AustLII [Home] [Databases] [WorldLII] [Search] [Feedback]

Federal Judicial Scholarship

You are here:  AustLII >> Databases >> Federal Judicial Scholarship >> 2018 >> [2018] FedJSchol 15

[Database Search] [Name Search] [Recent Articles] [Noteup] [Help]

North, Justice Anthony --- "Ceremonial Sitting of the Full Court to Farewell the Honourable Justice North" (FCA) [2018] FedJSchol 15

To be a great dissent, an opinion must hold some future importance. It may not be agreed with, but it cannot be ignored.

If I could quote briefly from that chapter. The author suggests the following criteria that marks this as a great judgment. First of all, he notes that your Honour:

aEUR|recognised the social and moral dimensions to the extinguishment inquiry at a critical early stage in the evolution of Native Title Doctrine.

Secondly, he notes that your Honour asked a legal policy question that was otherwise unacknowledged, which was:

What purpose should the extinguishment doctrine serve?

And, lastly, he notes that your Honour:

aEUR|crafted a technically sound doctrine that better answered the demands of justice, fairness and the nature of the issue.

Your Honour, I happily chose that as the subject of my address, because, to me, it does exemplify the qualities that your Honour brought to the Law of Native Title. It, in this instance, demonstrates an exemplary legal rigour, but also a very important bicultural awareness, and a sense of perspective and justice. It also, to my way of thinking, demonstrates your Honour to be a person who recognises that the law exists within society as its servant rather than a thing apart which dictates terms.

Your Honour, I noted earlier that the Doctrine of Extinguishment prevails as the orthodoxy, but your Honour will note, I think, with some comfort that, in recent decisions of the High Court, some four in number, there has been a very distinct inclination to shy away from the extremes of extinguishment in favour of the concept that your Honour championed some 20 years ago, that is, the idea of regulation and coexistence rather than extinguishment. I hope your Honour takes some comfort from that fact. If a great dissent must, indeed, hold some future importance and if it may not be agreed with, but it cannot be ignored, then your Honour's judgment isn't truly a great dissent.

Once again, your Honour, I hope that the accolade of a great Australian dissenter rests easily on your shoulders. On a personal note, your Honour, given that we have known each other for a very long time, I also wish you a very happy retirement. Knowing your Honour as I do, the fact that your retirement will be spent in the company of your family and your friends assures me that your retirement will be a happy one. My only other hope is that the record that we share of the longest ever Friday lunch, which is about 35 years and alcohol-free, continues well into the future. May it please the Court.

ALLSOP CJ: Thank you, Mr Neal. Mr Borenstein?

MR H. BORENSTEIN QC: If the Court pleases, I join in Mr Collins' acknowledgment of the traditional owners and custodians of this place. Having worked with your Honour, Justice North, for many years at the Bar, and having appeared before your Honour on many occasions in this Court, and having maintained a strong friendship over that time I'm grateful and I'm honoured for the opportunity to address the Court on this bittersweet occasion. Your Honour, as we've heard, was appointed to the Bench in October of 1995, and your Honour's appointment was accompanied by a dual appointment to the Industrial Relations Court of Australia which clearly was in recognition of your Honour's position as a preeminent barrister in the field of industrial law.

Your Honour was one of eight Judges appointed to the Industrial Relations Court and today your Honour is the last of those Judges to leave the Court. My remarks this morning are directed to your Honour's work on the Bench in the field of industrial law, and in the limited time available to me I would want to make mention of just a few of the highlights of that work which, although perhaps not as emotive as the native title matters that we've heard about, were nonetheless of significant public importance generally. The first of the examples that I wanted to refer to, your Honour, occurred in February of 1996 not long after your Honour's arrival on the Court.

You were drawn into an industrial dispute which was unique in Australian industrial history, but it's one that may come to the fore again in the near future if recent newspaper reports are to be believed. The dispute arose in the aftermath of the federal deregistration of the BLF and Victorian legislation which dissolved the resulting unincorporated association. To add insult to injury, the Victorian Act also provided for the seizure of the union's assets. That led to significant litigation for the retrieval of those assets. The litigation commenced before Justice Wilcox at first instance and he found for the union.

Your Honour became involved as a member of a Full Court sitting on appeal from Justice Wilcox together with Justice Spender and Justice Ryan, and the Full Court dismissed the appeal, but the saga continued and the State, which was unsuccessful before the primary Judge, appealed to the High Court. That appeal was successful and the matter was remitted to the same Full Court of this Court to be reheard. That occurred a full three years later. On this occasion the union lost, and it took the matter back again to the High Court. To complete the story, the matter was ultimately settled and the assets were returned to the CFMEU by agreement, but the case may hold some valuable lessons for present-day protagonists.

Another interesting highlight of your Honour's time in the Court involved the case of Re Dingen. Not long before your appointment to the Court, your Honour had appeared before the High Court in Re Dingen. That was a case which involved a dispute about the proper characterisation of powers that had been given to the Industrial Relations Commission to deal with unfair contracts. Were they judicial or were they arbitral? The High Court handed down its judgment in March of 1995 and found in your Honour's favour, holding that the unfair contracts provisions did not confer judicial power on the Commission. According to the Court, one of the factors influencing the characterisation of the power was the nature of the body to which the power was given.

I mention this case in particular because within a year of the judgment your Honour, newly appointed to the Court, was called upon to deal with the same issue, but from the other side of the Bench. This was the case of Finch v Herald & Weekly Times. By the time this case came on the legislation had been changed and the power to deal with unfair contracts, which was previously given to the Commission, had been moved to the Court so that the power previously characterised by the High Court as being not judicial now fell to be exercised by the Court. Did that change the legal character of the power? Dr Jessup urged upon your Honour that the powers were to be characterised in the same way as they had been by the High Court in Dingen, that is, not judicial.

Your Honour had to undertake a detailed examination of the legislative amendments and held consistently with the Dingen judgment that the power was now judicial. Lord Denning would have smiled. The next and perhaps preeminent highlight came in 1998. No one could seriously dispute that the litigation arising out of the waterfront dispute in 1998 was a seminal event in contemporary industrial relations law in Australia. Your Honour was given the case and you were quick to recognise its importance. Your Honour heard the union's application for an injunction at short notice over a period of four days in April 1998.

It was a matter of considerable complexity both factually and legally. Your Honour had to deal with these matters with considerable urgency and your Honour produced a judgment on 21 April of 1998 just four days after the end of the hearing. The high public importance of the matter may be seen to have been reflected in the speed with which the Courts dealt with it from the initial hearing through to the apex of the Australian appellate system. Within 13 days of your Honour's judgment the case had been heard by a Full Court of this Court and by the High Court, and the High Court had delivered its judgment.

Your Honour's judgment was upheld by six of the seven High Court Justices, and through the process your Honour's judgment was endorsed by nine of the 10 appellate Judges who had to consider it. Truly a large feather in your Honour's cap, and perhaps a metaphorical precursor to the feathered Akubra to which Senator Dodson referred. Although later cases that came before your Honour were not of such high profile, your Honour was always concerned to consider the disputes and controversies before you in terms of their personal impact and effect on the individual people involved. Your Honour was concerned that any judgment addressed the need to do justice in a way that would be understood and accepted at a personal level by the people involved.

By way of example, I would mention just one judgment of your Honour that demonstrates your Honour's concern for the human element in the cases that came before you. In a recent case known as the Cup of Tea case, the judgment which your Honour delivered in March of this year, your Honour dismissed the regulator's case against two union officials who had been sued for their actions in visiting a worker on a site. Your Honour found that their purpose was not sinister, but nothing more than a social visit for the purpose of catching up with an acquaintance of a cup of tea. The human element of interaction between acquaintances was not to be overlooked. Over the period of your Honour's time on the Court, your Honour's contribution to industrial law has been substantial and important and fully justifies this public acknowledgment and thanks to your Honour for the time on the Court. I wish your Honour an enjoyable and satisfying retirement. If the Court pleases.

ALLSOP CJ: Thank you, Mr Borenstein. Mr Manne, representing the Law Council of Australia and the Law Institute of Victoria.

MR D. MANNE: Yes. May it please the Court, I join in acknowledging the traditional owners and custodians, the Peoples of the Kulin Nation, and pay my respects to their elders past and present. And can I start by saying that I'm truly honoured to be addressing this Court for your Honour's farewell on behalf of the Law Council of Australia and the Law Institute of Victoria. For your Honour, it is clear that at its heart the law is a social instrument, a social instrument that not only can but must seek to do justice. For your Honour, it is clear that judicial decision-making is not merely a theoretical or technical exercise; it must respond meaningfully and with flexibility to the plight of people whatever their station, and regardless of their race, their religion, their political opinion, membership of a particular social group or their nationality.

I will briefly focus on your Honour's extraordinary contributions in refugee law, an area in which the ideas, the spirit, the values and the actions which are the golden threads of your brilliant judicial career are exemplified. I know I speak for so many in saying that your Honour's contribution and achievements have been momentous, which brings us back to the events that unfolded in August and September 2001 in waters northwest of mainland Australia. Notoriously, 433 mainly Afghan people seeking asylum en route to Australia by boat were rescued by a Norwegian cargo vessel, the MV Tampa. The government refused the vessel and its people permission to enter Australia.

These men, mostly fleeing the Taliban's violence and tyranny, were transferred by Australian troops to a naval vessel. The matter soon reached your Honour's Bench. The legal challenge on behalf of the asylum seekers was heard amid a public atmosphere of fear and political hostility toward those seeking asylum. We were told that they were not people with problems, but people who were a problem. At the hearing counsel for the Commonwealth, the then Solicitor General David Bennett QC submitted that they were not detained or falsely imprisoned because they were free to go anywhere in the world except one place: Australia.

At hearing, your Honour famously referred to this as the cruise ship argument. Your Honour delivered judgment on the morning of 9/11, finding that the asylum seekers had been detained and expelled unlawfully, and ordering that they be released and brought to Australia. Despite the Full Court overruling by majority, Chief Justice Black dissenting, some fundamental points stand. Your judgment represents a classic example of fine legal reasoning in which you applied orthodox methods and sources to unorthodox circumstances. It also epitomises an approach determined to consider these people not primarily as problems, but people with problems, with a case to be heard, people who have rights to be enlivened and who may well engage our protection obligations enshrined under international and domestic law, laws with a protective purpose. Your judgment stands as a model of judicial courage at a moment of national crisis.

Now, your Honour's work has also been underpinned by passionate commitment to the principle of a fair hearing as part of the very fabric of the law. Your vision here has been expansive. As observed by others today, this interest drove you to expand the perimeters of a hearing beyond the slavish adherence to technical rules to demonstrate how courts could, and should, engage meaningfully with, and understanding all, and respecting all. Faced with unrepresented asylum seekers who felt that they had not been heard by the tribunal, on more than one occasion your Honour has examined the audio recordings, finding serial ridicule and belittling of an applicant, amounting to a denial of procedural fairness and apprehended bias.

These are, of course, profoundly important decisions. The gravity of what is at stake cannot be underestimated: they frequently involve no less than genuine threats to life or liberty. Correspondingly, you have consistently approached these matters with utmost seriousness. As Professor James Hathaway has stated, you epitomise the humanist jurist who cares as deeply for the subjects of law as for its rules. At the heart of your Honour's approach has involved a rigorous application of traditional tools and principles of the law which can and should achieve just outcomes for all, including the most vulnerable and marginalised within our community.

And, time and time again, we have seen your judgments demonstrate the truth of this: the capacity of the law to be a bastion of protection and hope in the face of executive overreach, underpinned by a conviction that the true test of the law as a social instrument is that it does not just serve the powerful and privileged but that all, including those on the margins, are on equal footing before the law, no matter who you are or where you're from. Justice North, your Honour elevated your judicial role well beyond daily decision-making in two key areas, both refugee related: legal education and international judicial leadership. They both reflect an enduring enthusiasm for the rule of law borne of the belief in its capacity to do justice.

This is evident in your deep interest in legal education. You have been enormously supportive to refugee law students over the years, and by all accounts have an extraordinary gift for teaching and engaging law students, including holding moot trials at law school. I have also had the privilege personally of speaking with your Honour in one of these classes, held in the Tampa Court, where you offered riveting insights into the anatomy of the law in action, so it comes as no surprise to me that some have reportedly described your classes as the best experience they ever had in law school. You have, put simply, inspired a generation of law students.

Your Honour has also made an extraordinary contribution to the development of refugee law and decision-making beyond our boundaries. As president of the International Association of Refugee Law Judges for eight years, your Honour engaged almost singlehandedly in a remarkable transformation of a notoriously Eurocentric association into one with a genuine regional diversity, inspiring active participation from Asia, Latin-America, and particularly Africa. One tangible result, and a source I know of great personal pride to you, your Honour, was the creation of what's now a dynamic Africa chapter.

A not insignificant development, given Africa is where most refugees on the planet are produced, received, and reside. Your Honour's leadership in expanding resourcing and mentoring of Judges across the globe is testament to your unwavering dedication to a principled and genuinely international approach to refugee protection. I will conclude with one of the refugee cases which I know to be most important to your Honour, the case of X and Y of 1998. An urgent injunction was brought by lawyers for two unaccompanied Kenyan boys, aged 15 and 16, who had been refused refugee protection and removed from this country.

There were still fears for their safety. The case came to court with the boys already aboard a plane in the air, heading for Singapore. Her Honour Debbie Mortimer was counsel. Under threat by your Honour that you would order that the Singapore Airlines plane be turned around in the air, agreement was struck that the boys would receive legal advice in Singapore and be brought back to Australia, and that's what happened. Soon afterwards, they were returned here. The Commonwealth then proceeded to take every legal point under the Sun. On one of these points the late, great Ron Castan QC was brought in for the boys. Eventually, they prevailed. In the meantime, both boys fell madly in love with Geelong girls. They married and later became Australian citizens.

The cases assume such importance for your Honour, I think, because it illustrates how the law can respond flexibly and justly to such a compelling human plight. But it also reveals your Honour's driving generosity of spirit, your deep interest in, and empathy with those before you. There may be many measures of a judicial career. To my mind, the greatest is the extent to which even the most vulnerable, the most marginalised, including those with unpopular causes, are meaningfully listened to and heard, treated with respect and dignity, and given justice. That's the true test. Your Honour, the legacy you leave is profound. It will endure, and it will inspire others to meet that measure, and in doing so to follow the path in which you have changed the course of so many lives immeasurably for the better. May it please the Court.

ALLSOP CJ: Thank you, Mr Manne. Justice North.

NORTH J: Thank you, Chief Justice.

I also pay my respects to the traditional custodians of the land on which we meet. I have been occupying courtrooms for 40-odd years, in different capacities, and I thought this morning would be just another one of those occasions where I would walk in, and hear persuasive arguments, and go out and that would be it. But I am so moved by today that I wonder why I ever resisted the notion of having a farewell. I cannot thank you all enough for being here. It is an incomparable feeling to look out across the courtroom and to see in every single face, I think without any exception, a story linked to my 23 years on the Court if not, in many cases, much longer. So I don't know how else to say it but to thank you, deeply, for coming along to this occasion.

Some of you have made a particular effort, and although time is getting on and I should not extend this too much longer, but I really must mention the extraordinary efforts made by some, and the warmth that that projects to me and the way it moves me on this occasion. Primary amongst those people is, our son Andrew, who lives and works in London and whose son was, yesterday, starting school for the first time. He was conflicted enormously, and I'm very grateful to him and for our daughter-in-law Francesca that, ultimately, he saw the importance of this occasion to me and has come out for a few days just for the purpose. That means so much, Andrew.

My 1996, associate, Wai Quen Chan, who lives in Hong Kong, has come from Hong Kong today. Thank you. My 2017 associate, Nicola Caon has come from New York. My brother-in-law and sister-in-law Max and Anthea Bastiansz have specially come from Sri Lanka. And, closer to hand, my daughter Amanda and her family have come from Perth, as have our good friends Tony and Anne Bloemen aEUR" Tony, the retired Broome magistrate about whom you will hear later aEUR" and Peter Sharkey, the retired president of the Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission.

My cousin Lorraine Levy and her husband Phillip have come from Sydney; they have been part of our life as travellers on circuit with the Court. We are very close to them and have visited them each time, and, this would not be an occasion without them being here. Alan Boulton and Pat Leary, who were both members of the Bench of the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal when I was a humble advocate, are here aEUR" have remained friends all that time. I'm really grateful that you made the effort to come, Alan from Sydney and Pat from Hobart.

One of the real treasured moments was to hear that Sue Zelinka has come from Sydney. Sue and I collaborated in the International Association of Refugee Law Judges. I particularly acknowledge the fact that you took this special effort to come today, Sue. Then there's John McMillan, who has come from Canberra. John and I met when we were both associates in the High Court, he an associate to Sir Anthony Mason. He has had an outstanding career, ending up as Commonwealth Ombudsman and our friendship has been maintained over those 40-something years. So, again, the occasion would not be perfect without you here, John.

From Canberra, our much loved and missed Registrar, Angela Josan has come specially as has, the Chief Justice Helen Murrell with whom I've shared so many happy sitting hours in Canberra with her and her warm-hearted and welcoming Judges.

I was reluctant to have a farewell, wanting to avoid, sort of, the generic, "Isn't the Judge fantastic?" aEUR" although I don't actually mind that aEUR" I've come to see and so I asked the speakers who've spoken today specially and I think you can see that they've come from long, long friendships and from interest areas that I have a passion about. Again, it's difficult to express in words how grateful I am that you all agreed so readily and generously and warmly to do this, which I know is a bit of pain in the backside for busy people.

I was concerned not to tread on the toes of the President of the Bar, Matt Collins, and the President of the Law Institute, Belinda Wilson, who are both here and I thank you for allowing me to follow my own path whether for good or bad.

Now, I don't want to contradict the picture painted by the speakers, but I think this is a moment for me to seek some forgiveness for some of my mischief on the Bench. It was about 2001. You may recall there was political resistance to the making of an apology to the Aboriginal People. I was about to start the Karajarri case, the first native title trial in the Kimberley. Tony Bloemen had lent me his historic courthouse in Broome for the occasion. The start of the hearing was delayed because I was still writing some opening remarks.

The Courtroom was packed when I came on to the Bench. I began the proceeding by saying, "I apologise aEUR" for the delay in commencing proceedings". I knew that the pause would not be recorded in the transcript, however, later that day, I received a fairly anxious call from Chief Justice Black, who I'm so glad is here, saying that he had heard that I had delivered an apology from the Federal Court to the Aboriginal People. "No, Chief Justice, I explained. I apologised for the delay".

Chief Justice Allsop, however, took proper precautions. On one occasion, he was about to hand me the reins of Acting Chief Justice. I said to him, "James, you never know what I might get up to when you're away." He replied with a wry grin, "Tony, I've pulled out the plug."

For me, the main purpose of this farewell is to acknowledge the contributions of all those who have been part of my life as a Judge. Awkward moment. The starting point must be the love of my life, my wife of 45 years. Sorry, honey. I know you hate this, so I will make it shorter than it should be. Words cannot do justice to her love and support. She has always been the counsel of patience and tolerance, qualities which are reflected in the way she lives her life. Audrey is just the sweetest person you could ever meet. To her, I owe much of my happiness over the past 23 years on the Court.

For my first five years on the Court, Brenda Bacon was my executive assistant. She was followed by April Lombardo, and I'm so glad they're here today.

For the past 18 years, Tarwin Shiel has been my executive assistant. She has fulfilled that role with great efficiency and expertise. She has adapted easily to changes in the Court system which has largely taken us from a paper-based system to an electronic system. In the course of her work, she acquired a knowledge of case management. So adept did she become, that she was able to anticipate the approach North J would take, indeed, she christened herself "Practically J".

What made for the very comfortable atmosphere in chambers was that Tarwin was interested in the cases and participated in discussions with the associates and myself. It was obvious from those discussions that she has a keen intelligence and analytical skill. She came to share my enthusiasm for native title and employment law cases.

In only one instance did we disagree over a result and in that case the Full agreed with her. It was no surprise that a few years ago, Tarwin undertook a law degree and was admitted as an Australian lawyer last December.

Over 18 years, Tarwin and I have shared the experiences of both our families. The day in chambers normally started with an exchange about recent family happenings. She has become a cherished friend. Thus it is so fitting that her twins, Orlando and Archer, her mother Pirrie and her sisters Amanda and Kylee, all who figured in these discussions, are here today. Indeed, it is a mark of that friendship that both families chose to mark my retirement by travelling to Beagle Bay in Western Australia in May to attend my last native title determination and then spend a week together four wheel driving in that beautiful country.

Tarwin, thank you for making my chambers a place I looked forward to coming each day.

Apart from Tarwin and myself, the third element in the small world of chambers has been the associates. Each of my 23 associates have brought their own personality to the position. Many of them are here today. Their talent has been electrifying. That can be seen in many cases from their post-chambers career which, as has been mentioned, I have followed with a, sort of, fatherly interest and great pride.

Craig Dowling, at the Bar table, my first associate, took silk in Victoria last year. Deb Siemensma and Tim Goodwin, both here, practise at the Victorian Bar. Juan Munoz, who is also here, is in-house counsel. Wai Quen Chan, who travelled from Hong Kong, is vice-president, human resources, of Hong Kong Disneyland aEUR" very useful as we pass through. Nehal Bhuta, my 2000 associate, has just been appointed to the Chair of International Law at the University of Edinburgh. Alistair Webster, who was to be here, is the policy director for the Federal Leader of the Opposition, and Jess Howard, who is here, is the chief of staff of the Victorian Minister for Transport. That is just a quick selection because time is running short.

I have loved the interaction with and contributions made by my associates. Many stories could be told but perhaps the greatest irony comes from the time Jess Howard was my associate. Each judgment is signed off with a certificate by the associate verifying that it is the judgment in question. In the case of the Tampa judgment, that certificate was signed "J. Howard".

I am grateful for the firm and longstanding friendships with a number of my colleagues. I am sad that Cathy Branson is not here today, but she has been called to Canberra to receive an AC, a singular honour, I think the first for a Federal Court Judge, other than a Chief Justice.

The Court is a hothouse of contending views held by strongminded people. It might be thought that, as such, it is a fertile ground for the growth of animosities, but that has not been my experience. The Court has developed a different culture. When differences in views have arisen, whether sitting on an Appeal Bench or as a single Judge subject to an appeal, I have been struck by the way in which the different perspectives have been treated with generosity, kindness and respect.

I want to pay particular attention to the Bar generally, but particularly the Victorian Bar, which has a special place in my affection. I have gained enormous assistance from Counsel and, whilst robust exchanges are part of the process, I have appreciated that Counsel have behaved with politeness and courtesy, conduct which enhances the reputation of the legal system as a whole.

Today would not be complete without mention of my long-standing friends: Tony Neal who spoke; Lou Papaleo; Peter Gray; David Habersberger; and David Ashley. I really wish I could address every single one of you because I know that there are stories to be told relating to each of you, but time will not permit that.

I have told of my good fortune in having the support of wonderful people around me during my time as a Judge of the Court. I am also grateful for some rare opportunities which have come my way. I want to share three examples aEUR" they will be shorter than I intended, because time is getting on aEUR" and some of those examples have been touched on already.

First, in Native Title. I have been enormously privileged that Chief Justice Black and Chief Justice Allsop have put me into cases which have been pivotal in the development of Native Title jurisprudence. I have a passion for the area and a great appreciation of the way the Court has responded to the challenge of this, new jurisdiction by supporting Judges going out on country. Some of the amazing moments of judicial life have been when sitting down in the sand listening to old people who are prepared to share their most intimate beliefs and histories with someone from a culture so far away. I also want to especially acknowledge the logistics staff: Bob Sheppard, Dave Oldland, Brendan Mitchell, and Nick Lonick, who have been exceptional in the way they have transported and arranged the movement of the Court. Similarly, a close bond has developed between the lawyers appearing in those cases, including Chief Justice Peter Quinlan just appointed to the Western Australian Supreme Court, and to the leading Australian anthropologists who have assisted me enormously in that work.

The second great good fortune arose in relation to the Waterfront dispute when Bruce Phillips, the Court's Director of Public Information, came to me and said, "Will you allow cameras in court?" This was not the practice before that time. He was very persuasive, but cautious at the same time. Because of the public interest in the case and his background as a journalist, he saw the opportunity of advancing this agenda. I agreed and it was one of the early steps in bringing the TV into the Courtroom. Chief Justice Wilcox, shortly afterwards in the appeal, allowed a live broadcast of the delivery of judgment in that case and I think that, after about five minutes, it attracted about as much attention as this has attracted to my youngest grandson.

Bruce has been a driving force of these developments. I have benefited from his wise advice, his deep understanding of the way journalists operate and, indeed, from his friendship. In fact, he delayed his departure on leave this morning to attend only on condition, which I have breached, that I would finish by 10.30.

The final example is alternative dispute resolution. When I first joined the Court, mediation was not embedded in the process of the Court. I learnt about it on a trip to the US. I came back and Chief Justice Black was very supportive, but the institution was really founded by vigour of the Registrars, John Efthim and Jamie Wood.

That was a dynamic time and is the genesis of the reputation of mediation in this Court which is one of the outstanding achievements of the Court in my time as a Judge.

Before I conclude, I want to congratulate the four best behaved grandchildren in the Court today, Oliver, Talia, Rafferty and Haddie, most of whom are awake.

I would like to thank Stephen Williams, one of the few people who have been at the Court longer than me, for his impeccable organisation of this ceremonial sitting.

The time has come to bid farewell to my life as a Judge of the Court. As I reflect on the moment, I think of my father whose life was not as fortunate as mine. He arrived as a 21 year old in 1937 as a refugee from Nazi Germany. His spirit forever burned with a sense of injustice at the abuse of Government power, which he had experienced. He passed on that sense to me. I leave the Court with the hope that I have been true to his memory.

Thank you.

ALLSOP CJ: The Court will now adjourn.


AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/FedJSchol/2018/15.html