DOCSLIB.ORG

A Matter of Judgment-Judicial Decision-Making and Judgment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Matter of Judgment-Judicial Decision-Making and Judgment A MATTER OF JUDGMENT Judicial decision-making and judgment writing Published in Sydney by — Judicial Commission of New South Wales Level 5, 301 George Street Sydney NSW 2000 DX 886 Sydney GPO Box 3634 Sydney NSW 2001 www.judcom.nsw.gov.au National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry A matter of judgment: judicial decision-making and judgment writing. Bibliography. Includes index. ISBN 0 7313 5603 9. 1. Judicial process — New South Wales. 2. Judgments — New South Wales. I. Sheard, Ruth. II. Judicial Commission of New South Wales. (Series: Education monograph series (Judicial Commission of New South Wales); 2). 347.94405 © 2003 Judicial Commission of New South Wales and contributors, except Justice Michael Kirby, “Judging: Reflections on the Moment of Decision” reproduced by permission Lexis Nexis Butterworths Sir Frank Kitto, “Why Write Judgments” and Justice Keith Mason, “Unconscious Judicial Prejudice” reprinted with permission from the ©Lawbook Co, part of Thomson Legal & Regulatory Limited, http://www.thomson.com.au This publication is copyright. Other than for the purposes of, and subject to the conditions prescribed under, the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), no part of it may in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, microcopying, photocopying, recording or otherwise) be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted without prior permission. Enquiries should be addressed to the publisher. The views expressed in this monograph are the views of the individual authors and do not represent any official views of the Judicial Commission of New South Wales, nor are they necessarily shared by the members of the staff of the Commission. Whilst all reason- able care has been taken in the preparation of this publication, no liability is assumed for any errors or omissions. Printed August 2003 Designed by Lorraine Beal Printed by Ligare Book Printer Foreword This publication collects a series of essays, most previously published, on the themes of judicial decision-making, judicial impartiality and judgment writing. These matters are interrelated and together reflect the core aspects of the judicial task. The ultimate judicial value is impartiality. It is the essence of the function performed by the judiciary in the administration of justice. However, impartiality must not only exist, it must be manifest. The common theme of the essays collected in this volume is the identification of how the process of judicial decision-making, in accordance with a 900-year-old common law tradition, leads to both the reality and the appearance of impartiality. Particular attention is paid to reconciling the centrality of impartiality with the fact that different judges bring to the judicial task a variety of perspectives and values. The appearance of impartiality is ultimately displayed in the reasons for judgment. Reasons perform a number of functions to a number of audiences. Two are of overriding significance. First, reasons explain to the parties why the judge has ruled as he or she has, and do so in a manner which is manifest to the parties and their advisors and to any appellate court. Secondly, reasons are public. They constitute the basic mechanism by which each judge is held accountable to the public for the decisions he or she has made. Though such reasons may need explication and consideration by lawyers, they are available to all, and, by reason of the internet more accessible than ever. The reasoning in judicial decisions is often the subject of comment not only by lawyers, but also by others. Few governmental decision-makers are subject to an express obligation to explicate their reasons as a matter of routine and to do so in public. Performance of this obligation enhances public confidence in the administration of justice and promotes better decisions by judges. This publication is directed to providing an educational resource for judicial officers. It is intended to promote high standards in judicial decision-making and to promote clarity in judgment writing. It is also intended to promote an understanding of the nature of the judicial process and, particularly, of the important role of judgment writing, amongst a wider public. The Honourable JJ Spigelman AC Chief Justice of New South Wales 2 June 2003 v Editor’s Note A Matter of Judgment explores some of the issues surrounding the important tasks of judicial decision-making and judgment writing. Judicial decision-making is at the core of the judicial function and there is great public interest in ensuring that decisions, once made, are communicated effectively. By ensuring that judicial decisions are open to scrutiny, the community is reassured that decisions are made in accordance with legal principles. The decision-making role of judges has been controversial at times — do judges make law and, if so, what factors do they, and should they, consider? The authors writing on decision- making address some important aspects of this topic, including the nature of the judicial process, the role of impartiality in decision-making, the values and considerations that should govern judicial decision-making, and the way in which changing public perceptions have impacted on the judicial role. They also provide guidance on how judges can resolve the challenges inherent in decision-making. Many of the authors make the point that judgments are not delivered in isolation — their function is to communicate to various audiences, ranging from the parties and appellate courts to the wider community. The articles on judgment writing thus aim to provide guidance to ensure that judgments clearly and effectively communicate both the decision and the process leading to the decision. Other questions addressed are when judicial officers should give unreserved judgments and how they should prepare for delivering a judgment, whether ex tempore or written. I would like to acknowledge the work of all the authors and thank them for their contributions to this collection. I expect that this is an area in which there will be continued debate and I trust that A Matter of Judgment will prove to be both a useful resource for judicial officers and a thought-provoking one. Ruth Sheard Editor vii Contents Foreword .............................................................................................................................v Editor’s Note .................................................................................................................... vii Contributors ......................................................................................................................xi The Nature of the Judicial Process and Judicial Decision-Making .....................................1 The Honourable Sir Anthony Mason AC KBE Judicial Impartiality: The Impossible Quest? ................................................................... 15 The Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin PC Unconscious Judicial Prejudice ....................................................................................... 27 The Honourable Justice Keith Mason AC Judging: Reflections on the Moment of Decision ............................................................. 43 The Honourable Justice Michael Kirby AC CMG Decision-Making, Public Opinion and Concepts of Rights ................................................ 59 The Honourable Justice Rosalie Silberman Abella Why Write Judgments? ................................................................................................... 69 The Right Honourable Sir Frank Kitto AC KBE Ex Tempore Judgments .................................................................................................... 81 Dr Elwyn Elms Clarity and the Rule of Law: The Role of Plain Judicial Language ................................... 91 Mark Duckworth Judgment Writing: Form and Function ........................................................................... 103 The Honourable Dennis Mahoney AO QC Seven Steps to Clearer Judgment Writing ..................................................................... 117 The Honourable Justice Linda Dessau and His Honour Judge Tom Wodak Index ............................................................................................................................ 127 ix Contributors The Honourable Justice Rosalie Silberman Abella has been a judge on the Ontario Court of Appeal since 1992. After graduating from the University of Toronto Law School in 1970, she practised civil and criminal litigation until, at the age of 29 she was appointed to the Ontario Family Court in 1976. She was a member of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, the Premier’s Advisory Committee on Confederation, the Ontario Public Service Labour Relations Tribunal, the University of Toronto Academic Discipline Tribunal, the Canadian Judicial Council’s Inquiry on Donald Marshall Jr, and Chaired the Ontario Labour Relations Board, the Ontario Law Reform Commission and the study on Access to Legal Services by the Disabled. She was sole Commissioner and author of the 1984 federal Royal Commission on Equality in Employment. She was a director of the Institute for Research on Public Policy, the International Commission of Jurists, and the Canadian Institute for the Administration of Justice. She has lectured widely in Canada and internationally, and been extensively involved in Canadian judicial education. The Honourable Justice Linda Dessau has been a judge of the Family Court of Australia since 1995. Before that, she was a magistrate and coroner
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Winterwinter June10june10 OL.Inddol.Indd 1 33/6/10/6/10 111:46:191:46:19 AMAM | Contents |
    BBarNewsarNews WinterWinter JJune10une10 OL.inddOL.indd 1 33/6/10/6/10 111:46:191:46:19 AMAM | Contents | 2 Editor’s note 4 President’s column 6 Letters to the editor 8 Bar Practice Course 01/10 9 Opinion A review of the Senior Counsel Protocol Ego and ethics Increase the retirement age for federal judges 102 Addresses 132 Obituaries 22 Recent developments The 2010 Sir Maurice Byers Address Glenn Whitehead 42 Features Internationalisation of domestic law Bernard Sharpe Judicial biography: one plant but Frank McAlary QC several varieties 115 Muse The Hon Jeff Shaw QC Rake Sir George Rich Stephen Stewart Chris Egan A really rotten judge: Justice James 117 Personalia Clark McReynolds Roger Quinn Chief Justice Patrick Keane The Hon Bill Fisher AO QC 74 Legal history Commodore Slattery 147 Bullfry A creature of momentary panic 120 Bench & Bar Dinner 2010 150 Book reviews 85 Practice 122 Appointments Preparing and arguing an appeal The Hon Justice Pembroke 158 Crossword by Rapunzel The Hon Justice Ball The Federal Magistrates Court 159 Bar sports turns 10 The Hon Justice Nicholas The Lady Bradman Cup The Hon Justice Yates Life on the bench in Papua New The Great Bar Boat Race Guinea The Hon Justice Katzmann The Hon Justice Craig barTHE JOURNAL OF THE NSWnews BAR ASSOCIATION | WINTER 2010 Bar News Editorial Committee ISSN 0817-0002 Andrew Bell SC (editor) Views expressed by contributors to (c) 2010 New South Wales Bar Association Keith Chapple SC This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted Bar News are not necessarily those of under the Copyright Act 1968, and subsequent Mark Speakman SC the New South Wales Bar Association.
    [Show full text]
  • High Court of Australia
    HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 2000-01 High Court of Australia Canberra ACT 7 December 2001 Dear Attorney, In accordance with Section 47 of the High Court of Australia Act 1979, I submit on behalf of the Court and with its approval a report relating to the administration of the affairs of the High Court of Australia under Section 17 of the Act for the year ended 30 June 2001, together with financial statements in respect of the year in the form approved by the Minister for Finance. Sub-section 47(3) of the Act requires you to cause a copy of this report to be laid before each House of Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after its receipt by you. Yours sincerely, (C.M. DOOGAN) Chief Executive and Principal Registrar of the High Court of Australia The Honourable D. Williams, AM, QC, MP Attorney-General Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 CONTENTS Page PART I - PREAMBLE Aids to Access 4 PART II - INTRODUCTION Chief Justice Gleeson 5 Justice Gaudron 5 Justice McHugh 6 Justice Gummow 6 Justice Kirby 6 Justice Hayne 7 Justice Callinan 7 PART III - THE YEAR IN REVIEW Changes in Proceedings 8 Self Represented Litigants 8 The Court and the Public 8 Developments in Information Technology 8 Links and Visits 8 PART IV - BACKGROUND INFORMATION Establishment 9 Functions and Powers 9 Sittings of the Court 9 Seat of the Court 11 Appointment of Justices of the High Court 12 Composition of the Court 12 Former Chief Justices and Justices of the Court 13 PART V - ADMINISTRATION General 14 External Scrutiny 14 Ecologically Sustainable Development
    [Show full text]
  • Process, but Also Assumes a Role in the Administration of the Court
    Mason process, but also assumes a role in the administration of the Court. Frank Jones Mason, Anthony Frank (b 21 April 1925; Justice 1972–87; Chief Justice 1987–95) was a member of the High Court for 23 years and is regarded by many as one of Australia’s great- est judges, as important and influential as Dixon.The ninth Chief Justice,he presided over a period ofsignificant change in the Australian legal system, his eight years as Chief Justice having been described as among the most exciting and important in the Court’s history. Mason grew up in Sydney, where he attended Sydney Grammar School. His father was a surveyor who urged him to follow in his footsteps; however, Mason preferred to follow in the footsteps of his uncle, a prominent Sydney KC. After serving with the RAAF as a flying officer from 1944 to 1945, he enrolled at the University of Sydney, graduating with first-class honours in both law and arts. Mason was then articled with Clayton Utz & Co in Sydney, where he met his wife Patricia, with whom he has two sons. He also served as an associate to Justice David Roper of the Supreme Court of NSW. He moved to the Sydney Bar in 1951, where he was an unqualified success, becoming one of Barwick’s favourite junior counsel. Mason’s practice was primarily in equity and commercial law,but he also took on a number ofconstitutional and appellate cases. After only three years at the Bar, he appeared before the High Court in R v Davison (1954), in which he successfully persuaded the Bench that certain sections of the Bankruptcy Act 1924 (Cth) invalidly purported to confer Anthony Mason, Justice 1972–87, Chief Justice 1987–95 in judicial power upon a registrar of the Bankruptcy Court.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Who's That with Abrahams
    barTHE JOURNAL OF THE NSWnews BAR ASSOCIATION | SUMMER 2008/09 Who’s that with Abrahams KC? Rediscovering Rhetoric Justice Richard O’Connor rediscovered Bullfry in Shanghai | CONTENTS | 2 President’s column 6 Editor’s note 7 Letters to the editor 8 Opinion Access to court information The costs circus 12 Recent developments 24 Features 75 Legal history The Hon Justice Foster The criminal jurisdiction of the Federal The Kyeema air disaster The Hon Justice Macfarlan Court NSW Law Almanacs online The Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina The Hon Justice Ward Saving St James Church 40 Addresses His Honour Judge Michael King SC Justice Richard Edward O’Connor Rediscovering Rhetoric 104 Personalia The current state of the profession His Honour Judge Storkey VC 106 Obituaries Refl ections on the Federal Court 90 Crossword by Rapunzel Matthew Bracks 55 Practice 91 Retirements 107 Book reviews The Keble Advocacy Course 95 Appointments 113 Muse Before the duty judge in Equity Chief Justice French Calderbank offers The Hon Justice Nye Perram Bullfry in Shanghai Appearing in the Commercial List The Hon Justice Jagot 115 Bar sports barTHE JOURNAL OF THE NSWnews BAR ASSOCIATION | SUMMER 2008-09 Bar News Editorial Committee Cover the New South Wales Bar Andrew Bell SC (editor) Leonard Abrahams KC and Clark Gable. Association. Keith Chapple SC Photo: Courtesy of Anthony Abrahams. Contributions are welcome and Gregory Nell SC should be addressed to the editor, Design and production Arthur Moses SC Andrew Bell SC Jeremy Stoljar SC Weavers Design Group Eleventh Floor Chris O’Donnell www.weavers.com.au Wentworth Chambers Duncan Graham Carol Webster Advertising 180 Phillip Street, Richard Beasley To advertise in Bar News visit Sydney 2000.
    [Show full text]
  • Livingston V Commissioner of Stamp Duties (Qld) [1960] HCA 94; (1960) 107 CLR 411 (16 December 1960) HIGH COURT of AUSTRALIA
    Livingston v Commissioner of Stamp Duties (Qld) [1960] HCA 94; (1960) 107 CLR 411 (16 December 1960) HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA LIVINGSTON v. COMMISSIONER OF STAMP DUTIES (Q.) [1960] HCA 94 ; (1960) 107 CLR 411 Private International Law High Court of Australia Dixon C.J.(1), Fullagar(2), Kitto(3), Menzies(4) and Windeyer(5) JJ. CATCHWORDS Private International Law - Succession Duty - Probate and Administration Duty - Death intestate of wife entitled to share in residue under her husband's will - Assessment of wife's estate for succession and administration duties on this share - Husband's estate not fully administered - Assets in New South Wales and Queensland - Husband, wife and executors of husband's will resident and domiciled in New South Wales - Place of administration of husband's estate New South Wales - Administrator of wife's estate denied liability of estate to duties - Appeals by petition to Supreme Court - Right of appeal - "Accountable party" - Nature of interest in estate not fully administered - Whether situated in Queensland - The Succession and Probate Duties Acts 1892 to 1952 (Q.), ss. 3, 4, 12, 43, 46, 47, 47A, 48, 50, 55. HEARING Brisbane, 1960, June 14, 15; Sydney, 1960, December 16. 16:12:1960 APPEAL and application for special leave to appeal from the Supreme Court of Queensland. DECISION December 16. The following written judgments were delivered:- DIXON C.J. By s. 48 of The Succession and Probate Duties Acts 1892 to 1952 chargeable with duty on being required by the Commissioner to deliver an account makes default in doing so the Commissioner may, by summons before a judge of the Supreme Court in chambers call upon such person to show cause why he should not deliver the account and pay the duty and costs, and thereupon such order shall be made as the judge thinks just.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is Past, Or Passing, Or to Come ___ 10F What Is Past, Or Passing, Or to Come ______
    1030 What is Past, or Passing, or to Come ____ 10f What is Past, or Passing, or to Come ______ ~ .... tcllbyby the HOI!HOIl Justice Michael Kirby A.C .. C.M.G., President afthealthe CaUTIo!Caurlo! Appeal afat the 1993 BenchBelich & Bar ',lrlUlerat which he was the guest afhonour.o/honour. ¥. ,!i}fi "Once 0111011I of nature I shall never raketake ~ Mybodi1yjormfrom~f bodilyfarm/rom anyany. natural (hing,rh~lIg. Asprey kept, hanging on the wall of his chambers. behind the B ~f slIcllslIch ajormalarm as Grecian goldsmithsgoldsnllfhs make chair at his desk. the famous cartoon of FE Smith. Next to that dfhammered gold and gold enamelling cartoon was hanging a mirror. Looking in the mirror"it was To keep a drowsy Emperor awake; natural to see oneself as a reflection of the great English Or set upon a golden bOllghbough to sing counsel. "[ To lords and ladies of ByzantiumByz.antium The President of the Incorporated Law Institute (as it O/wlw{OfwiwI is past.past, or passing. or to come." was called) was NormanNonnan Cowper, later to be knighted. Reg WBW B Yeats Downing was the State Auomey~General. The most senior silks were HVH V Evatt himself, his brother CliveCJive and CAC A : ....UTI< PAST Hardwick. Amongst the senior juniors were those memorable figures Wilf Sheppard, Walter Gee, Bertie Wright and On an occasion such as this, and in this common room.room, Humphrey Henchman - the lastofwhom 1I saw, evergreen, in 'ldsinevitableitisineviw,blethatthat an affliction of nostalgia will take the mind this place but a month ago. back through lheme lost years.
    [Show full text]
  • Seeing Visions and Dreaming Dreams Judicial Conference of Australia
    Seeing Visions and Dreaming Dreams Judicial Conference of Australia Colloquium Chief Justice Robert French AC 7 October 2016, Canberra Thank you for inviting me to deliver the opening address at this Colloquium. It is the first and last time I will do so as Chief Justice. The soft pink tones of the constitutional sunset are deepening and the dusk of impending judicial irrelevance is advancing upon me. In a few weeks' time, on 25 November, it will have been thirty years to the day since I was commissioned as a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia. The great Australian legal figures who sat on the Bench at my official welcome on 10 December 1986 have all gone from our midst — Sir Ronald Wilson, John Toohey, Sir Nigel Bowen and Sir Francis Burt. Two of my articled clerks from the 1970s are now on the Supreme Court of Western Australia. One of them has recently been appointed President of the Court of Appeal. They say you know you are getting old when policemen start looking young — a fortiori when the President of a Court of Appeal looks to you as though he has just emerged from Law School. The same trick of perspective leads me to see the Judicial Conference of Australia ('JCA') as a relatively recent innovation. Six years into my judicial career, in 1992, I attended a Supreme and Federal Courts Judges' Conference at which Justices Richard McGarvie and Ian Sheppard were talking about the establishment of a body to represent the common interests and concerns of judges, to defend the judiciary as an institution and, where appropriate, to defend individual judges who were the target of unfair and unwarranted criticisms.
    [Show full text]
  • The High Court and the Parliament Partners in Law-Making Or Hostile Combatants?*
    The High Court and the Parliament Partners in law-making or hostile combatants?* Michael Coper The question of when a human life begins poses definitional and philosophical puzzles that are as familiar as they are unanswerable. It might surprise you to know that the question of when the High Court of Australia came into existence raises some similar puzzles,1 though they are by contrast generally unfamiliar and not quite so difficult to answer. Interestingly, the High Court tangled with this issue in its very first case, a case called Hannah v Dalgarno,2 argued—by Wise3 on one side and Sly4 on the other—on 6 and 10 November 1903, and decided the next day on a date that now positively reverberates with constitutional significance, 11 November.5 * This paper was presented as a lecture in the Department of the Senate Occasional Lecture Series at Parliament House on 19 September 2003. I am indebted to my colleagues Fiona Wheeler and John Seymour for their comments on an earlier draft. 1 See Tony Blackshield and Francesca Dominello, ‘Constitutional basis of Court’ in Tony Blackshield, Michael Coper and George Williams (eds), The Oxford Companion to the High Court of Australia, South Melbourne, Vic., Oxford University Press, 2001 (hereafter ‘The Oxford Companion’): 136. 2 (1903) 1 CLR 1; Francesca Dominello, ‘Hannah v Dalgarno’ in The Oxford Companion: 316. 3 Bernhard Ringrose Wise (1858–1916) was the Attorney-General for NSW and had been a framer of the Australian Constitution. 4 Richard Sly (1849–1929) was one of three lawyer brothers (including George, a founder of the firm of Sly and Russell), who all had doctorates in law.
    [Show full text]
  • Former CJ Spigelman Appointed to HK Court of Final Appeal FINAL
    Issued 9 April 2013 Former NSW Chief Justice appointed to Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Former NSW Chief Justice James Spigelman has been appointed to the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal. The appointment was announced yesterday in Hong Kong, jointly by the court’s Chief Justice, Mr Geoffrey Ma Tao-li, and the Chief Executive of Hong Kong, Mr C Y Leung. The Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal is the highest appellate court in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Established in 1997, it has the power of final adjudication with respect to the civil and criminal laws of Hong Kong. It comprises permanent Hong Kong judges, non-permanent Hong Kong judges and non- permanent common law judges from other jurisdictions. The Honourable Mr Justice Spigelman has been appointed a non-permanent judge from another common law jurisdiction. He will sit on appeals for a period of time each 12 to 18 months. He joins other distinguished Australian jurists previously appointed including three former Chief Justices of Australia, Sir Anthony Mason, Sir Gerard Brennan and Murray Gleeson, and, also announced yesterday, Justice William Gummow. The Honourable Mr Justice Spigelman was appointed NSW Chief Justice in May 1998 and served until May 2011. He is currently Chair of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (since April 2012). NSW Chief Justice Tom Bathurst congratulated his predecessor on this most recent appointment. "In addition to his significant contribution to the law in this state and country, Mr Spigelman was responsible for engaging with our legal colleagues throughout the Asian region in a way that had never been done before," Chief Justice Bathurst said.
    [Show full text]
  • 12 Chief Justice Gleeson and the Constitution
    12 Chief Justice Gleeson and the Constitution Leslie Zines* Strict and complete legalism Murray Gleeson became Chief Justice of the High Court on 22 May 1998. As a barrister he had appeared before the High Court in constitutional cases on many occasions; but as Chief Justice of New South Wales for 10 years immediately preceding his High Court appointment he had little to do with such issues. During his first two or three years on the High Court he gave the impression of a judge who desired to swing the Court in a different direction, that is away from the methods and attitudes that characterised it in the previous 15 years or so. Whereas during the earlier period, particularly under the Chief Justice- ship of Sir Anthony Mason, a number of judges emphasised such matters as the interplay of policies, values, doctrine and principle, Gleeson CJ in several addresses to the Bar and the public spoke in favour of legalism, and not merely legalism, but ‘strict and complete legalism’ – the phrase made famous by Sir Owen Dixon when he used it during his swearing-in speech as Chief Justice in 1952. This can be contrasted with the lecture by Sir Anthony Mason at the University of Virginia in 1986, a year before he became Chief Justice, when he declared that the Court was moving away from the doctrine of legalism ‘towards a more policy oriented constitutional interpretation’,1 describing the new approach as ‘a species of legal realism’. He went on to say that the danger is that strict and complete legalism ‘will be a cloak for undisclosed and unidentified policy values’.
    [Show full text]
  • Opening of Sir Anthony Mason Chambers CHAMBERS
    CHAMBERS Opening of Sir Anthony Mason Chambers By Elpi Chrysostomou The application of the harmonising art of history. As the ninth chief justice of creatures physical and spiritual which feng shui to barristers’ chambers and life the High Court and a member of that inhabit it. Native title, it seemed, had after the High Court were among other court for a total of 23 years, Sir Anthony survived like buried water in the bore of stories recounted recently by Sir Anthony presided during a number of landmark jurisprudence. It was the Sir Anthony Mason at the opening of the chambers cases including The Tasmanian Dam Case High Court that revealed it. named in his honour. (1983) 158 CLR 1, Teoh’s Case (1995) It has been said that Sir Anthony is 183 CLR 273, Dietrich v The Queen Sir Anthony Mason AC KBE GMB, known, not only for his keen intellect, (1992) 177 CLR 292, Cole v Whitfield former High Court chief justice, but also his wit. His persona in court has (1988) 165 CLR 360, Burnie Port accompanied by his wife, Lady Patricia, been described in the following words: Authority (1994) 179 CLR 520, Plenty were in Sydney on 25 July 2014 to v Dillon (1991) 171 CLR 635, and of He said relatively little but was very good formally open Sir Anthony Mason course Mabo (1992) 175 CLR 1. at progressing the business of argument. Chambers, Sydney. The combination of a commanding In that connection, British aphorist, Looking something akin to a busy Equity intelligence, vast experience, and an Geoffrey Madan, suggested that the List in Court 11E, it was standing room ability to convey by facial expression the destruction of ideas is much like the only as the occasion was attended by fact that the shelf-life of an argument had setting of a beautiful sunset.
    [Show full text]