It is right and proper that High Court judges be recognised for their contribution to public life. Ordinarily they receive an "AC", a good pension, a constant stream of invitations to speak at/attend dinners, and in McHugh J's case, the adulation of the NSW Bar. As the people ultimately charged with the responsibility of maintaining the rule of law in Australia, they should have our respect.

However we should avoid adopting a 'cult of personality' approach when it comes to describing the work of judges. George Williams' piece seems to have adopted that approach.

First, there was no 'Mason Court'. The phrase should be avoided, or only used for convenience to represent a period of time, and then with suitable qualifications attached.

Second, it may be accepted that Justice McHugh made a significant contribution to the development of constitutional free speech in Australia. But while His Honour's contribution can be praised neither should its significance be over-stated. George Williams does not know which of the seven High Court judges wrote Lange v ABC (the major case in this area) and will never know. Williams wasn't working for McHugh J at the time (he worked for His Honour at an earlier time). There is a possibility that Williams could be wrong (even quite wrong).

Third, and this is a related point, to infer that McHugh J led developments in this area under-states the very real contribution of other judges of the bench at that time. There were three dissentients in the 1994 free speech cases, not just one. And Gummow J's arrival had an immediate impact on this area of constitutional thinking when His Honour arrived in the High Court (Gummow J's judgment in McGinty v Commonwealth was particularly important).

I for one look forward to further extra-curial contributions by McHugh QC now that he has retired from a lengthy and distinguished period of service on that Court.

I hope that he shows some of the passion for justice that he did in his dissenting judgment in Nicholas v The Queen and his majority judgment in Kable v DPP (NSW).

skeptik,

I hasten to add that Justice McHugh's post-curial writings could include some embellishment of his dissent in Re Pacific Coal; Ex parte CFMEU (dissent).

However Justice McHugh has provided some extremely fine judgments, and personally think that he is to be commended for his refusal to be drawn into the currently fashionable, judicial method whereby perceptions of political and social necessity have been used to alter the meaning of the Constitution (see eg CFMEU Case per Gleeson CJ).

The current fashionable aversion to referring to such things as "the Howard Government" doesn't make the term any less meaningful. Individuals can and do have enourmous influence in organisations. Aversion to acknowledging this is both unfortunate and misdirected.

Upon reflecting on Professor Williams' article, I am reminded of how rarely our High Court, let alone the Justices, are discussed in public. Unlike the United States Supreme Court, ours has very little media exposure. While this does advantage the political independance of the Court, I suspect it also disadvantages the understanding of the general public.

We receive more coverage of the nominees to the US Supreme Court than we do regarding an appointment to our own. A curious statement regarding our cultural (and political) leadership.