SIR : THE LIFE AND TIMES OF 'S FINEST JURIST

When asked to review this book, I approached the task with some trepidation. How could I, a humble law student, possibly do justice to a biography of Australia's most eminent jurist? However, armed with what meagre knowledge I had of Sir Owen Dixon, I chose to proceed.

I knew Sir Owen Dixon was a giant of the law, his very name inspiring admiration and awe. I was also aware that he was Chief Justice of the High Court during its golden age, when it was widely acknowledged as the finest appellate court in the English-speaking world, and that his peers regarded him as the foremost legal mind of the 2othCentury.

I had accepted his reputation without question, largely ignorant of why such lavish praise had been heaped upon him. Similarly, I was ignorant of his contributions to the development of law in this country. I was not alone in my ignorance. My inquiries around the hallowed halls of the T C Beirne School of Law elicited similar responses.

For some, admiration has been replaced by bewilderment. Whilst most lawyers and law students know of Sir Owen Dixon, few can contribute in any meaningful way to a discussion about him. It became apparent to me that Dixon has become an increasingly remote historical figure since his passing in 1972.

Philip Ayres' biography attempts to remedy this. Relying on Dixon's private papers, (including his personal diaries), interviews with friends and family, personal and official correspondence, archived sources, photographs and government reports, Ayres provides a unique insight into the life and times of Australia's most eminent jurist.

The book affords the reader an opportunity to revisit a fascinating chapter in the High Court's history. Ayres' succinctly analyses a hundred of Dixon's judgments, spanning his 35 years on the bench. Most of these judgments had a profound impact on Australian law, among them the Bank Nationalisation Case (1948) and the Communist Party Case (1951). In examining Dixon's judgments, Ayres succeeds in challenging the misconception that Dixon was an exponent of 'strict

* BA; LLB student, T C Beirne School of Law, University of Queensland. Philip Ayres, Owen Dixon: A Biography, Melbourne University Press (2003). 2 78 Book Reviews and complete legalism', a phrase attributed to Dixon but one he later regretted ever having used.' Rather, Dixon is portrayed as a legalist, not a literalist, who valued knowledge above precedent. According to Ayres:

His attitude to precedent was that of a sceptic. If a case was right, it was right and its value depended on the calibre of the judge or judges who decided it and the quality of its reasoning. If it was wrong, he tended to ignore it or avoid it by subtle means.

However, to infer that this biography merely recounts Dixon's contribution to the law is erroneous.

Ayres provides the reader with some startling revelations about the High Court and Dixon, which makes the book a thoroughly engrossing read. Most surprising is the revelation that Dixon hated being a judge. In 1935, he even contemplated accepting the chairmanship of a Royal Commission on Banking and Finance as a means of returning to the Bar. His unhappiness even compelled him to dissuade friends from accepting judicial appointment.

Ayres attributes much of this unhappiness to the tension and animosity that pervaded the High Court during the 1930s, of which Sir was the principal cause. Starke's antipathy towards the other judges - in particular Sir and Sir Edward McTiernan - is brilliantly elaborated, as is the sense of helplessness that afflicted Dixon as a result of being caught in the middle of a hopelessly divided Court.

However, High Court intrigue does not stop there.

Dixon's 'ghost writing' of other judges' judgments is another shocking revelation, as is the startling frequency with which it appears to have occurred. One wonders if this still happens today.

Ayres also explores Dixon's relationships with other judges with whom he shared the bench, and his frank opinions of their capabilities. These are elicited from his personal diaries. We learn of Dixon's resentment of McTiernan and Sir and growing dislike of Dr Herbert Evatt, whom he saw as political appointments. Similarly, Ayres looks at Dixon's close and enduring relationship with Sir Robert Menzies, his pupil at the Bar whom, as Prime Minister, he influenced to shape the composition of the High Court.

Another compelling aspect of this book is its focus on Dixon's extra-judicial activities. In particular, Ayres provides an informative account of Dixon's role as Minister to Washington during the Second World War and of his later

' Ibid 233. Ibid 232. (2004) 23 The University of Queensland Law Journal 2 79 appointment by the UN to mediate India and Pakistan's dispute over Kashmir. His contributions from these positions rank amongst the most important of his career.

However, the book also touches upon some of the less celebrated aspects of Dixon's character. Ayres comments, albeit briefly, on Dixon's strong support for the White Australia Policy, his prejudiced view of Australia's Aborigines and his anti-semitic tendencies. Although Ayres does not portray Dixon as a racist - instead describing him as a man of his times - I was left disappointed that a man of such brilliance and independence could not escape the ethnocentric attitudes of the period. It seemed out of character. As such, my respect and admiration for Dixon was slightly diminished.

Nevertheless, as the first published biography on Sir Owen Dixon, Ayres provides the reader with a balanced and insightful account of his life and achievements. One is left with the impression of a man who inspired trust, confidence and affection amongst all those with whom his work brought him into contact. The book is beautifully written, with a simple style that makes it easy to follow.

This is a must read for lawyers and law students alike, if only to appreciate who Sir Owen Dixon really was.