‘formerly Res Judicatae’. Th e fi r st article was by Justice Fullagar, entitled ‘Legal Terminology’.24 There followed a lengthy exposition by Dean Cowen on the Victorian Constitution25 from 1856 to 195626 and an article by Dr Coppel on appeals to the Privy Council.27 Early editors and members of the Review are listed, as is still the case. Many names, then as later, appear regularly in the Victorian Reports, as judges (J D Phillips, Tadgell, Ormiston, Winneke, Charles, Batt) and eminent counsel (Merralls, McPhee, Pannam), to take only a few examples. II GROWTH AND COMPLEXITY OF THE COMMON LAW It is striking, when looking at old Reviews, that there was then only one law school in Victoria, comparatively small in size and very male in composition, and that there was a concentration of scholarship in one university law review. Today the number of institutions and publications has of course burgeoned. At the same time, works of erudition and detailed analysis are still being produced, but their length and the specificity of their subject matter has increased. So has the extent of their footnoted references to authorities and other scholarship. This growth in the scale and complexity of academic writing has been matched by a similar expansion in relation to case law. To take a rough measure, the 1957 volume of the Victorian Reports had 739 pages; the last annual volume, produced in 1999, had 2602. To some extent, each has fed on the other. The Review itself has roughly doubled in volume since 1957. It is in this rapid growth of source material that I identify the first of the challenges for the future of the common law that are the subject of this lecture. For present purposes I am using the expression ‘common law’ to refer to judge-made law emerging from the deciding of cases, which constitutes, along 23 Melbourne University Law Review, History (16 February 2013) <http://law.unimelb.edu.au/ mulr/about/history>. 24 Justice Wilfred Fullagar, ‘Legal Terminology’ (1957) 1 Melbourne University Law Review 1.