Labour gets government and they appoint judges "friendly" to labour ideals. liberal gets power and they appoint judges "friendly" to their agenda. Fair and impartial judges - oh yes! and pigs will fly. numbat

James,

Might I suggest that, despite being a professor of law (or maybe because you are a professor and not a practitioner), you might take note of what the profession thought of the High Court during the 1980's and early 1990's?

The High Court during that period was stacked with activist, left leaning, political judges, who saw their main goal as being to make sure their version of "justic" was done. To put it another way, they treated themselves as an unelected oligarchy, and the profession as a whole, who believe in the rule of law, democracy and the constitution all sorrowed at our highest court.

Maybe they should have actually read Boilermakers and other such cases and been introduced to the separation of powers, however the records of Kirby, Gaudron, Brennan, Mason and others would hardly have changed. Their overwhelming disregard to the function of the court in "not following social trends and yet not leading them" would hardly have been mellowed by reason.

James, your rose coloured view of this period is probably more dictated by your politics and I object your calling yourself a professor of law, when the period you choose to celebrate and the people you choose to commend showed such disregard for its basic tenants.

I think I have to agree with the previous post of Betta, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Mr McConvill states the obvious, that since '96 all High Court Judges have been appointed by Prime Minister Howard, yet does so in a way which indicates that there is something odd about it, that he has uncovered a ruse. Who does he expect is going to make the selection.
Mr McConvill claims that High Court Justice Michael Kirby is the brightest mind ever to grace the High Court. But a bright mind alone does not make for great judgements, one needs a sense of what is what is right, what is just and an understanding of what is really important in the eyes of Australians as there is a plethora of conflicting case law that any justice can draw on to substantiate a judgement of their liking.
In October 2004 in a speech to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission Centenary Convention Justice Kirby stated "For the rest of us, who live in the real world..." Now this is most disturbing, that a 60 something gay man with no children who has always been employed in a job that pays many times over the average wage and who is chauffeured about town thinks HE is in the real world. GIVE ME A BREAK.

Ater this article appeared in The Australian, they also printed my response: > James McConvill confirms that beauty is very much in the eye of the beholder in his comment that "A duo of Michael Kirby and Gareth Evans at the apex of judicial power in this country would be a beautiful thing." <

Evans is an ex-partisan politician. Kirby is a left-wing political activist masquerading as a judge. McConvill's article tells us more about his political bias than about the best candidate for the High Court.

Perhaps the latest action by the high court may shed light on why its reputation as the guardian of the constitution and the guardian against abuse of the common people of Australia is diminishing.

Fingleton matter before high court, background being Fingleton while acting as the chief magistrate of Queensland did acts which were determined to be guilty of criminal acts by a common jury hearing the case in the Supreme Court. A verdict of the common jury cannot be overturned by anyone unless new 'matter of fact' not heard in the trial was produced.

Fingleton appealed to the high court and 6 justices of the high court quashed the verdict, legal meaning is that they brought the matter back to the point before the jury hearing, so the conviction removed from record, shortly after fingleton wanted her job as the chief magistrate back.

Grounds is section 30 of the Crimes act of Queensland which states that anyone acting as magistrate is immune from prosecution. Problem is implicit with statement is acting 'as proper in the role as magistrate' otherwise no action can be taken against these individuals committing criminal acts while in office, and in this case if fingleton given her job back will mean a convicted criminal can now judge over a criminal act of us common people. Justice system as whole has failed, the 6 learned high court judges whom should have know the implication still proceeded to quash the criminal conviction.

Reputation wise our High Court is at the lowest locally and internationally, to my understanding. Yes, higher influence whether political or otherwise appear strong enough to sway law and justice into lawlessness and injustice.

We are facing dark days ahead.

Sam