• Specific Year
    Any

Campbell, Enid --- "Judicial Review of Proceedings for Removal of Judges from Office" [1999] UNSWLawJl 1; (1999) 22(2) UNSW Law Journal 325

[∗] Emeritus Professor of Law, Monash University.

[1] The provisions to which s 7B applies cannot be altered unless the alterations have been approved by electors voting at a referendum.

[2] Section 77(1) of the Victorian Constitution Act 1975, on the removal of Supreme Court judges, cannot be altered except in accordance with s 18. The provisions to which s 18 applies cannot be altered except by absolute majorities in both Houses of Parliament.

[3] See Constitution Act 1867 (Qld), ss 15, 16; Supreme Court Act 1995 (Qd), s 195; Constitution Act 1934 (SA), ss 74, 75; Constitution Act 1975 (Vic), s 77(1); Constitution Act 1889 (WA), ss 54, 55; Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA), ss 54, 55. Under the Tasmanian Supreme Court (Judges’ Independence) Act 1857 judges are removable by the Governor but only on address of both Houses. Section 40(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1979 (NT) is modelled on s 72(ii) of the federal Constitution but is not entrenched. The position in the Australian Capital Territory is dealt with at Part II Section A below. The Australian legislation is reviewed in PH Lane, “Constitutional Aspects of Judicial Independence” in H Cunningham (ed), Fragile Bastion: Judicial Independence in the Nineties and Beyond, Judicial Commission of NSW (1997) 61 and Justice JB Thomas, Judicial Ethics in Australia, LBC Information Services (2nd ed, 1997) pp 202-7.

In some of the states the process for the removal of judges of lower courts is the same or similar to that for the removal of judges of the Supreme Court: see District Courts Act 1967 (Qld), s 14 (incapacity or misbehaviour); District Court Act 1991 (SA), s 15(1) (no cause is specified); Magistrates Court Act 1987 (Tas), s 9 (proved misbehaviour or incapacity); County Court Act 1958 (Vic), s 9 (no cause is specified); District Court of Western Australia Act 1969 (WA), s 11(1) (modelled on the Act of Settlement). In Tasmania and Western Australia, stipendiary magistrates are removable only by parliamentary process: Magistrates Court Act 1987 (Tas), s 9; Stipendiary Magistrates Act 1957 (WA), s 5. See also Judicial Commissions Act 1994 (ACT), ss 3, 5.

[4] Act 22 Geo III, c 75; confirmed and amended by Act 54 Geo III, c 61. See Willis v Gipps [1846] EngR 879; (1846) 5 Moo PC 379; 13 ER 536; Montague v Van Diemen’s Land (Lieut-Gov) [1849] EngR 803; (1849) 6 Moo PC 489; 13 ER 773. Boothby J of the South Australian Supreme Court was removed under this Act in 1867. See J Thomson, “Removal of High Court and Federal Judges: Some Observations Concerning Section 72(ii) of the Australian Constitution” [1984] Australian Current Law at [36033], note 13.

[5] By the Statute Law Revision Act 1964 (UK). The Act did not state whether it was intended to have extra-territorial operation.

[6] There were doubts about whether some of the legislation of the states was consistent with Burke’s Act: see PH Lane, note 3 supra at 74-5; JB Thomas, note 3 supra, pp 203-4; C Wheeler, “The Removal of Judges from Office in Western Australia” (1979) 14 UWALR 305 at 315-23; J Waugh, “The Victorian Government and the Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court” [1996] UNSWLawJl 19; (1996) 19 UNSWLJ 409 at 472-3. If repugnant to Burke’s Act the legislation would have been invalid. Following enactment of the Australia Act 1986 (Cth and UK) the state parliaments passed legislation to validate all local statutes which might previously have been held invalid on this ground: Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW), s 34A (inserted 1992); Acts Interpretation Act 1915 (SA), s 22B (inserted 1992); Acts Interpretation Act 1931 (Tas), s 46C (inserted 1992); Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 (Vic), s 58 (inserted 1994); Interpretation Act 1984 (WA), s 76A (inserted 1994).

[7] See PH Lane, note 3 supra at 62-3, 70.

[8] [1986] HCA 37; (1986) 60 ALJR 523; 65 ALR 651.

[9] The subject is considered in JB Thomas, note 3 supra, ch 17. See also Constitutional Commission, Final Report (Vol 1), 1988 at 402-11; E Campbell, “Suspension of Judges from Office” (1999) 18 Aust Bar Rev 63.

[10] See, for example, Senate Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge, Report to the Senate, August 1984 (PP 164/1984); Senate Select Committee on Allegations Concerning a Judge, Report to the Senate, October 1984 (PP 271/1984).

[11] Principles of procedural fairness would usually require the adoption of such a measure: see FAI Insurance Ltd v Winneke [1982] HCA 26; (1982) 151 CLR 342.

[12] The members of both Commissions were all retired judges.

[13] Section 21. The Conduct Division must consist of three members. At least two must be serving judges; the third member may be a retired judge.

[14] Section 30.

[15] Section 24.

[16] Section 29.

[17] Section 29.

[18] Section 25.

[19] Enacted under art 124(5) of the Constitution of India. Article 124(4) is similar to s 72(ii) of the Australian federal Constitution.

[20] 28 USC § 332.

[21] Section 65.

[22] Section 16.

[23] See ss 16 and 18.

[24] The judicial officer who is the subject of the report must be afforded an opportunity to comment on it and the comments, if any, must also be tabled (ss 23 and 24).

[25] Part IV.

[26] Article I, ss 1.5, 3.6 and 3.7; art II, s 4.

[27] 28 USC s 372(c)(1).

[28] 28 USC s 372(c)(6) and (7).

[29] 28 USC s 372(c)(8).

[30] [1986] USCA11 279; 783 F 2d 1488 (1986).

[31] 477 US 904 (1986).

[32] [1986] USCA11 279; 783 F 2d 1488 at 1505-6.

[33] Ibid at 1510-12.

[34] Ibid at 1513-14. See also Hastings v Judicial Conference of the United States, [1987] USCADC 411; 829 F 2d 91 (1987).

[35] Ibid at 1510.

[36] [1986] HCA 37; (1986) 60 ALJR 523; 65 ALR 651.

[37] Section 4(2).

[38] See Wilson v Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs [1996] HCA 18; (1996) 189 CLR 1.

[39] On when proportionality is a measure of the validity of statutes, see Leask v Commonwealth [1996] HCA 29; (1996) 187 CLR 579.

[40] See Part IV below.

[41] Gibson v O’Keefe (unreported, NSW Supreme Court, Einstein J, 26 June 1998).

[42] Murphy v Lush [1986] HCA 37; (1986) 60 ALJR 523; 65 ALR 651.

[43] ICAC v Chafey (1993) 30 NSWLR 21; Rees v Crane [1994] 2 AC 173; Barnwell v Attorney-General [1994] 3 LRC 30.

[44] Hammond v Commonwealth (1982) 152 CLR 188; Sorby v Commonwealth (1983) 152 CLR 28; Baker v Campbell (1983) 153 CLR 52; Esso Australian Resources Ltd v Dawson [1999] FCA 363; (1999) 162 ALR 79.

[45] Duke of Buccleuch v Metropolitan Board of Works [1872] UKLawRpHL 9; (1872) LR 5 HL 418 at 433, 457, 458, 462; Hennessy v Broken Hill Co Pty Ltd [1926] HCA 32; (1926) 38 CLR 342 at 349; Zanatta v McCleary [1976] 1 NSWLR 230; MacKeigan v Hickman [1989] 2 SCR 796 at 828-34; Warren v Warren [1996] 3 WLR 1129 at 1136-7, per Lord Woolf MR; Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), ss 16(2) and 129; Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 16(2) and 129.

[46] MacKeigan v Hickman, note 45 supra.

[47] Thelander v Woodward [1981] 1 NSWLR 644; Queensland v Wyvill [1989] FCA 485; (1989) 90 ALR 611; Eatts v Dawson [1990] FCA 158; (1990) 93 ALR 497; Attorney-General (Queensland) v Queensland [1990] FCA 358; (1990) 94 ALR 515. But a court may decline to intervene on the ground that the application for review is premature: see Langton v ICAC (unreported, NSW Supreme Court, Sperling J, 8 April 1998).

[48] On the concept of “misbehaviour” see Thomas, note 3 supra, pp 15-19.

[49] The ‘Murphy Commission’ presented a report on what might constitute misbehaviour: Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry: Re the Honourable Mr Justice Murphy (PP 443/1986), reprinted in (1986) 2 Aust Bar Rev 203.

[50] Ross v Costigan (No 1) [1935] ArgusLawRp 44; (1982) 41 ALR 319; Ross v Costigan (No 2) [1982] FCA 73; (1982) 41 ALR 337; Lloyd v Costigan [1942] ArgusLawRp 35; (1983) 48 ALR 241; Harper v Costigan [1983] FCA 303; (1983) 50 ALR 665.

[51] The person or body appointing the commission would presumably have standing.

[52] [1994] 2 FC 769 (Trial Div).

[53] See text accompanying notes 64-6 infra.

[54] R v Collins; Ex parte ACTU-Solo Enterprises Pty Ltd (1976) 8 ALR 691; 50 ALJR 471.

[55] Balog v ICAC [1990] HCA 28; (1990) 169 CLR 625.

[56] Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission [1992] HCA 10; (1992) 175 CLR 564.

[57] Greiner v ICAC (1992) 28 NSWLR 125.

[58] Bruce v Cole (1998) 45 NSWLR 163. The parliamentary proceedings on the motion for dismissal of the judge are described in J Waugh, “A Question of Capacity: The Case of Justice Bruce” (1998) 9 PLR 223.

[59] See Burdett v Abbott [1811] EngR 83; (1811) 14 East 1 at 150; [1811] EngR 83; 104 ER 501 at 558; R v Richards; Ex parte Fitzpatrick and Browne [1955] HCA 36; (1955) 92 CLR 157 at 162; Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 (Cth), s 9.

[60] Hughes and Vale Pty Ltd v Gair [1954] HCA 73; (1954) 90 CLR 203; Clayton v Heffron [1960] HCA 92; (1960) 105 CLR 214 at 235; Cormack v Cope (1974) 131 CLR 432. See also Harper v Home Secretary [1955] 1 Ch 238.

[61] Ex parte Ramshay [1852] EngR 12; (1852) 18 QB 174; 118 ER 65; Stewart v Secretary of State for Scotland [1998] SLT 385 (HL). See also E Campbell, “Termination of Appointments to Public Offices” (1996) 24 Fed L Rev 1.

[62] See S Shetreet, Judges on Trial, North-Holland Publishing Company (1976) pp 90-9; J Thomas, note 3 supra, pp 205-6. In R v Hughes [1866] UKLawRpPC 3; (1866) LR 1 PC 81 it was held that scire facias was not available in colonies where the Letters Patent sought to be revoked had been issued in England.

[63] [1985] 2 SCR 673 at 695.

[64] Note 52 supra.

[65] [1918] ArgusLawRp 83; (1918) 26 CLR 9 at 58-9. See also S Shetreet, note 62 supra, pp 104-6.

[66] Note 52 supra.

[67] Ibid at 792-6.

[68] Ibid at 790.

[69] Ibid at 791.

[70] Note 49 supra at 210, 249.

[71] Ibid at 225.

[72] Ibid at 249.

[73] Ibid at 231. W Harrison Moore considered that there could be no judicial review of a decision to remove a federal judge “except perhaps in a case where the procedure was flagrantly unjust”: The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, Maxwell & Sons (2nd ed, 1910) p 203.

[74] Article 9 applies in all states and territories either because of legislation adopting the privileges of the House of Commons or because it reflects an inherent privilege or because of state legislation on the application of Imperial statutes.

[75] Prebble v Television New Zealand Pty Ltd [1995] 1 AC 321; Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 (Cth), s 16; Laurance v Katter [1996] QCA 471; (1997) 141 ALR 447; G Griffith, Parliamentary Privilege: Use, Misuse and Proposals for Reform, NSW Parliamentary Library Research Service (Briefing Paper No 4/97) pp 24-45.

[76] [1993] USSC 6; 506 US 224 (1993).

[77] The Court had regard to the history of the relevant provisions in the United States Constitution: ibid at 735-9.

[78] Section 75(v) gives the High Court an original jurisdiction in any matter “[i]n which a writ of Mandamus or prohibition or an injunction is sought against an officer of the Commonwealth”.

[79] Note 76 supra.

[80] Note 52 supra.

[81] [1998] HCA 71; (1998) 158 ALR 527 at 570-3, per Kirby J.

[82] AR Blackshield, “The ‘Murphy Affair’” in J Scutt (ed), Lionel Murphy: A Radical Judge, McCulloch Publishing (1987) p 254.

[83] For example, members of the federal Industrial Relations Commission: Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth), ss 24, 28(1). See also Thomas, note 3 supra, pp 207-8.

[84] The legislative history is described in J Thomson, note 4 supra at [36033]-[36047].

[85] Official Report of the National Australasian Convention Debates, 1897, CE Bristow, Government Printer, pp 946-7.

[86] Ibid, pp 951-3.

[87] Ibid, pp 947-9.

[88] Ibid, pp 953-4.

[89] Ibid, pp 952, 957.

[90] Ibid, p 960.

[91] Official Record of the Debates of the Australian Federal Convention, 1898 Vol 1, RS Brain, Government Printer, p 308.

[92] Ibid, p 311.

[93] Ibid, pp 312-3. See also pp 313-4, p 318 (Kingston), p 315 (Barton) and p 318 (Josiah Symon QC).

[94] Ibid, p 318.

[95] See ss 20(1), 34, 34B.

[96] [1968] UKHL 6; [1969] 2 AC 147.

[97] Enacted pursuant to s 76(i) of the Constitution.

[98] The High Court has held that the power is subject to s 90 (Capital Duplicators Pty Ltd v ACT (No 1) [1992] HCA 51; (1992) 177 CLR 248) and to s 51(xxxi) (Newcrest Mining (WA) Ltd v Commonwealth [1997] HCA 38; (1997) 190 CLR 513). In Kruger v Commonwealth [1997] HCA 27; (1997) 190 CLR 1 the Court was evenly divided on the question of whether the territories power may be constrained by a requirement that judicial powers be reposed only in an independent judiciary.

[99] Note 96 supra.

[100] R v Hickman; Ex parte Fox and Clinton [1945] HCA 53; (1945) 70 CLR 598 at 615, per Dixon J. The principle and elaborations of it are discussed in M Aronson and B Dyer, Judicial Review of Administrative Action, LBC Information Services (1996) pp 966-80 and CD Campbell, “An Examination of the Provisions of the Migration Amendment Bill (No 4) Purporting to Limit Judicial Review” (1998) 5 AJ Admin L 135 at 140-8. See also Darling Casino Ltd v NSW Casino Control Authority [1997] HCA 11; (1997) 191 CLR 602 at 629-34, per Gaudron and Gummow JJ.

[101] R v Hickman; Ex parte Fox and Clinton [1945] HCA 53; (1945) 70 CLR 598 at 615.

[102] Ibid.

[103] Ibid.

[104] Ibid at 618. See also R v Commonwealth Rent Controller; Ex parte National Mutual Life Association of Australia [1947] HCA 32; (1947) 75 CLR 361; R v Central Reference Board; Ex parte Thiess (Repairs) Pty Ltd [1948] HCA 9; (1948) 77 CLR 123 and R v Murray; Ex parte Proctor [1949] HCA 10; (1949) 77 CLR 387.

[105] R v Metal Trades Employees’ Association; Ex parte Amalgamated Engineering Union, Australian Section [1951] HCA 3; (1951) 82 CLR 208 at 209.

[106] Aronson and Dyer, note 100 supra, p 978; Londish v Knox Grammar School (1997) 97 LGER 1 at 5-7.

[107] DCT v Richard Walter Pty Ltd [1995] HCA 23; (1995) 183 CLR 168 at 194, per Brennan J; at 205, per Deane and Gaudron JJ; Darling Casino Ltd v NSW Casino Control Authority [1997] HCA 11; (1997) 191 CLR 602 at 630, per Gaudron and Gummow JJ.

[108] O’Toole v Charles David Pty Ltd [1991] HCA 14; (1991) 171 CLR 232 at 250-2, 270, 288, 306.

[109] [1949] HCA 10; (1949) 77 CLR 387 at 399.

[110] This passage has been cited in many later cases: see M Aronson and B Dyer, note 100 supra, p 101, n 35. See also Warringah Shire Council v Pittwater Provisional Council (1992) 26 NSWLR 491 at 508, per Kirby P.

[111] Note 96 supra.

[112] [1982] AC 113.

[113] Ibid at 135.

[114] [1994] 3 LRC 30.

[115] Article 197.

[116] Article 40(1)(a).

[117] Namely, art 226(6).

[118] [1994] 3 LRC 30 at 74 and 117.

[119] AV Dicey, An Introduction to the Law of the Constitution, Macmillan (2nd ed, 1886) p 339. The first edition had been published in 1885.

[120] See note 3 supra.

[121] See Gratton v Canadian Judicial Council, note 52 supra at 784.

[122] See text accompanying notes 84-94 supra.

[123] On the permissible uses of the convention debates see Cole v Whitfield [1988] HCA 18; (1988) 165 CLR 360 at 365.

[124] See Abebe v Commonwealth [1999] HCA 14; (1999) 73 ALJR 584 at [203], per Kirby J. See also JG Goldsworthy, “Originalism in Constitutional Interpretation” (1997) 25 Fed L Rev 1.

[125] See note 8 supra.

[126] See text accompanying note 58 supra.

[127] There is a useful survey of proceedings for removal of judges in Canada, England, Wales, Ireland and the United States, and their outcomes in GL Gall, The Canadian Legal System, Carswell Co (1977) pp 153-62. See also D Pannick, The Judges, Oxford University Press (1987) pp 89-90; A Todd, On Parliamentary Government in England, Longmans, Green & Co (1869) ch 6; A Todd, Parliamentary Government in the British Colonies, Longmans, Green & Co (2nd ed, 1894) pp 827-56.

[128] [1994] 3 LRC 30 at 39-40 and 97.