Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Fair Reflection of Society in Judicial Systems - A Comparative Study pp 41–63Cite as

Concepts of Representation in Their Application to the Judiciary in Australia

  • Chapter

Part of the book series: Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law ((GSCL,volume 7))

Abstract

In considering whether judges in Australia can and should be representative of the community, it is necessary to bear in mind that the role of the judge in the Australian federal system has distinctive features, shaped by the Australian constitutional and legal system. Judges are required to have a high level of expertise in a wide field of legal subjects, and to be seen to undertake their role independently. Consequently, lay representation among judicial decision-makers has not been the norm for Australian courts, and this is unlikely to change. Nonetheless, some lay participation in judicial decisions is effected through use of juries in criminal trials, appearance by amici curiae, merits review by tribunals with some lay membership, and diversionary sentencing courts. In the past, the qualifications for being a judge have been claimed to impede the appointment of judges on a more representative basis. Nevertheless, in recent years the judiciary has become more representative, in the sense of more diverse, at least in terms of gender. This may be due to formal and informal changes in the process of appointing judges to introduce greater consultation, and the use of a broader range of selection criteria, including concepts of diversity, community representation, and accounting for a range of experiences as relevant to demonstrating aptitude and merit.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    H Pitkin, The Concept of Representation (Berkeley, University of California Press, 1967).

  2. 2.

    Pitkin, The Concept of Representation, 116–118.

  3. 3.

    See for example Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292.

  4. 4.

    S 106, Australian Constitution.

  5. 5.

    R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers’ Society of Australia (1956) 94 CLR 254.

  6. 6.

    S 77(iii), Australian Constitution.

  7. 7.

    Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (1996) 189 CLR 51.

  8. 8.

    Nicholas v The Queen (1998) 193 CLR 173.

  9. 9.

    Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24.

  10. 10.

    S 72, Australian Constitution.

  11. 11.

    S 7, High Court of Australia Act 1979 (Cth).

  12. 12.

    S 10, High Court of Australia Act 1979.

  13. 13.

    S 5, High Court of Australia Act 1979; in the States the appointments are made by Governors (in the Northern Territory by the Administrator and in the Australian Capital Territory by the Executive).

  14. 14.

    Australian Government, Attorney-General’s Department, ‘Judicial Appointments: Ensuring a Strong and Independent Judiciary through a Transparent Process’ (April 2010), 3 available at http://www.lawcouncil.asn.au/lawcouncil/images/LCA-PDF/a-z-docs/FedJudicialAppointmentsPolicy_May2010.pdf.

  15. 15.

    S 6, High Court of Australia Act 1979.

  16. 16.

    R Gotterson, ‘The Appointment of Judges’, speech presented at the Judicial Council of Australia, Surfers Paradise, November 1998, available at http://jca.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/THE-APPOINTMENT-OF-JUDGES.pdf.

  17. 17.

    Law Council of Australia, ‘Policy Statement: The Process of Judicial Appointments’ (September 2008), available at http://www.lawcouncil.asn.au/lawcouncil/images/LCA-PDF/a-z-docs/PolicyStatementJudicialAppointments.pdf.

  18. 18.

    Australian Government, Attorney-General’s Department, ‘Judicial Appointments: Ensuring a Strong and Independent Judiciary through a Transparent Process’.

  19. 19.

    The Advisory Committee was comprised of serving judges, a former State Solicitor-General and a Dean of a law school.

  20. 20.

    Advisory Committee to the Constitutional Commission, ‘Report of the Advisory Committee to the Constitutional Commission — Australian Judicial System’ (1987), para. 5.21.

  21. 21.

    M Thornton, ‘Affirmative Action, Merit and the Liberal State’ (1985) 2 Australian Journal of Law and Society 28, 29.

  22. 22.

    B Hamilton, ‘Criteria for Judicial Appointment and “Merit”’ (1999) 15 QUT Law Journal 10, 12.

  23. 23.

    M McHugh, ‘Women Justices for the High Court’, speech delivered to the Law Society of Western Australia, Perth, 27 October 2004, available at http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/speeches/former-justices/mchughj/mchughj_27oct04.html.

  24. 24.

    M Gleeson, ‘Judicial Selection and Training: Two Sides of the One Coin’ (2003) 77 Australian Law Journal 591, 592.

  25. 25.

    Sir Anthony Mason, ‘The Appointment and Removal of Judges’ in H Cunningham (ed), Fragile Bastion: Judicial Independence in the Nineties and Beyond (Sydney, Judicial Commission of New South Wales, 1997) 1, 10.

  26. 26.

    C Roper, ‘Report: A Curriculum for Professional Development for Australian Judicial Officers’ (January 2007), Prepared for the National Judicial College of Australia.

  27. 27.

    Australian Academy of Law, Constitution, s 4(g), available at http://www.academyoflaw.org.au/events2012/AALConstitution.pdf.

  28. 28.

    Australian Government, Attorney-General’s Department, Judicial Appointments: Procedures and Criteria (September 1993), cited in E Handsley, ‘“The Judicial Whisper Goes Around”: Appointment of Judicial Officers in Australia’ in K Malleson and P Russell (eds), Appointing Judges in an Age of Judicial Power (Toronto, Toronto University Press, 2006) 122, 132.

  29. 29.

    Law Council of Australia, ‘Policy Statement: The Process of Judicial Appointments’.

  30. 30.

    New South Wales.

  31. 31.

    L Roth, ‘Judicial Appointments’ (2012) New South Wales Parliamentary Library Research Service Briefing Paper No 3, 9.

  32. 32.

    Australian Government, Attorney-General’s Department, Judicial Appointments: Procedures and Criteria (September 1993), cited in E Handsley, ‘“The Judicial Whisper Goes Around”: Appointment of Judicial Officers in Australia’, 132.

  33. 33.

    Australian Law Reform Commission, ‘Equality Before the Law: Women’s Equality’, Report No 69 (1994), para 9.41.

  34. 34.

    The Hon Justice Mary Gaudron.

  35. 35.

    For Queensland 4.1 %; Victoria 8.9 %; New South Wales 10.1 %: statistics drawn from respective Bar Association’s list of members as at 1 November 2013.

  36. 36.

    See for example Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 154; Sir Frederick Pollock and FW Maitland, The History of English Law, vol 2, 2nd ed (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1898), 623–624.

  37. 37.

    Brown v R (1986) 160 CLR 171, 196.

  38. 38.

    Musgrove v McDonald (1905) 3 CLR 132, 141–142.

  39. 39.

    Justice Virginia Bell, ‘Section 80 – The Great Constitutional Tautology’, speech delivered as the Lucinda Lecture, Monash University (24 October 2013) at 31, available at http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/speeches/currentjustices/bellj/bellj241013.pdf.

  40. 40.

    Cheatle v The Queen (1993) 177 CLR 541.

  41. 41.

    Kingswell v The Queen (1985) 159 CLR 264, 301 per Deane J.

  42. 42.

    P Devlin, Trial by Jury, 3rd ed (London, Stevens & Sons, 1966), 17.

  43. 43.

    R Matthews, L Hancock and D Briggs, ‘Jurors’ Perceptions, Understanding, Confidence and Satisfaction in the Jury System: A Study in Six Courts’, Home Office Online Report 05/04 (2004), 27, available at http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110218135832/http:/rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/rdsolr0504.pdf.

  44. 44.

    Matthews, Hancock and Briggs, ‘Jurors’ Perceptions, Understanding, Confidence and Satisfaction in the Jury System’, 73.

  45. 45.

    ibid, 73.

  46. 46.

    ibid, 46–47.

  47. 47.

    ibid, 47.

  48. 48.

    X Connor, ‘Trial by Jury — Can It Survive?’ (1987) 61 Law Institute Journal 818.

  49. 49.

    See for example Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, ‘Annual Report 2012-2013’, 73, available at http://www.cdpp.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/CDPP-Annual-Report-2012-2013.pdf.

  50. 50.

    P McClellan, ‘Looking Inside the Jury Room’, speech delivered to the Law Society of New South Wales Young Lawyers Annual Criminal Law Seminar, Sydney (5 March 2011), 2–3 available at http://www.supremecourt.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/agdbasev7wr/supremecourt/documents/pdf/mcclellan050311.pdf.

  51. 51.

    132(5), Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW).

  52. 52.

    R v Stanley [2013] NSWCCA 124, paras 59 and 61; R v King [2013] NSWSC 438, paras 48–53.

  53. 53.

    R v Fardon [2010] QCA 317, paras 41–42.

  54. 54.

    R v Trawin-Hadfield [2014] NSWSC 591, paras 18–22.

  55. 55.

    R v Trawin-Hadfield [2014] NSWSC 591.

  56. 56.

    R v Robert Bretherton [2013] NSWSC 1036.

  57. 57.

    See M Moshinksy and K Rubenstein, ‘Amicus Applications in the High Court – Observations on Contemporary Practice’, paper delivered at the Gilbert + Tobin Constitutional Law Conference (15 February 2013), 2, available at http://www.gtcentre.unsw.edu.au/sites/gtcentre.unsw.edu.au/files/moshinsky_and_rubenstein.pdf.

  58. 58.

    Wurridjal v The Commonwealth (2009) 237 CLR 309, 312 per French CJ.

  59. 59.

    Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ‘ASIC’s Approach to Involvement in Private Court Proceedings’, Information Sheet 180 (25 June 2013).

  60. 60.

    Garcia v National Australia Bank Ltd (1998) 194 CLR 395.

  61. 61.

    APLA Ltd v Legal Services Commissioner (NSW) (2005) 224 CLR 322.

  62. 62.

    For example, The Commonwealth v Tasmania (The Tasmanian Dam Case) (1983) 158 CLR 1.

  63. 63.

    Superclinics Australia Pty Ltd v CES & Ors S88/1996 [1996] HCATrans 357 (11 September 1996); Superclinics Australia Pty Ltd v CES & Ors S88/1996 [1996] HCATrans 359 (12 September 1996).

  64. 64.

    S 7, Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth).

  65. 65.

    G Downes, ‘Structure, Power and Duties of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of Australia’, speech delivered to the Supreme Administrative Court of Thailand and Central Administrative Court of Thailand, Bangkok (21 February 2006), paras 35–36, available at http://www.aat.gov.au/Publications/SpeechesandPapers/Downes/pdf/StructurePowerDutiesFebruary2006.pdf.

  66. 66.

    S 627, Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

  67. 67.

    S 110, Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

  68. 68.

    Explanatory Memorandum, Native Title Bill 1993, cl 130.

  69. 69.

    S 7, Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Justices of the Peace) Amendment Act 2013 (Q).

  70. 70.

    H Golder, High and Responsible Office: A History of the NSW Magistracy (Sydney, Oxford University Press, 1991).

  71. 71.

    See for example 23, Drug Court Act 1998 (NSW).

  72. 72.

    A Morgan and E Louis, ‘Evaluation of the Queensland Murri Court: Final Report’ (2010) Australian Institute of Criminology Reports Technical and Background Paper No 39, 10.

  73. 73.

    E Marchetti and K Daly, ‘Indigenous Sentencing Courts: Towards a Theoretical and Jurisprudential Model’ (2007) 29 Sydney Law Review 414, 443.

  74. 74.

    S 4G, Magistrates’ Court Act 1989 (Vic), as amended by the Magistrates’ Court (Koori Court) Act 2002 (Vic).

  75. 75.

    Legislative Council of Victoria, 29 May 2002, Book 7 of 2002, 1281–1285.

  76. 76.

    See for example 11, High Court of Australia Act 1979 (Cth). Similar formulations are used in the federal, State and Territory courts.

Reference List

Books

  • Devlin, P (1966) Trial by Jury, 3rd edn (London, Stevens & Sons).

    Google Scholar 

  • Golder, H (1991) High and Responsible Office: A History of the NSW Magistracy (Sydney, Oxford University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Pitkin, HF (1967) The Concept of Representation (Berkeley, University of California Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollock, F and Maitland, FW (1989) The History of English Law, vol. 2, 2nd edn (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, M (1996) Dissonance and Distrust: Women in the Legal Profession (Melbourne, Oxford University Press).

    Google Scholar 

Chapters, Journals, Articles and Reports

Case Law

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. High Court of Australia, Parkes Place, Parkes, ACT, 2600, Australia

    Susan Kiefel

  2. Melbourne Law School, The University of Melbourne, 185 Pelham Street, Carlton, VIC, 3053, Australia

    Cheryl Saunders

Authors
  1. Susan Kiefel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cheryl Saunders
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Susan Kiefel .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom

    Sophie Turenne

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kiefel, S., Saunders, C. (2015). Concepts of Representation in Their Application to the Judiciary in Australia. In: Turenne, S. (eds) Fair Reflection of Society in Judicial Systems - A Comparative Study. Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law, vol 7. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18485-2_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation