High Court judges should not air disagreements in public

June 7, 2026 — 2:30pm

You have reached your maximum number of saved items.

Remove items from your saved list to add more.

There are good reasons why judges avoid public controversy. The judicial role is to be the arbiters of disputes, not the protagonists. The arena is the place for politicians and those who prosecute the causes which, ultimately, judges may have to adjudicate.

For judges, like umpires, impartiality is a paramount virtue. So they generally let their judgments speak for themselves. Those who do speak extra-judicially wisely confine themselves to dry addresses to law conferences and learned societies, or authorship of legal treatises.

A speech last month to the North Queensland Law Association by the High Court’s Justice Robert Beech-Jones appeared to risk crossing that boundary.

The unlikely subject was a surprise attack upon the Sir Samuel Griffith Society. Founded in 1992 by a former chief justice, Sir Harry Gibbs, this little-remarked body perpetuates the legacy of Australia’s first chief justice. Its focus is the Constitution; its principal activity is an annual conference which hosts speeches by senior judges and constitutional lawyers.

Over the years, these have included no fewer than 12 current or former High Court judges, including five of the last seven chief justices; chief justices of the Federal Court and state Supreme Courts; many other senior judges and leading silks, a former governor-general and four state governors.

Many illustrious law professors have also given addresses, including Michael Coper, George Williams, Anne Twomey and Cheryl Saunders.

Griffith’s career spanned both the highest political and judicial offices. He........

© WA Today