DOCSLIB.ORG

Sir-Harry-Gibbs-Oration-2016.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sir-Harry-Gibbs-Oration-2016.Pdf The Sir Harry Gibbs Memorial Oration Previous Speakers Inaugural Sir Harry Gibbs Memorial Oration: 2006 (Canberra) Honourable Justice John Dyson Heydon AC Chief Justice Gibbs: Defending the Rule of Law in a Federal System Second Sir Harry Gibbs Memorial Oration: 2008 (Sydney) Honourable Ian Callinan AC Superior Courts in the Republic of Australia Third Sir Harry Gibbs Memorial Oration: 2010 (Perth) Eighth Sir Harry Gibbs Memorial Oration Bryan Pape Stopping Stimulus Spending The Samuel Griffith Society Fourth Sir Harry Gibbs Memorial Oration: 2012 (Brisbane) Senator Hon George Brandis SC 13th August, 2016 In defence of Liberty: the Attack on Free Speech in Australia today Adelaide, South Australia Fifth Sir Harry Gibbs Memorial Oration: 2013 (Sydney) Honourable John Dyson Heydon AC Sir Samuel Griffith as Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia The Honourable Robert Shenton French AC Sixth Sir Harry Gibbs Memorial Oration: 2014 (Melbourne) Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia Honourable Justice Richard Tracey AM, RFD The Constitution Goes to War “Giving and Taking Offence” Seventh Sir Harry Gibbs Memorial Oration: 2015 (Canberra) Nicholas Cowdery AM, QC The Magna Carta: its History and Enduring Relevance About the Speaker SIR HARRY TALBOT GIBBS PC AC GCMG KBE QC ROBERT SHENTON FRENCH AC (1917- 2005) Robert French was appointed Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia on 1 September Born in 1917, Harry Gibbs was educated at the Ipswich Grammar School and later at 2008. At the time of his appointment he was a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia, the University of Queensland, where he graduated with a Bachelor of Arts and a Bachelor having been appointed to that office in November 1986. He is a graduate of the University of Laws. In 1939 he was admitted to the Queensland Bar, but his legal career was of Western Australia in science and law. He was admitted in 1972 and practised as a interrupted by World War II and he served in the Australian Military Forces and in barrister and solicitor in Western Australia until 1983 when he went to the Independent Bar. the Second Australian Imperial Force in Papua New Guinea, attaining the rank of Captain. He was an associate member of the Trade Practices Commission (now the Australian In 1946, he was awarded a Master of Laws, and in 1957, was appointed Queen's Counsel. Competition and Consumer Commission) from 1983 to 1986 and Chancellor of Edith Gibbs was appointed a judge on the Supreme Court of Queensland in 1961, and in 1967, Cowen University from 1991 to 1996. From 1994 to 1998 he was President of the National Gibbs was appointed to the Federal Court of Bankruptcy and the ACT Supreme Court. In Native Title Tribunal. At the time of his appointment he was an additional member of the 1970, Gibbs was appointed to the High Court of Australia. He was knighted as a Knight Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory and a member of the Supreme Court of Commander of the Order of the British Empire, and in 1972, he was made a Privy Fiji. He was also a Deputy President of the Australian Competition Tribunal and a part time Councillor. In 1981, he was appointed Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, and member of the Australian Law Reform Commission. From 2001 to January 2005 he was was made a Knight Grand Cross of the Order of St Michael and St George. In 1987, he President of the Australian Association of Constitutional Law. In 2010, he was made a was appointed a Companion of the Order of Australia. After his retirement from the High Companion in the Order of Australia and a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences in Court, Gibbs served as Vice-President of the Kiribati Court of Appeal between 1988 and Australia. He is Patron of the Australian Academy of Law and an Honorary Life Member of 1999. In the early 1990s, Gibbs was a signatory of the charter of Australians for the Australasian Law Teachers Association. Constitutional Monarchy and a member of its Foundation Council. His beliefs about the role of The Crown in Australian society saw him campaign for the NO case in the 1999 constitutional referendum. From 1992, he was President of the Samuel Griffith Society. He died in 2005. Gibbs married Muriel Dunn in 1944 and the couple had three daughters and a son, (Barbara, Mary, Margaret and Harry). .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Executive Power Ofthe Commonwealth: Its Scope and Limits
    DEPARTMENT OF THE PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARY Parliamentary Research Service The Executive Power ofthe Commonwealth: its scope and limits Research Paper No. 28 1995-96 ~ J. :tJ. /"7-t ., ..... ;'. --rr:-~l. fii _ -!":u... .. ..r:-::-:_-J-:---~~~-:' :-]~llii iiim;r~.? -:;qI~Z'~i1:'l ISBN 1321-1579 © Copyright Commonwealth ofAustralia 1996 Except to the extent of the uses pennitted under the Copyright Act J968, no part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any fonn or by any means including infonnation storage and retrieval systems, without the prior written consent of the Department of the Parliamentary Library, other than by Senators and Members ofthe Australian Parliament in the course oftheir official duties. This paper has been prepared for general distribution to Senators and Members ofthe Australian Parliament. While great care is taken to ensure that the paper is accurate and balanced, the paper is written using infonnation publicly available at the time of production. The views expressed are those of the author and should not be attributed to the Parliamentary Research Service (PRS). Readers are reminded that the paper is not an official parliamentary or Australian government document. PRS staff are available to discuss the paper's contents with Senators and Members and their staff but not with members ofthe public. Published by the Department ofthe Parliamentary Library, 1996 Parliamentary Research Service The Executive Power ofthe Commonwealth: its scope and limits Dr Max Spry Law and Public Administration Group 20 May 1996 Research Paper No. 28 1995-96 Acknowledgments This is to acknowledge the help given by Bob Bennett, the Director of the Law and Public Administration Group.
    [Show full text]
  • Dinner Address the Law: Past and Present Tense Hon Justice Ian
    Dinner Address The Law: Past and Present Tense Hon Justice Ian Callinan, AC I do not want to revisit the topic of judicial activism, a matter much debated in previous proceedings of this Society. But it is impossible to speak about the law as it was, as it is now, and as it may be in the future, without at least touching upon a number of matters: precedent, judicial activism, and whether and how a final court should inform itself, or be informed about shifts in social ways and expectations. To develop my theme I have created a piece of fiction. The law, as you all know, is no stranger to fictions. It is not the year 2003, it is not even the year 1997 when the High Court decided Lange v. Australian Broadcasting Corporation.1 It is the year 1937. Merely five years later Justice Learned Hand in the United States would observe: “The hand that rules the press, the radio, the screen, and the far-spread magazine, rules the country”. Only seventeen years earlier the High Court had decided the landmark Engineers’ Case.2 This, you may recall, was the case in which the Court held that if a power has been conferred on the Commonwealth by the Constitution, no implication of a prohibition against the exercise of that power can arise, nor can a possible abuse of the power narrow its limits. This was a revolutionary decision. It denied what had been thought to be settled constitutional jurisprudence, that the Commonwealth Parliament could not bind the Executive of a State in the absence of express words in s.51 of the Constitution to that effect.
    [Show full text]
  • The State of the Australian Judicature
    The 36th Australian Legal Convention The State of the Australian Judicature Chief Justice RS French 18 September 2009, Perth In his State of the Judicature address to this Convention in 2007 the former Chief Justice, Murray Gleeson, observed, not without pleasurable anticipation: Few things in life are certain, but one is that I will not be giving the next such address. And so it came to pass. In quoting my predecessor, I would like to acknowledge his lifelong contribution and commitment to the rule of law and particularly his decade as Chief Justice of Australia. Assuming my continuing existence and that of the Australian Legal Convention, I expect to deliver three more such addresses as Chief Justice. It will be interesting on the occasion of the last of them to reflect on change in the legal landscape which will have come to pass then but still lies ahead of us today. For there has been much change since the first of these addresses. And prominent among life's few certainties is more of it. 2 The State of the Australian Judicature address given at the Australian legal Convention is a task that each Chief Justice has accepted beginning with Sir Garfield Barwick in Sydney in July 1977. In his opening remarks he said he had agreed to give the address because, as he put it1: … it seems to me that Australia is slowly developing a sense of unity in the administration of the law, as it is to be hoped it is developing a sense of unity in the legal profession.
    [Show full text]
  • Rules of Appellate Advocacy: an Australian Perspective
    RULES OF APPELLATE ADVOCACY: AN AUSTRALIAN PERSPECTIVE Michael Kirby AC CMG* I. ADVOCACY AND AUSTRALIAN COURTS Australia is a common law federation. Its constitution,' originally enacted as an annex to a statute of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, was profoundly affected-so far as the judiciary was concerned-by the model presented to the framers by the Constitution of the United States of America.2 The federal polity is called the Commonwealth, a word with links to Cromwell and American revolutionaries, a word to which Queen Victoria was said to have initially objected. The colonists were insistent; Commonwealth it became. The sub-national regions of the Commonwealth are the States. There are also territories, both internal3 and external,4 in respect of which, under the Constitution, the federal Parliament enjoys plenary law-making power. In the internal territories and the territory of Norfolk Island, a high measure of self-government has been granted by federal legislation. When the Commonwealth of Australia was established there were already courts operating in each of the colonies that united in the federation. They became the state courts. Generally * Justice of the High Court of Australia. Formerly President of the Courts of Appeal of New South Wales and of Solomon Islands and Judge of the Federal Court of Australia. 1. AUSTL. CONST. (Constitution Act, 1900, 63 & 64 Vict., ch. 12 (Eng.)). 2. Sir Owen Dixon, Chief Justice of Australia (1952-64), observed that the framers of the Australian constitution "could not escape" from the fascination of the United States model. Cf. The Queen v.
    [Show full text]
  • The Accountability of the Courts Year 12 Teacher Resource
    Francis Burt Law Education Programme THE ACCOUNTABILITY OF THE COURTS YEAR 12 TEACHER RESOURCE This resource addresses the following Year 12 Stage 3 Politics and Law syllabus item: 3B: The accountability of the courts through the appeals process through parliamentary scrutiny and legislation through transparent processes and public confidence through the censure and removal of judges Part A: Introduction, Appeals and Legislation Possible Preliminary Discussion Points a) Discuss what the term ‘the accountability of the courts’ actually means. b) In what ways should judges be held accountable? c) What problems may occur if the accountability of the judiciary was the task of the executive arm of government? Introduction “The independence of the judiciary lies at the heart of the rule of law and hence of the administration of justice itself. The essence of judicial independence is that the judge in carrying out his judicial duties, and in particular in making judicial decisions, is subject to no other authority than the law.... In particular, the judiciary should be free from the control of the executive government or of any department or branch of it.”1 “No judge could be expected to carry out judicial tasks with impartiality if one side in the dispute had the power to dismiss that judge, move the judge out of office or reduce his or her salary or could cause its elected representatives to do so. The issue was put succinctly by Australia’s former Chief Justice, Murray Gleeson, in a Boyer Lecture in December 2000 when he declared: ‘The ultimate test of public confidence in the judiciary is whether people believe that in a contest between a citizen and government they can rely upon an Australian court to hold the scales of justice evenly.’”2 “That the purpose of judicial independence was not to provide a benefit to the judiciary but to enable the judicial system to function fairly with integrity and impartiality”3 was indicated by Western Australia’s Chief Justice, the Honourable Wayne Martin AC, at a conference in New Zealand in 2011.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter Two Can Judges Resuscitate Federalism?
    Chapter Two Can Judges resuscitate Federalism? John Gava* In a recent article Greg Craven has argued that we are in the “midst of an ideological struggle for the Constitution’s soul”,1 and that it would be appropriate to appoint an “Australian Scalia”2 to the High Court. Indeed, Craven argues that a conservative government would be “downright derelict in its duty”3 if it failed to make such an appointment. For Craven, the High Court has consistently, at least from 1920, interpreted the Australian Constitution with such a centralist bias that the original conception of a federation has been distorted.4 Craven has argued that by going down this centralist path the High Court has departed from the expectations of the founders of the Constitution, and that the role of putative Australian Justice Scalias would be to interpret our Constitution in light of the intentions of those founders. In this paper I carry out the equivalent of a thought experiment and consider what would happen if Craven were to get his wish of a High Court composed of judges willing to interpret the Constitution in the way in which he advocates—i.e., by giving effect to the original intentions of the founders, who conceived of a robust federation rather than the unbalanced, centrally dominated one that we have today. I will do this by analysing the dissenting judgments of Justices Kirby and Callinan in the Work Choices Case5 to show that both judges decide the constitutional issue before them, the validity of the Commonwealth’s Work Choices legislation, with an eye to reviving federalism as a substantive feature of the Constitution.
    [Show full text]
  • In August 2008 I Was Fortunate Enough to Be Selected to Attend the Annual Samuel Griffith Society Conference in Sydney
    In August 2008 I was fortunate enough to be selected to attend the annual Samuel Griffith Society Conference in Sydney. I had become interest in the Samuel Griffith Society ever since conducting research during my constitutional law studies. In particular I found interest in the papers from the 2006 Samuel Griffith Society Conference that discussed the Workchoices decision. The Workchoices decision extended the interpretation of the corporations power of the Constitution to allow the federal government to legislate in relation to employment conditions. This debate over the wider interpretation of the powers of the federal government occurred at the perfect time to extend my knowledge of constitutional law and in particular the history of the Australian constitution and the intention of the founding fathers when they drafted it. The Samuel Griffith Society promotes the preservation of the constitution to its initial purposes and disapproves of the widening of interpretation of the document to increase the powers of the federal government. I found it fascinating to see and hear an interest group dedicated to one purpose – the protection of the constitution. One of the most important cases I recall during my constitutional law studies was the Tasmanian Dam Case. The case found that the external powers of the Constitution allowed the federal government to legislate in regards to issues to which it had entered into agreement with internationally. I was lucky enough to be introduced to recently retired Justice of the High Court Ian Callinan. Callinan gave an introductory speech in memorial of former High Court Chief Justice Harry Gibbs who dissented in the decision of the Tasmanian Dam Case and was concerned with the potential danger it posed to the federal balance.
    [Show full text]
  • UEENSLAND Polit EFORM GROUP
    t Submission No: . L8. UEENSLAND POLiT EFORM GROUP hOUSESTANDINGOF p[p~(( ‘~x~..~; ~, 0738162120 Noel Turner LJ~GA±ANDAPPAJRSCONS P0 Box 563 Booval 4304 Submission ofcorrespondence copies as evidence of activity relating to: •:~ The shredding of the Heiner documents by the authority of the Queensland Government Executive on 23.3.1990, and the following cover-up to date ~• The Lindeberg Grievance submitted by the late MrRobert Greenwood QC This material is circulated to: •~ The H.ouse ofRepresentatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Afairs; “Crime in the Community” (Secretary Gillian Gould •~ The Australian Senate Select Committee on the Lindeberg Grievance (Secretary Alistair Sands ~• Professor Bruce Grundy, Department ofJournalism and Communications, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Brisbane. This material is organised in six (6) small folios covering the period from March 1996 (1993) to 1998. Each folio covers an initiative by us ( members of the Queensland Political Reform Group QPRG), and related responses to our initiatives, also supporting extracts of publications and public statements. The OPRG has as its objective , sound and just to all parties resolution of the events leading to the shredding of the Ileiner Inquiry Documents in Queensland on 23 -03 — 1990, and the following and continuing cover-up, and to have this conducted as a lawful and constitutional exercise by Queensland and AustralianPublic Institutions. ) Arrangement ofthe documents, and what they reveal 1. The first folio, docs 1 — 4 , show that OPRG was stating/supporting our view that only a specifically constituted Commission of Inquiry could competently examine the circumstances of the shredding of the Heiner Inquiry Documents, the following cover-up and political denials.
    [Show full text]
  • Reflections on the Murphy Trials
    REFLECTIONS ON THE MURPHY TRIALS NICHOLAS COWDERY AM QC∗ I INTRODUCTION It is a great privilege to have been asked to contribute to this special edition of the Journal containing essays in honour of the Honourable Ian Callinan AC QC.1 In this instance I shall concentrate on but one matter in his extensive practice at the Bar, but a significant matter that went for some time, had a variety of manifestations and encompassed a multitude of interests and conflicts: that is, his role as the prosecutor of the late Justice Lionel Murphy of the High Court of Australia. It is also a great burden to assume. Where to begin? What ‘spin’ (if any) to put on this chapter of Australia’s legal history in the space available? How much of the lengthy and at times legally technical proceedings themselves should be included? How to show enough of the play of the unique Callinan attributes? How to keep myself out of it, matters of significance having now faded from the ageing memory (even assisted by the few scraps of paper that survive) and because throughout the proceedings against Murphy at all levels I was Ian’s principal junior. It was a rare (for the time) pairing of Queensland and NSW counsel – the ‘dingo fence’ for lawyers was still in place at the Tweed in those days. At the time of his retirement from the High Court last year Ian described the case as ‘agonising’ – for himself, the court and Murphy – ‘It was a very unhappy time for everybody’ he said and so it was.
    [Show full text]
  • The Australian Law Journal
    Australian Law Journal GENERAL EDITOR Mr Justice P W Young PRODUCTION EDITOR Cheryle King ASSISTANT GENERAL EDITOR Dr Paul Gerber The mode of citation of this volume is (2003) 77 ALJ [page] Australian Law Journal Reports TEAM LEADER Carmel Jones PRODUCTION EDITOR Carolyn May CASE REPORTERS Lachlan Cottom Clare D'Arcy Cathie Dickinson Paul Govind Natalie Lammas Renu Prasad Angeline Wong The mode of citation of this volume is 77 ALJR [page] (2003) 77 ALJ 625625 © THE AUSTRALIAN LAW JOURNAL Volume 77, Number 10 October 2003 CURRENT ISSUES – Editor: Mr Justice P W Young Centenary of the High Court ................................................................................................ 631 High Court dissents .............................................................................................................. 631 Gilbert & Tobin Centre of Public Law Constitutional Law Conference, 2003 .................... 632 Judicial review...................................................................................................................... 632 Victorian Bar Inc Annual Report.......................................................................................... 632 Law Council of Australia ..................................................................................................... 632 Publishing pornography........................................................................................................ 633 Victims and sentencing........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Judges and Retirement Ages
    JUDGES AND RETIREMENT AGES ALYSIA B LACKHAM* All Commonwealth, state and territory judges in Australia are subject to mandatory retirement ages. While the 1977 referendum, which introduced judicial retirement ages for the Australian federal judiciary, commanded broad public support, this article argues that the aims of judicial retirement ages are no longer valid in a modern society. Judicial retirement ages may be causing undue expense to the public purse and depriving the judiciary of skilled adjudicators. They are also contrary to contemporary notions of age equality. Therefore, demographic change warrants a reconsideration of s 72 of the Constitution and other statutes setting judicial retirement ages. This article sets out three alternatives to the current system of judicial retirement ages. It concludes that the best option is to remove age-based limitations on judicial tenure. CONTENTS I Introduction .............................................................................................................. 739 II Judicial Retirement Ages in Australia ................................................................... 740 A Federal Judiciary .......................................................................................... 740 B Australian States and Territories ............................................................... 745 III Criticism of Judicial Retirement Ages ................................................................... 752 A Critiques of Arguments in Favour of Retirement Ages ........................
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Conduct: Crafting a System That Enhances Institutional Integrity
    JUDICIAL CONDUCT: CRAFTING A SYSTEM THAT ENHANCES INSTITUTIONAL INTEGRITY GABRIELLE APPLEBY* AND SUZANNE LE M IRE† Judges are human. It is their humanity that allows them to pass judgement on the complexities of fact and law in cases before them. However, their humanity also means they are subject to the usual gamut of human frailties. Problematic judicial conduct remains rare in Australia. However, failing to acknowledge and address it has the potential to damage the integrity of the courts and undermine the ability of individual judges to fulfil the judicial function. In this article we examine the requirements for a ‘good’ complaints system through a comparative analysis of systems operating in Australia and overseas. We proffer an alternative system for Australia, tailored to fit within our constitutional constraints whilst promoting the institutional integrity of the judiciary. CONTENTS I Introduction ................................................................................................................... 2 II Judicial Misconduct and Incapacity: Scope and Categories ................................... 5 A Incapacity .......................................................................................................... 9 B Misconduct and Misbehaviour .................................................................... 12 1 Prior to Taking Judicial Office ......................................................... 12 2 During Judicial Office — On the Bench ........................................ 12 * LLB (Hons) (UQ), LLM
    [Show full text]