Search Archive
Free Newsletter sign-up
Search Justinian
Justinian's news stories

Innovations in fee collection ... Barrister lightly spanked for sending disturbing fee threat to former clients ... "See what happens if you don't pay your bills" ... File leverage ... Agreement not to complain in exchange for the file ... NCAT bares its gums ... Read more ... 

Justinian Columnists

Do nothing in the new utopia ... Policy vacuums ... Private sector leaders are filling voids created by sleepwalking politicians ... Voice to parliament and global warming left in the cold - which, somehow, gets us to the casualisation of the workforce, particularly at universities ... Fly-in, fly-out law school lecturers ... Full Federal Court wrestles with a "casual employee" ... Read more ... 

Justinian's Tweets



This form does not yet contain any fields.

    "I am really and truly pleased that I have been vindicated and that the court has preserved the presumption of innocence."   

    Tom Domican, "colourful" Sydney identity, who provided security services to a Kings Cross drug dealer, after settling for $100,000 his defamation case against nightclub entrepreneur John Ibrahim and Pan Macmillan. September 13, 2019 ... Read more flatulence ... 

    Justinian Featurettes

    David Hunt remembered ... Former NSW defamation judge and chief judge at common law ...The List with Socratic case management ... Defamation exotica ... Refinement of pleadings, perhaps over-refinement ... Prodigious worker ... International criminal law ... Tributes from Graham Hryce, David Rolph, Justice Mark Ierace and Judge Judith Gibson ... Read more ... 

    Justinian's archive

    Sentencing terror ... Fabulous sentencing transcript from County Court, Victoria ... Judge James Montgomery and counsel wrestle with the dates and the years ... Pythonesque proceedings ... Court reporter struggles to keep up ... Tears to the eyes ... From the archive, June 2012 ... Read more ... 



    « Weather report from Blighty | Main | When you wish upon a Tarr »

    Life at the top

    Judicial style ... The genteel, pukkah approach of the UK Supreme Court or the Assyrian assaults of the High Court ... At least in Australia you get a sense of where to pitch an argument ... Please welcome Abel Magwitch to Justinian's expanding fold of analysts and commentators 

    Supreme Court justices: lounge suits (and frocks) underneathIt was a revelation to watch the beginning of the Assange hearing in the UK Supreme Court courtesy of the court's "streaming service".

    As an old lag with both UK and Australian experience I was at once struck by the differences in the style adopted by the High Court and the UK Supremes. 

    The latter is very genteel indeed. The "Lords" all sit in lounge suits (or a party frock for Lady Hale) in a sort of horse-shoe.  

    They are not really Lords since the most recent recruits have lost the right to an immediate barony, but they all now get some sort of courtesy title - a bit like their Scottish counterparts in the Outer House who rejoice in titles like "Lord" Maxwell, or "Lord" Braxfield. 

    The appellant has been astute to have a lot of women on his team, given the genderist nature of the accusations against him levelled by the Swedish State and Dinah Rose QC had carte blanche, so it seemed.

    She was heard without any interruption at all for about 10 minutes, meandering along and reading from a prepared booklet, which she had on the lectern in front of her.

    Dinah Rose QC: carte blancheThe very first departure from this occurred when Rose raised the problem of conforming documents in hard copy with those in electronic form. She suggested cheekily that something should be done about it by their Lordships. 

    What a contrast with Australia's Supreme Tribunal.

    It is usually all that an advocate can do to get out his name, rank, and serial number before the Assyrians sweep down like the wolf on the fold.

    Any cursory examination of a High Court transcript, which must be read daily by aficionados, reveals that the first intemperate questioning will most likely come from Gummow J within thirty seconds of taking the crease. 

    Forget about reading from your "skeleton"argument. Our court has no interest in that at all. It has already read it, and wants immediately to deal with some difficult preliminary matter. 


    During the Assange hearing the persuasive Portia was even suffered to read large tranches from various travaux preparatoires – all designed to show how dangerous the European connection has become to a solid but accused Australian who has sought sanctuary in the mother country.

    It would seem that any low level Lithuanian or Estonian plod can designate himself as a "judicial authority" pursuant to the "European arrest warrant" and have you quickly hauled out of bed in Tottenham to answer some allegation in Tallinn. 

    In our own tribunal someone (frequently Gummow) will say: "Don't bother wasting our time with that - we can read it for ourselves." 

    Don't waste our time

    Admittedly things have changed from the very old Barwickian days when argument would be torn limb from limb al fresco without an opportunity for the advocate to get much in by way of retort.

    The older NSW Court of Appeal had the same "take no prisoners" approach.

    Barwick was a force of nature and immensely quick to pick up any point.

    There is the famous anecdote about him walking with a gaggle of juniors and solicitors up from his chambers to the old Banco Court.

    A passerby called out to him: "Hey, Jack, which way to Prouds?"

    Gar replied: "How did you know my name was Jack?"

    His interlocutor said: "I just guessed it."

    To which the famous advocate responded: "Well guess your f#@*ing way to Prouds."

    Things are much more genteel nowadays, but still far from the comatose style and the pukkah sahib delivery that bedevils the UK court. 

    It was like watching paint dry. And from the advocate's perspective it conceals a danger, since it is only by questions from the bench that counsel can best deduce how to pitch an argument, and rebut an unfounded judicial assumption.

    Lord Bacon tells us that a "much talking judge is no well-tuned cymbal". It is better to have jurist who tell you their thoughts, rather than someone who sits like the Sphinx and then does you down in 40 cold paragraphs.

    Will Assange succeed? It is hard to say - the whole of the European justice system is uniformly shambolic, with no juries and a juge d'instruction roaming the countryside preparing a dossier.

    You may recall the recent release of a young US woman in Italy on a confected charge of murder, when another perpetrator had already confessed and was behind bars.

    In Sweden, Italy, Estonia and Germany you join the judiciary as a young man or woman of 26 or 27 and sit in a "bench" of three.

    You slowly work your way up reinterpreting law that has its origins in something the Emperor Justinian (our namesake) laid down in the fourth century of Our Lord.

    I once asked some German students what their career aspirations were. One replied:

    "Well, the A-grade students join the civil service and become judges, and the C grade students employ the B grade students."

    If you have seen the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo you will not have been favourably impressed with the quality of the Swedish judicial system.

    Many years ago in a Privy Council case from Australia counsel referred to the old legal maxim "causa proxima non remota spectatur" (look to the closer, not the further cause!).

    When the maxim had been quoted in the High Court judgment "fons" was used in place of "causa" by the court and it had been given the wrong (feminine) gender, which provoked the tremendous Bertie Wooster comment from the presiding Law Lord:

    "How is it that fons has changed its gender to the feminine on its journey to the Antipodes?"

    To which Stanley Buckmaster replied:

    "In the same way as the common law has lost its meaning".

    The case is Webb v Syme [1910] HCA 32 and the judge, surprisingly, was Griffith CJ, who said, "I think that, adapting the rule causa proxima non remota spectatur, we should say fons proxima non remota spectatur". 

    I am banished and barred from returning to my home land, and must live forever as a ticket of leave man among you all, but I regularly despair of what is happening to that great work of civilization which used to be the English legal system.

    Abel Magwitch

    Reader Comments

    There are no comments for this journal entry. To create a new comment, use the form below.
    Editor Permission Required
    You must have editing permission for this entry in order to post comments.