Ceremonial - Kiefel J - Welcome Brisbane

[2008] HCATrans 242

[2008] HCATrans 242

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 JUSTICE SUSAN KIEFEL

AT

BRISBANE

ON

MONDAY, 16 JUNE 2008, AT 2.00 PM

KIEFEL J

Speakers:

Mr M.McP. Stewart, SC, President of the Bar Association of Queensland

Mr P.C. Eardley, SC, Vice-President of the Queensland Law Society

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

HER HONOUR:   Mr Stewart.

MR STEWART:   May it please the Court.

Judges on occasions such as this are wont to tell us that the theory that there is such a thing as excessive flattery is not one recognised by the Court at all.  We hear such things as, “Mr Stewart, I find your powers of persuasion convince me of the veracity of your compliments.  Do go on.”  Your Honour will understand then that from the perspective of an advocate there is nothing so galling as to have a quiver full of flattering remarks but find that none of them can be let loose for fear of boring the judge to death because she has heard it all before so very many times.

Resolving this dilemma is my thankless task this afternoon for, since the announcement last year that your Honour would become the 46th Justice appointed to the High Court, this field has been more than thoroughly ploughed.  First, the announcement attracted what, in my experience, was unprecedented media scrutiny through which the public learned much, including your Honour’s desert island poem’s list and the profound impact that bumps on the River Cam have had upon your Honour’s life.

After that came the occasion of your Honour’s swearing‑in ceremony in Canberra, followed by welcoming speeches from the New South Wales, Western Australian and Victorian professions when your Honour first visited those States.  Slattery, QC and Martin, QC and Riordan, SC on behalf of the Bar certainly left no stone unturned for me.

One could be forgiven for thinking then that all that could be said has been, yet your Honour I submit that a convincing case can be made for the proposition that accurate as all of these earlier plaudits were, they lacked an important element that can only be provided by this venue and this audience, for it is here that the Bar which nurtured your Honour’s career and which in turn saw this repaid by the generous and principled way in which your Honour contributed to its affairs has waited patiently for the opportunity to welcome its favourite daughter.

My comments are no manifestation of a parochialism born of the mere fact that your Honour is a Queenslander.  This State is no stranger to members of its Bar being appointed to the High Court.  It has been fortunate to have been able to provide six former Justices of the Court, three of whom have led it.  This appointment is therefore immune from claims that it was a forerunner of the pineapple revolution currently sweeping the nation.  Rather, it is a testimony to your Honour’s unique character and record of involvement in our profession, firstly as a barrister and subsequently as a judge.

Much can be said about successful barristers.  We hear praise of intelligence, application, powers of persuasion and tenacity, but all of this may be summarised by the claim, “She is a worthy opponent”, because this qualification, your Honour, is won only by those who combine all the qualities I have just listed with a sense of honour and a respect for the rule of law.  It was a tag often applied to your Honour.  No one upon learning that Kiefel, QC was their opponent gave a sigh of relief, the opposite was the case.

I think it speaks volumes that those who appeared as your Honour’s juniors, and especially those lucky enough to have been your Honour’s pupils, are amongst your most ardent admirers today.  The association as a body was deprived of what would have been a long and fruitful period of service on its committee and then the Bar Council by your Honour as a result of you being appointed to the Supreme Court at a young age in 1993.

As a judge your reputation has grown so that your latest appointment was met with universal acclaim.  It is of significance that your Honour will bring to your deliberations a wealth of experience as a trial judge and a judge of intermediate courts of appeal.

1993 is a long time ago, though, and sometimes judges drift apart from the Bar they came from.  It is a particular pleasure to represent the Queensland Bar today, because after more than 14 years as a judge, your Honour continues to value the camaraderie of its members and the close friendships developed with those with whom you worked for almost two decades.  In no small measure, your Honour, this explains why you were invited to accept life membership of our association.

But, this is all in the past.  What we really relish is what is in prospect.  The leading judgment your Honour delivered in the majority decision of the Court in Ayles v The Queen [2008] HCA 6 suggests a judge of great promise. Also, a rumour circulates that when the Attorney‑General’s telephone call required that you decide whether to accept this latest honour of judicial appointment, your Honour was prostrated by a fever in the land of the Vikings and may even have been hallucinating at the time. Even under such trying conditions your Honour’s judgment proved reliable, and if I may say so, with the greatest respect, the correct decision was made.

Your Honour, the barristers of Queensland wish you a long, fulfilling and distinguished life on the Bench of this, the highest of Courts.  May it please the Court.

HER HONOUR:   Thank you, Mr Stewart.  Mr Eardley.

MR EARDLEY:   Thank you, your Honour.  Your Honour, on behalf of the solicitors of Queensland I welcome you to your first sittings in Brisbane.  Members of the Society have already had the opportunity to informally congratulate you, but it is timely that on this public occasion we have that opportunity again.

Today, as Mr Stewart has indicated, and on many other occasions, your Honour’s extraordinary achievements in your progress through the profession have been properly the subject of great praise and admiration.  I will do no more than to adopt all that has been said about you on those other occasions and say that the sentiments expressed are unreservedly deserved.

The profession has enthusiastically welcomed your appointment, a well‑deserved tribute to your legal expertise.  We wish you well.  We welcome, of course, the opportunity to develop a close working relationship with you in respect of the affairs of the Society.  Your Honour has already demonstrated her appreciation of the special circumstances of Queensland practitioners by attending a CLE seminar recently in Mackay.  I do apologise for the profession, your Honour, for having allowed you to contract a rather dreadful form of the dreaded lurgy.  Last week was a trial for you in your judicial role.

Your Honour, the President, Mrs Mahon, is unable to be here today as she is out of Queensland.  She asked me to apologise to you that she could not be personally here.  Even if she had been available, your Honour, there may well have been an arm wrestle between us as to who had the privilege to speak.

Today I want to say something of particular importance to the solicitors of Queensland.  It is for this reason that your Honour is held in such high regard.  You very quickly developed a reputation, enhanced throughout your career, that you were a barrister who “always took the bullet for the team”.

No matter how cantankerous the presiding judge may be, no matter how inadequate the pleadings may have been, the discovery or particulars, your Honour was always front and centre in dealing with any angry diatribe that might be directed at your instructing parties.  Your Honour had the great ability to protect and defend your solicitors against what may have been, on some occasions, a justified attack.  Your Honour was always able to cease judicial distemper by your tact, and, of course, the confidence of the judges that you would make things right.

It was about that time, your Honour, that the famous Kiefel gaze became an object of admiration.  Your Honour’s steely look to the angry judge contained the hidden message that you had best get on with it and everything will be okay.  You are a legendary poker player.  Your ability to maintain an unbroken visage is a remarkable talent.

From time to time there might be some clues about this.  Left eyebrow is raised, code for “You must be joking”; the right eyebrow goes up is interpreted “Hmm, good point, keep going”, but when both are raised simultaneously, it is a warning that all hope may be lost.

Your Honour is also warmly remembered by many now senior solicitors who were once your impoverished young instructing solicitors.  You were a prodigious worker in trial preparation, but you also appreciated the importance of professional camaraderie in celebrating triumphs and reconciling defeats.  Your Honour well appreciated that the meaning of a Wally Grout encompassed far more than a love of cricket.

Your Honour, judging is not easy.  You have been described as a black letter lawyer.  It is sometimes difficult to discern what commentators really mean about that phrase.  It is quite clear that being learned in the law is never enough.  For those of us who have had the privilege of earning your friendship we can attest to the black letter standard of your character.  You are loyal, steadfast, discrete and compassionate in all of your personal dealings.  You are not afraid to give fearless and frank advice when required.  You are a true companion for the good times, and most importantly, the bad times that sometimes occur.  We are confident, your Honour, that your character will be evidence in the strength and constancy of your judgments.

May it please the Court.

HER HONOUR:   Colleagues from the Family Court and Federal Court, former colleagues from the profession. 

Thank you, Mr Stewart and Mr Eardley, for your kind words.  Mr Eardley, there is a special pleasure in having an old friend speak on behalf of the Law Society.

The cricket allusion reminds me of social Bar cricket matches.  They were called friendly matches, but barristers being competitive creatures could not help themselves.  One keen young chap had to be reminded of his position as my pupil before he reduced the pace of his bowling.

It seems a very long time ago that I was celebrating court victories or dealing with defeat, but they were good times.  Now tea is taken before moving on to the next judgment.  But the occupation of a judge has its pleasures.  Judges do not often say this, probably because the statement, “I really enjoy judging” is apt to be misunderstood, as is the sight of a laughing judge.  That is the photo, of course, that they publish when you have just upheld a conviction for murder.

It is an amazing thing that the longer one remains a judge, the fewer cantankerous judges there seem to be.  I am not sure why this is so.  I have spoken to practitioners in other States about the merit of such judges from former times.  In my early years at the Bar, judges of fierce demeanour and exacting standards were not uncommon.  In my view, they were an effective form of case management.  I have suggested that the modern judge, considerate, calm and courteous, be replaced with the earlier model.  This has been met largely with silence.  It may be that practitioners are uncertain as to whether I am serious about this.

I value my association with the profession, with the Bar association, and the Law Society.  I am absent from Queensland a good deal of the time now, but I will endeavour to maintain my contacts with the profession here.

Thank you all for attending today.  I have appreciated the welcome and the kind words very much.

AT 2.08 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED