Ceremonial - QCs

The High Court of Australia considered the question of whether the title "Queen's Counsel" (QC) could be used by legal practitioners in Australia. The dispute arose from the practice of some Australian lawyers using the title "Queen's Counsel" or "King's Counsel" (depending on the reigning monarch) in circumstances where the title was not conferred by the Crown in right of a particular Australian state or territory. The core of the issue was the proper and lawful use of such titles within the Australian legal system.

The High Court was required to determine whether the use of the title "Queen's Counsel" by legal practitioners in Australia, when not appointed by a relevant Australian Crown authority, was permissible. This involved an examination of the historical origins of the title, its conferral and regulation within the Australian constitutional framework, and the implications of its use by individuals not formally recognised by an Australian jurisdiction. The court also considered the potential for confusion and the integrity of the legal profession.

The majority of the High Court held that the title "Queen's Counsel" is a title of honour and distinction conferred by the Crown, and in Australia, this means by the Crown in right of a State or Territory. They reasoned that the use of the title by practitioners not appointed by a relevant Australian authority was improper and misleading. The court emphasised that the power to appoint QCs rests with the executive government of the States and Territories, and that the title signifies a formal recognition of seniority and standing within a particular jurisdiction. The historical development of the title and its adaptation to the Australian constitutional context were central to this reasoning.

The High Court made declarations that the use of the title "Queen's Counsel" by legal practitioners in Australia, unless appointed by the Crown in right of an Australian State or Territory, was not authorised. The court effectively clarified that the title is jurisdiction-specific and its unauthorised use is impermissible.