Ceremonial Sitting - Welcome to The Hon. Chief Justice Anthony Murray Gleeson (Melbourne) M0/1998 [1998] HCATrans 465 (11 December 1998)

H I G H C O U R T O F A U S T R A L I A

SPECIAL SITTING

WELCOME TO

THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE ANTHONY MURRAY GLEESON, AC

AT

MELBOURNE

ON

FRIDAY, 11 DECEMBER 1998, AT 9.17 AM

GLEESON CJ

Speakers:

Mr D.E. Curtain, QC, Chairman of the Bar Council of Victoria

Mr R.A. Scott, President of the Law Society of Victoria

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

HIS HONOUR: Mr Curtain.

MR CURTAIN: It is a great privilege to welcome your Honour to Melbourne today on the occasion of your first sitting in Melbourne since your appointment as Chief Justice of Australia in May of this year.

Your Honour was appointed to this position from the office of Chief Justice of New South Wales, an office which your Honour had held since 1989. Members of our Bar, although not often practising in New South Wales State courts, are well aware of the extent to which, under your term as Chief Justice, the decisions of the New South Wales Supreme Court shaped the course of the law throughout the country. Many of the Court's most important decisions, most often in criminal and civil appeals, were yours; and, it may be said, many of those decisions, although carefully resolving complex legal problems, were delivered ex tempore.

Over the last 10 years the New South Wales Supreme Court, the largest Supreme Court in Australia, has been administered with great discipline, efficiency and foresight. This achievement is all the more considerable given the limited funds to which Supreme Courts are now asked to reconcile themselves. It is no secret that the job of leading the New South Wales judicial system is one of the most challenging, and arduous jobs in Australia. Particularly so in a decade which has seen unprecedented pressures placed upon our courts and judicial officers.

It is only appropriate that an outstanding lawyer of your Honour's calibre, and an outstanding State Chief Justice, should be elevated to the position of Chief Justice of this Court. You are regarded with the highest esteem by the Australian and international legal community. On the day your appointment was announced the Victorian Bar, both separately and through the Australian Bar Association, publicly welcomed the decision. We did so confident in your proven abilities and confident in the knowledge that, though it would be misleading to describe you as a Victorian, your Honour's approach to the law closely resembles the Victorian tradition: extensive, detailed but also practical and forward-looking.

We, in Victoria are particularly gratified that on that day of your swearing in, Mr Robert Gotterson QC, the President of the Australian Bar Association, should begin his speech of welcome by quoting Sir Isaac Isaacs. Our sense of pleasure was heightened when, on the same day, the President of the New South Wales Bar Association, Ian Barker QC, admitted that your Honour's appointment would curb the tendency of barristers "north of the Murray" to appeal every unfavourable decision. I could go on: on the day of your first sitting in Sydney, the New South Wales Attorney-General quoted Sire Owen Dixon on the appointment of

Judges. However, I have made my point: your Honour's style of judicial decision-making has the universal effect of bringing to mind the greatest intellects and institutions of the Victorian legal system. I think I am able to say that, on the day of the announcement, the Victorian Bar was miraculously free from even the slightest grumbling of interstate rivalry. It may not be going too far to say that peace broke out. It is certainly true that the months since your appointment have proved our confidence to be well placed.

Prior to your appointment to the position of Chief Justice of New South Wales in 1989, you were a leader of the New South Wales Bar, having practised as a barrister in that State since 1963. You had developed an enormous practice and acted for some of Australia's largest corporate clients. One reason for the recent outbreak of peace may be that your Honour, as a barrister, had a practice that was truly nationwide, and you frequently came into contact with members of our Bar. You were admitted to practice in the Supreme Court of Victoria in 1982 and signed the Victorian roll of counsel in 1985, appearing several times in our courts.

You are remembered as one of the most formidable opponents that a barrister could hope, or rather fear, to face. As an ally, you were an outstanding resource of legal learning. Members of our Bar owe your Honour a debt of gratitude, not only for the wisdom of your judicial decisions, but also for your demonstration, as a barrister, of the art of advocacy and, in particular, the art of swift and decisive advocacy. The corridors of the Victorian Bar still echo with anecdotes of your encounters with members of our Bar. The late 1980s, now remembered in business and financial communities as years of "excess", were also characterised by over-worked members of the Victorian Bar attempting to conduct two or three conferences simultaneously. Perhaps forgetting that your Honour yourself had one of Australia's biggest practices, one member of our Bar kept you waiting in a conference for longer than you considered appropriate. It is enough to say that he never again trespassed on your Honour's insistence of efficiency and punctuality.

On behalf of all barristers in Victoria may I say how much we look forward to appearing before your Honour in this Court, and on behalf of the Victorian Bar Council may I offer you every assistance and our warmest hospitality. We welcome you to these courtrooms today and look forward to your Honour's future sittings in Melbourne.

HIS HONOUR: Thank you, Mr Curtain. Mr Scott.

MR SCOTT: May it please the Court. On behalf of the solicitors of Victoria, and representing the Law Institute of Victoria, I have great pleasure in welcoming your Honour to the first sitting of the High Court of Australia in Melbourne with your Honour as Chief Justice.

In the seven months since your Honour's appointment was announced your Honour has, as had been expected, distinguished yourself, and enhanced the position of Chief Justice by speaking plainly and with no little force, about matters of great public interest.

Indeed, as with other movements in the profession generally, it may be seen that your Honour has moved skilfully to display how justice may best be served in defending the interests of the public, even, we note, to the question of how lawyers charge fees, surely an area into which only the most courageous or sure-footed would move.

Of course, when leader of the Bar in New South Wales and, indeed, leader of the Australian Bar, your Honour was famous for charging reasonable fees, some even said too reasonable, a practice to be commended.

On the eve of your elevation to this Court your Honour spoke not so much about the rewards of the profession but some of its obligations. Among those was the need for service by lawyers that was evenly distributed across the community. As your Honour observed, if I may quote, "As a rule, people who are popular or powerful, people who enjoy the approval of and support of the majority in the community, either do not much need, or do not have much difficulty in securing, the protection of the law".

Your Honour spoke of the need for the weak and the friendless to be protected. Recent announcements of pro bono schemes being undertaken by our Institute and within the Federal Court are, I believe, steps that will accord with your Honour's sentiments. These are aimed at meeting a need that has been shown to exist in cases which we have described, without overstatement, as harrowing. They include the case where a teenage victim faced the possibility of being cross-examined directly by her alleged attacker in a case of attempted rape, until a member of the profession stepped in to take the case pro bono.

Your Honour has an outstanding history, having moved from being leader of the New South Wales Bar to head of the Supreme Court and then to head the High Court. Such moves, in each case from outside as it were, are, we believe, the first in 30 years, the only others being Sir Garfield Barwick in 1964 and, before that, Sir John Latham in 1935.

At a more personal level, I see that your Honour has been reported as warning judges against excessive judicial humour, which may, of course, give offence to litigants. Your Honour's nickname, expressed with classic Australian irony as "Smiler", because, it is said, you rarely do, is an example of what may be called quasi-judicial humour.

So, too, colleagues on the Bench have remarked upon your Honour's high degree of compassion and if at times this appears somewhat disguised, well, as Shakespeare's Coriolanus has it: "Thou has a grim appearance, and thy face bears a command in't." This command, may I say, has, by all accounts, led to a collegiate atmosphere on this Court today. The preparation of joint judgments is an issue that we as a professional association agree as being greatly in the public interest. We also believe in the suggestion that precisely written headnotes ought have legal status, as well as summaries of judgments being prepared in language that is easy for the community to understand. These would be delivered at the time of judgment in order to further public comprehension of decisions of this Court.

Your Honour, this is not a time to belabour issues of the day, but I would be derelict in my duty if I did not question the price that is perhaps to be paid in this country for the sustained verbal assaults on the judiciary from some politicians, especially in Canberra. Such attacks have the capacity to damage all of society, particularly if left unanswered. There are repercussions beyond the judiciary, but within the judiciary we see some judges retiring as soon as they reach a certain age, rather than continuing on and weathering the excessive slings and arrows.

Will leading members of the profession continue to take up offers to become judges if this continues? The question must be asked. The Law Institute of Victoria certainly has no hesitation, when necessary, in coming to the defence of the judiciary, and reinforcing the doctrine of separation of powers that is vital in a free society such as ours.

Once again, may I heartily welcome your Honour to this Court in the full knowledge that you will bring it distinction and outstanding leadership. In the interests of all, I wish you, and the Court generally, the compliments of the festive season and a happy and fulfilling New Year as you go about your most difficult tasks. May it please the Court.

HIS HONOUR: Thank you, Mr Scott.

Mr Curtain, Mr Scott, members of the legal profession, thank you for your most generous welcome.

During 25 years of practice at the Bar I had a lot of contact with members of the Victorian legal profession and I greatly valued my association with the legal practitioners of this city. As Mr Curtain mentioned, I was pleased, in the early 1980s, to be admitted to practise as a member of the Victorian profession, although I was not completely pleased with the fact that arrangements for my admission included me in a group of people described as "mature-age admittees".

The last time I appeared as a barrister in the High Court was in this courtroom. I was briefed to oppose an application for special leave to appeal from a decision of what was then the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria. Appearing with me were three Victorian barristers: Charles QC, Hayne QC, and Finkelstein. That was on a Friday morning. On the previous Thursday afternoon, the Attorney-General for New South Wales had asked me whether I would accept appointment as Chief Justice of New South Wales, and that appointment was announced the following week. So that was the last I saw of Melbourne as a barrister.

Since then I have had a close association with some members of the Victorian judiciary, especially the Chief Justice of Victoria and the Chief Justice of the Federal Court, whom I meet regularly on the Council of Chief Justices of Australia and New Zealand.

I am delighted to be back here in a different capacity again and I look forward to watching from close quarters the Victorian profession in action.

Nowadays, my relationship with advocacy is that of a consumer rather than a provider but, if anything, that means I have an even closer interest in the quality of legal services. On the basis of my past experience, I am confident that Melbourne will continue to show itself a centre of excellence. I am looking forward to my work here.

I will adjourn for a couple of minutes.

AT 9.30 AM THE COURT ADJOURNED