I have written to the Justice Kirby at the High Court asking whether I can obtain a transcript of his speech.

CJ Morgan you are wrong in your understanding of contempt of court. There is no statutory definition. One ground for a contempt of court citation is that it will "impair public confidence in judicial proceedings."

This can and has been interpreted widely and judges have used it to muzzle critics.

See:

http://www.presscouncil.org.au/pcsite/fop/auspres.html

Quote:

Such acts as scandalising a court, revealing jurors' deliberations, revealing what has taken place in court, revealing information concealed from those present at court proceedings and alleging without grounds that a judge is biased in favour of or against a particular litigant fall within this category. AT ISSUE IS WHETHER THE MATERIAL IS SUCH THAT IT TENDS TO IMPAIR PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS. (Emphasis added)

How this is sometimes applied in practice is shown here:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2003/05/02/845241.htm

Judges have, in effect, said, "If you impair public confidence in me it will impair public confidence in the administration of justice so I am going to shut you up."

It is not clear to me why judges deserve this extra layer of protection. I could equally say denigrating John Howard will impair public confidence in the governance of the country.

Michael Kirby is not an intellectual giant. He also allows his personal beliefs to get in the way of the law. Read some of his judgments and the reasoning he uses to get his personal beliefs across is tortuous. It does not make for good law. He is often the dissenting judge or, where there is more than one dissenting judge, the other judge will have a reasoned argument backed by good legal research.
Compared with judges like Dixon, Mason and Stephen he does not appear to have much to offer. Perhaps his associate needs to do better when doing the hack work.

Stevenlmyer says for the second time ..."If you don't believe me , you don't.There's nothing I can do about it ".There is Steven.
You can be a fair bit more persuasive and convincing in your arguments about Justice Kirby.

For mine ,I have appreciated the "counterpoints " in his judgements as a measure of his understanding of the human condition and his abilities to see another plane in the application of the Law .
One only has to look at the Indecent, Racially Discrimatory and Abusive application of Federal Government Power in the Northern Territory Aboriginal Intervention Act to see why we need more Independence in the High Court [and a change of Government for Australia ].

Ms Fiona Hamilton of the High Court Has written to say that Justice Kirby spoke "off the cuff" and no transcript is available.

So, for the third time, kartiya jim, if you don't believe me there's nothing I can do about it.

I'm all in favour of an independently minded judiciary kartiya jim. But that's no substitute for a GENUINE BILL OF RIGHTS. An activist judiciary can just as easily dial back civil liberties as advance them.

I stand by my original point. Standing on the dignity of your office is the last refuge of the intellectual weakling. We would treat a PM who tried that stunt with DERISION and we should do the same with judges.

I also fail to see why judges should have such sweeping powers to cite people for contempt. Some do use it to immunise themselves from criticism. The mere fact that judges have such sweeping powers is likely to cause journalists to practise self-censorship.

BTW kartiya jim, judging by the number of times Kirby is a dissenter, his colleagues seem to find him as unpersuasive as you find me.

stevenlmeyer,

Thank you for the links in your fifth post. They help explain your position, although it did take some time to digest the totality of the Australian Press Council link. I sense that you may be posting from the perspective of a lawyer or para-legal professional, perhaps with some connection with the press or journalism. For my part, my observations have only arisen from experience gained, amongst other things, as a prospective defendant in a contempt matter, so perhaps lack the legal polish that may attach to some of the points you are attempting to make.

It seems to me that you seek, on behalf of the press, or journalists, a freedom to resort to the personal criticism of judges in circumstances where criticism of their judgements may be difficult to sustain. The Press Council link in its totality is a veritable manifesto for the overthrow of the existing Constitution, and its possible redefinition along lines as proposed in the (failed) Commonwealth Powers referendum of 1944. Consequently it is not difficult to see why you wish to see judges on an even footing with, for example, journalists and editors. Judges, at the peak of the profession of law, constitute the High Court. The High Court is charged with the interpretation of the Constitution, and thus stands in the way of the press supplanting the judiciary as the arbiters of the limits of power.

Acquire the right to criticise judges at will and you acquire the ability to pull down the High Court.

Your own fifth post contains the key to much of what I think to be an unfounded concern as to the likelihood of citation for contempt as a means of muzzling a free press. You use the words "without grounds", and that is the nub of the matter.

I note that the second link you gave, to an ABC News story from Friday 2 May 2003, indicates that the judge in question was going to make a decision with respect as to whether he would cite certain persons for contempt. Did he in fact do so?

So I guess we'll have to take Steven's word for it. One wonders why, with dozens of Justice Kirby's speeches available in full text on the Internet, Steven chose to base this thread on one which is unverifiable. Surely, if Justice Kirby has been such an "intellectual weakling" in his time on the High Court bench, this would be evident in his other speeches?

I don't suppose the fact that Justice Kirby is openly gay, and has been targetted for personal criticism by the lunar right for this, has anything to do with it?