• Specific Year
    Any

Le Sueu, Andrew --- "The Oxford Companion to the High Court of Australia, Tony Blackshield, Michael Coper and George Williams (eds)" [2003] FedLawRw 8; (2003) 31(1) Federal Law Review 243

BOOK REVIEW

The Oxford Companion to the High Court of Australia, Tony Blackshield, Michael Coper and George Williams (eds), Oxford University Press, 2001

Andrew Le Sueur[*]

By now there will be few people in Australia who are not familiar with this book or at least aware of its existence. At its official launch in February 2002, Chief Justice Gleeson said, '[t]here is a need for a wider and deeper understanding of this institution and the part it plays in the life of the nation. This publication will make a major contribution to such understanding'.[1] Since then it has become the stuff of newspaper columns and university law school reading lists. The scale of the work is impressive: over 200 hundred experts contributed 435 entries, marshalled together in the space of six years by the three editors and their research assistants (generously acknowledged on the title page). The book is beautifully produced. Every entry is supplemented by well-chosen suggestions for further reading. This book—along with The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States[2]—excites a little envy in the reform-minded British reader: not only do we have no Oxford Companion but no top-level court separate from Parliament and the executive in ways recognisable in other modern democracies.

The Oxford Companion to the High Court project prompts several questions from an outsider, eager to use the book for comparative research. First, what is the rationale for telling the 'High Court's story, from A to Z' (p vii)? This, of course, is the format of the celebrated Oxford Companions series, and the obvious choice for a reference book, but an account of an institution and its role in national life is normally understood to be a narrative of events, trends, and the influence of personalities on them. The alphabetical presentation does not do a great deal to aid understanding (at least for an overseas reader not intimately knowledgeable of the High Court). Use of the subject index assists (though a simple table of contents would also have been helpful), as does the effective system of cross-referencing used in all entries—but one may wonder whether a more conventional narrative might not be a more satisfactory medium for telling a story.

What the A to Z format does achieve, however, is to make the book a pleasure to read. (Enjoyment is surely one of the most under-rated goals of books about law and legal institutions). It is no disrespect to the serious scholarship contained within the Oxford Companion to the High Court of Australia to suggest that as well as being a first rate reference book it is also a coffee-table book of the highest order: browsable; encouraging of serendipity; visually interesting (there are excellent photographs and illustrations throughout); entertaining; and thought-provoking.

The format of the book also allows the reader to select an evening's reading of different genres. The book is particularly interesting when read as a collection of biographical studies of the lives and work of the judges of the High Court over the past hundred years, beginning (alphabetically) with Justice Aickin and ending with Justice Windeyer. The profiles are usefully supplemented by James Thomson's 'Biographies and biographical writing' that includes the salutary warning that 'extolling the "greats" ... is not enough' and that 'much work remains to be done'; Simon Evans' 'Appointment of Justices' and Troy Simpson's 'Appointments that might have been' complete the background. In his speech at the book's launch, Chief Justice Gleeson drew particular attention to Francesca Dominello and Eddy Neumann's 'Background of Justices'. They point at 'a remarkable homogeneity in the 43 appointments that have been made to the High Court' and argue that 'undoubtedly, for the most part, appointments to the Court have been of conservative disposition'. (See also Alexander Reilly's 'Cultural diversity'). The Chief Justice was keen to say that the composition of the Court 'tells me less about the High Court than about Australian society; and, in particular, social mobility.'[3] None of the current Justices, he said, has a family background in the law and six of the seven who attended university did so with the assistance of Commonwealth Scholarships.

An alternative evening's reading from the Oxford Companion might include: Dominello's 'Colonialism', 'Popular images of the Court' and 'Stereotypes'; Margaret Thornton's 'Feminism' and 'Ideology'; Rob McQueen's 'History, Court's use of'; 'Men' by Janice Gray, Russell Hogg and Archana Parashar; 'Sex' by Simon Bronitt and Henry Mares; Kirsten Walker's 'Sexual preference'; and Regina Graycar and Jenny Morgan on 'Women'.

Many contributions are short but important additions to legal literature in their own right ('Accountability' by Michael Coper, 'Annual Reports' by Amelia Simpson and 'Collective responsibility' by Ernst Willheim are just three examples). For comparative lawyers, the book contains gems of research, including Bruce Topperwien's 'Foreign precedents' (revealing a fairly constant citation of English authority alongside increasing reference to US, Canadian and New Zealand case law), and Sir Anthony Mason's 'Comparison with other courts'. In short, the Oxford Companion is far more than a reference book.

A second set of questions that may be posed by an outsider relate to the book's policy of inclusiveness of opinion and forms of scholarship. The editors overtly aimed at a book that was diverse, saying that 'the book does not "run" any particular "line".' The commentators come from all points on the socio-political spectrum' (p vii). Reading an advance copy of the book over Christmas 2001, Chief Justice Gleeson said he was struck by

the gulf that exists between the view of legal institutions and of the Court from within the Universities, and the view from within the practising legal profession. This has often been remarked upon by recent graduates; but it was brought home to me most forcefully by comparing some of the entries in this book. I do not suggest that one point of view is more or less valid than the other. Each side has much to learn from the other. But I wonder if people on either side of the gulf realise how wide and deep it is. It suggests to me the need for some bridge-building.[4]

The High Court of Australia is not alone in experiencing such an apparent gulf—the relationship between the Supreme Court of Canada, the academy and the practising legal profession would make an interesting point of comparison. The book provides space for a range of voices. There are entries on 'Criticisms of the Court', and 'Legal profession, Court's relationship with', but more could usefully have been said about these issues and the Court's relationship with academics in Australia. The question of how appropriately to question and research the work and operation of a top-level court, especially at times when the court is subject to criticism by the executive branch of government, is a vital one.

The writing of the Oxford Companion to the High Court of Australia provides a template for the construction of a network of researchers that may well, in time, be followed in other jurisdictions. As much as it is a publication, the Oxford Companion was also a project. Two hundred and twenty-five authors, from universities, legal practice and the bench, made contributions to it. Within Australia, it has also been a catalyst for on-going work examining the Court's record in the field of public law and proposals for reform at the Gilbert and Tobin Centre for Public Law at the University of New South Wales.[5]


[*] The University of Birmingham, United Kingdom.

[1] Murray Gleeson, ‘The Oxford Companion to the High Court of Australia’ (Speech delivered at the official launch, Canberra, 13 February 2002) <http://www. www.hcourt. gov.au/speeches/cj/cj_oxford.htm> at 12 March 2003.

[2] Kermit L Hall et al (eds), The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States (1992).

[3] Gleeson, above n 1.

[4] Gleeson, above n 1.

[5] Gilbert and Tobin Centre of Public Law, see www.gtcentre.unsw.edu.au/the-high-court.html> at 12 March 2003.

Download

No downloadable files available