High Court of Australia – The biggest poker game in town

Former High Court of Australia judge Michael McHugh (1989-2005) said in 2009 of the then High Court judge William Gummow (1995-2012) “Gummow is a great judicial politician,” and “He always had three votes.” This is a statement straight from the horse’s mouth so to speak and takes one into the heart of the highest court in the land. (Click here to read more)

It would have to be one of the biggest statements that any judicial officer has ever made and it cannot go undocumented on this site. How can we trust the High Court to hand down true and just judgements when there was until last year and possibly still is a voting block by some of the judges.

Seven judges sit on the High Court of Australia and the public would like to believe that they think and act independently of each other and make their decisions based on their own interpretation of the law. From what Michael McHugh says they clearly do not.

There has always been strong argument in the US that the judges that sit on their highest court, the Supreme Court of the United States, hand down judgements based on which political party appointed them in matters before the court that have a political influence. The same is sometimes said here in relation to the High Court. But that is not an argument we need to have at this point because if the statement of Michael McHugh is true and correct then there was a voting block in the High Court of Australia which may still exist.

Whether that voting block was or is along political lines is an issue but the biggest issue is that there was a voting block at all which has to leave the average person very disturbed. How many cases were prejudged before they ever reached hearing at the High Court of Australia?

Michael McHugh’s statement is consistent with what the recently retired High Court judge Dyson Heydon (2003-2013) has been quoted as saying:

“Retired High Court judge Dyson Heydon has fired a parting salvo at his fellow judges in an essay that categorises them as overbearing personalities and weaker spirits, with a herd mentality that poses a threat to judicial independence.”

“In a thinly veiled critique of the dynamic on the High Court, the most solitary figure on the bench in recent years attacked the tendency of some judges to dominate others, in an essay subtitled ”The enemy within”, published  in the Law Quarterly Review.”

And: ”In pre-hearing judicial conferences, the activities of dominant judicial  personalities carry the danger of creating the appearance and the reality of  prejudgment – a closure by members of the court of their minds too early, before word of oral argument has been uttered,” Mr Heydon wrote (Click here to read more)

It is regularly said that the politicians make the laws and the courts only interpret the laws. Well that is not true. How the courts interpret the legislation that the politicians pass through parliament is itself making the laws. At times you will hear politicians critical of the courts, including the High Court, on how they have interpreted the legislation. Courts make laws everyday. It is what is known as common law which are the precedents that the courts set.

The High Court of Australia, being the highest court in the land, is the final place for determining what the common laws will be, which lower courts are meant to follow. The decisions can have a huge influence not only on the country but also individual cases in the lower courts. To have a situation where there is a voting block on the High Court can have a major negative influence on the country and individuals.

Special Leave to Appeal

To appeal to the High Court of Australia you need to be granted what is called Special Leave to Appeal. It is worth looking at this especially when considering the voting block that was alleged in the High Court by Justice McHugh. It says on Wikipedia:

“The High Court’s appellate jurisdiction is defined under Section 73 of the Constitution. The High Court can hear appeals from the Supreme Courts of the States, from any federal court or court exercising federal jurisdiction (such as the Federal Court of Australia), and from decisions made by one or more Justices exercising the original jurisdiction of the court.”

“However, section 73 allows the appellate jurisdiction to be limited “with such exceptions and subject to such regulations as the Parliament prescribes”. Parliament has prescribed a large limitation in section 35A of the Judiciary Act 1903. This requires “special leave” to appeal. Special leave is granted only where a question of law is raised that is of public importance; or involves a conflict between courts; or “is in the interests of the administration of justice”. Therefore, while the High Court is the final court of appeal, it cannot be considered to be a general court of appeal. The decision as to whether to grant special leave to appeal is determined by one or more Justices of the High Court (in practice, a panel of two or three judges). That is, the Court exercises the power to decide which appeal cases it will consider.” (Click here to read more)

The key part is that Special Leave to Appeal is determined by two or three judges. Now if William Gummow had three votes he could always count on (his own and two others) as McHugh has said then Gummow had a lot of power to block cases ever being heard by the High Court. And that is what I understand he did, which one particular case I know of shows, but more on that in the future as I do not want to take the focus off the voting block that McHugh alleges, which is something I believe requires further investigation by the federal parliament.

I was critical of Michael McHugh’s appointment as a High Court judge in the second post that I published on this site, given his wife was a federal Labor politician at the time of his appointment. (Click here to read the postBut he should be applauded for having the courage to say what he did about William Gummow and his voting block. McHugh would not have won many friends in the judicial fraternity for saying that but he has given the public an insiders viewpoint on how the High Court of Australia really operates.

This is not the longest post on this site but I believe one of the most important. It is not everyday that you get insiders telling it like it is, especially former judges of the High Court of Australia.

This site is fully funded by myself, both time wise and monetary wise. If you would like to support the continuance and growth of this site it would be greatly appreciated if you make a donation, buy a t-shirt, coffee mug  or a copy of my book. The links are below.

Make sure you follow this site by email which is on the top right of this page and about once a week you will get an email when there is a new post/story on this site.

If you would like to buy a t-shirt or coffee mug visit my online shop (Click here to visit the shop)

If you would like to buy a copy of my non-fiction book on corruption in the Australian judiciary that names names visit my website for the book which has links to the online bookshops. (Click her to visit the website)

Thank you for your support.

Tags: , , ,

5 Comments on “High Court of Australia – The biggest poker game in town”

  1. Tom May 12, 2013 at 2:21 pm #

    There never was independence in the Australian legal system.

    What about the allegations of Malcolm Turnbull, when practicing, calling the President of the FCA to try to influence panel selection – or the known reports of union bosses conferring on cases with the senior ‘judicial officers’ of Fair Work Australia.

    No independence.

    There was only ever power.

  2. fidopuss May 12, 2013 at 2:27 pm #

    Having attended the same school at the time Michael McHugh was a student, I can tell you he was always single-minded when it came to truth and justice, even when he was in Primary School! He will not have changed in that respect!

  3. bobrafto May 12, 2013 at 2:34 pm #

    In 2011 I went to the Planning and Environment Court to appeal a decision by Brisbane City Council CEO Jude Munro since resigned to deny compensation for an erroneous planning and development certificate, her written decision was that there was no errors in the planning and development certificate issued by Council. Two of the four errors were just blatant written extortion demands. In the case management conference with Council solicitors and the chair was Registrar John Taylor. Mr Taylor became the mouthpiece of Council where he proceeded to belittle, bully me and then to threaten me to withdraw my appeal. In the court appeal transcript, Judge Chesterman said that Mr Taylor might have overstepped the mark, and so now Chesterman has legalised standover merchants. Judge Griffin in the P&E court transcript said of the errors, “Council had no right to impose such a condition …. Council had no jurisdiction to impose such a condition”, Judge Griffin resorted to covering up these crimes with spin to defend the blatant extortion conditions and then went onto dismissing my appeal by declaring that “I didn’t have a planning and development certificate” to award compensation with blatant disregard to CEO Jude Munro saying that Council issued a certificate. In the Court of Appeal transcript where Judge Griffin acceded to the errors Judge Chesterman said there no errors, one of extortion conditions Judge Chesterman said it wasn’t unlawful, because I didn’t have to go a private residence and give them $30,000 worth of retaining walls all I had to do was give them an engineering plan for the walls for $3,000. He also upheld that I didn’t have a planning and development certificate. Justice Gummow in the High Court letter dismissing my Leave to Appeal said that although the Court of Appeal said I had a planning and development certificate there was no errors.
    There is no doubt whatsoever that Judge Griffin of the P&E court, Judge Chesterman, Muir and Lyons of the Court of Appeal and Justice Gummow have conspired to cover up breaches of QLD criminal code by Brisbane City Council planners and they also conspired to pervert the course of justice

  4. mareeS May 13, 2013 at 10:15 am #

    I would have liked to think that High Court judges would choose to leave aside personal beliefs, idealogies and agendas in favour of what’s right and fair for the nation and it’s citizens.

    I would have liked that of politics as well, but as politicians appoint High Court judges, what can you expect?

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Australian trade unions. The Royal Commission we had to have | Kangaroo Court of Australia - February 16, 2014

    […] I referenced Dyson Heydon in a post I published May last year titled “High Court of Australia – The biggest poker game in town” (Click here to read the post) […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s