Ceremonial Sitting of the Full Court
To Farewell the Honourable Justice Lander
Transcript of Proceedings
RTF versionTHE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MARSHALL
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MANSFIELD
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DOWSETT
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE JACOBSON
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE BESANKO
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE GILMOUR
ADELAIDE
9.29 AM, THURSDAY, 29 AUGUST 2013
MARSHALL J: I invite Justice Mansfield to make some remarks on behalf of the court.
MANSFIELD J: Colleagues, ladies and gentlemen. This special sitting has been convened to farewell Justice Lander and to celebrate his contribution to the Federal Court of Australia. We are honoured today to be joined by many distinguished guests. I would particularly like to welcome your Excellency Rear Admiral Scarce, the Governor of South Australia, the Honourable Justice Gageler of the High Court of Australia, the Honourable Chief Justice Kourakis, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of South Australia, and judges of the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Circuit Court, the Honourable John Rowe, Deputy Premier and Attorney-General for South Australia, the Honourable Vickie Chapman, deputy leader of the opposition in South Australia, and judges of the Supreme Court, District Court and Industrial Relations Court of South Australia.
We are also particular delighted to have sitting with us today the Honourable Michael Black AO QC, our former Chief Justice of this court, the Honourable Bob Fisher AO QC, John von Doussa AO QC, Cathy Branson QC and Paul Finn, all of whom, as you know, are former judges of our court. Justice Lander, I am making some remarks about your career and your contribution to the work of this court on behalf of Chief Justice Allsop and all the members of the court. Chief Justice Allsop is very sorry that he cannot be here today to mark this occasion in person, but as you are aware he is presently unable to travel due to illness. My remarks are made with his input and his concurrence. You were admitted as a barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court of South Australia in 1969. You completed your articles with Baker McEwin & Co, now Minter Ellison, and stayed with that firm until 1980 when you joined the independent bar and became one of the founding members of Jeffcott Chambers.
It was a sign of your precocious talent that you became a partner of Baker McEwin & Co in 1971, only two years after admission. After going to the bar, only four years later, you were appointed Queen's Counsel and eight years after that you became a judge of the Supreme Court of South Australia. You were then appointed to this court in 2003. Your skills as a judge had been very much in demand. You had also been appointed as an additional judge of the Supreme Court of the ACT, a judge of the Supreme Court of Norfolk Island, an auxiliary judge of the Supreme Court of South Australia and a deputy president of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. You have also been a part-time member of the Australia Law Reform Commission in 2010 and '11 and worked closely with the Flinders Law School in recognition of which you received an honorary degree in April this year. At your swearing in ceremony in July 2003 you said:
There has never previously been a sitting of the Full Court of the Federal Court when a judge who has previously served on a state court has presented his or her commission to this court. I can only assume that until today it has not been considered appropriate to reward deserters.
Well, here we are again rewarding a deserter in the Full Court. However, as we purloined you from the Supreme Court in the first place it seems fair, although regrettable, that the State of South Australia is stealing you back. You leave the court to take up your new role as South Australia's first Independent Commissioner Against Corruption. Overseeing the establishment of this commission and steering it through its early years will be challenging but we know you are more than up to the task. We wish you all the best in the next exciting phase of your career. Before others make some remarks about your stellar career, I would like to comment a little about your outstanding contribution to this court. Your contribution to the jurisprudence of the court has been amazing. During your time with us you have shouldered your fair share of mega litigation, changed the course of rivers and presided over Native Title cases that ultimately saw peoples, such as the ..... and Jindalee finally having their right to enjoy their ancestral home recognised.
To assess your contribution I did a search on our intranet of the papers delivered by sitting judges of our court. Your name did not appear at all. How efficient of our IT team, I though, to remove you from the list even a few days before your commission expires. So I went to the papers delivered by former judges. Alas, your name does not appear there either. There is an explanation. It's your unbecoming modesty which has disposed you not to publish the text of your many lectures given over the last 10 years. If there were ever a doubt about it your industry is proven by your prolific judicial input; 554 judgments, a massive opus, and it includes such judgments as that in the Channel 7 Network, the C7 appeal (Seven Network Ltd v News Limited [2009] FCAFC 166). Your joint judgment with Justice Dowsett referred to the case as meta litigation with pleadings of over 1000 pages, transcripts of over 9000 pages, 13,000 documents, over 110,000 pages, and closing written submissions of the parties at trial nearly 5000 pages. Your 315 page judgment on the appeal stands as a testament to your hard work and dedication.
Your industry was accompanied in equal measure by your firm adherence to principle. There are many judgments that demonstrate that and I have chosen only two recent ones; one in the Minister of Immigration v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33 where you strongly reaffirmed the Federal Court's role in monitoring executive action. The Minister was ordered not to remove an applicant for a protection visa from the country while the application was being considered. The final example is one of your more recent decisions in ACCC v Prysmian Energia (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi Energia SRL (No 5) [2013] FCA 294). You imposed a hefty penalty – $1.35 million – on a Japanese cable supplier for participating in an unlawful cartel, reinforcing the importance of the Federal Court to the commercial life of this country. Your contribution extends well beyond your judgments. You have also worked tirelessly on many of our committees. You were the convenor of the Rules Committee, the Remuneration Committee – of which we are very grateful – and the Rules Revision Committee.
You have also served on the National Practice Committee and the Criminal Procedure Committee. I recall the judges' meeting when you volunteered to reconvene the Rules Revision Committee to develop the proposed new Federal Court Rules. I think it was your first meeting. The project was longstanding and almost dormant and it was perceived as an immensely demanding one. A number of the wise, old judicial heads murmured, "He must be nuts," but you brought your considerable expertise on procedural matters and your energy to bear on that challenging role. It was a mammoth task with vast consultation. You personally consulted with the Law Council and the bar associations and law societies in seven cities, responded to all the comments, gave presentations to 1600-odd lawyers around Australia to produce the new rules, and now we have the Federal Court Rules 2011 which I am sure in time will be called the Lander Rules.
Your skill and dedication is truly admirable. Without your efforts this court would not have had the modern and clear rules that it currently enjoys. Finally, may I say that you are universally respected by the judges of the court for your integrity, industry and intellect. Your guidance and advice has been much sought and willingly given. On behalf of all of the judges we thank you for your profound contribution to this court and wish you well in your work as commissioner, and we wish you and your wife, Liz, a very happy future. Thank you.
MARSHALL J: Thank you, Justice Mansfield. Ms Glanville.
MS L. GLANVILLE: May it please the court. First, may I acknowledge the Kaurna people, the traditional owners of the land on which we meet and pay my respects to their elders, both past and present. Distinguished guests, Governor of South Australia, his Excellency Rear Admiral Scarce, Deputy Premier and Attorney-General of South Australia the Honourable John Rau, the Honourable Justice Stephen Gageler of the High Court of Australia, Chief Justice Kourakis of the Supreme Court of South Australia, former Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Australia, the Honourable Michael Black AC QC, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of South Australia, the Honourable John Doyle AC QC, and other distinguished guests. Ministerial commitments prevent the Attorney-General the Honourable Mark Dreyfus MP QC from attending this special ceremonial sitting.
It is, indeed, an honour and a privilege for me to be here today as a representative of the Australian Government to acknowledge the service the Honourable Justice Bruce Lander has made to the Federal Court of Australia. In attendance today are a large number of current and former members of the judiciary from both the South Australian and the Federal Courts and other distinguished guests. This only demonstrates the esteem in which your Honour is held by the profession and by the wider community. May I also acknowledge the presence today of your Honour's wife, Elizabeth; your daughters, Sarah, Amy and Kate; your son, Thomas; their partners; and your four grandsons who are here today. Today's ceremony celebrates the more than 19 years that your Honour has served as part of the judiciary.
Your judicial career commenced in 1994, as we previously heard, when your Honour was appointed as a judge of the Supreme Court of South Australia. You remained a judge of that court until your Honour's appointment to the Federal Court on 14 July 2003. I understand your Honour has advised law students wishing to follow in your footsteps that a young person who wants to practise law ought to firstly respect the law. You can't respect the law unless you respect the courts. Your long career both at the Bar and at the Bench had exemplified that respect for, and commitment to, the law. I am informed that you like nothing better than a complex legal problem and indeed prefer the more difficult appeals. For example, undeterred by the reputation of the C7 mega-litigation, or perhaps enthused by the challenge, you were assigned to the Full Court bench for the appeal in that matter.
In 2008 you heard the matter of McNeill v the Queen on appeal from the Supreme Court of Norfolk Island. This murder case raised interesting issues of evidence and was heavily publicised in the media. Your keen legal insight means that you were unafraid to think laterally, to push the boundaries in interpreting the law. In some cases your dissenting judgments on the Full Court have been upheld by the High Court, notably in Barclay v Bendigo Regional Institute of TAFE and in AON v Australian National University. You were recognised as a leading judge in the area of procedural law, as has been mentioned. One of your legacies to the court will undoubtedly be your work on redrawing the rules of court embodied by the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Your leadership reinvigorated this longstanding project and saw it come to fruition. The new and revised rules have been a major achievement in modernising the courts' procedures. Not satisfied to serve in one role at a time, you have also taken on a range of additional appointments and these have already been mentioned so I will not read the long list again. But in particular I would like to mention that in addition to your busy judicial workload your Honour has been Patron of the Flinders Law Students Association for a significant number of years. In April this year you were awarded an honorary degree by that university. Your Honour is leaving the court today to take up the important role of South Australia's first independent Commissioner Against Corruption.
I know that this will be a very challenging but rewarding role and I understand you are always excited by a new challenge. Your Honour's enthusiasm may well be the reason why you are starting your new role on Monday. I trust that this will be just the next step in a long and distinguished career for you. Your Honour's commitment to the law has earned wide respect from the legal profession and the public alike. It is with great pleasure that I pass on the appreciation of both the Government and the Australian people for your dedicated service on the bench of the Federal Court of Australia. I extend my sincere best wishes to you in all of your future endeavours. May it please the court.
MARSHALL J: Thank you, Ms Glanville. Mr O'Sullivan.
MR P. O'SULLIVAN QC: May it please the court. I acknowledge the presence of Your Excellency, Rear Admiral Kevin Scarce, Governor of South Australia, and other distinguished guests. I am privileged this morning to represent the South Australian Bar Association and the Australian Bar Association on this occasion and on behalf of all the Australian Bars to join with Ms Glanville and Mr White in farewelling your Honour after 19 years as a Justice and over 10 years as a Justice of this honourable court. As Justice Mansfield and Ms Glanville have observed, and as Mr White will attest, your Honour has had an outstanding career in the law since your admission in 1969: your time at Baker McEwin & Co, now Minter Ellison, where you quickly became a partner, until 1982 when you joined the independent bar at Jeffcott Chambers; your appointment as Queens Counsel; your appointment to the Supreme Court of South Australia in 1994; and then to this court on 14 July 2003.
At the special sitting held in the Supreme Court of South Australia to mark the presentation of your commission as a justice of that court, the honourable Trevor Griffin, the then Attorney-General for the State of South Australia observed this:
The ability and quality of any appointee are of paramount consideration. An excellent command of the law coupled with the necessary integrity, compassion and sensitivity, capacity to weigh evidence and arguments and to make decisions. In other words, good judging skills.
At the ceremonial sitting held for the swearing in and welcoming of your Honour to this court, your Honour observed:
I have made it my practice both at Bar and on the bench to ensure that I was prepared before I went into court.
There is little doubt that in your time at the bench you have indeed demonstrated all of those abilities and qualities to the highest degree, although some counsel who appeared before you may wonder about compassion and sensitivity – at least as far as they were concerned. I immediately say, of course, that your Honour quite rightly demanded of those counsel who appeared before you that they observe at least the following basic principles of advocacy: know your brief very well; know what you want; express it clearly and be prepared to justify it; don't take bad points; and for goodness' sake don't try to hide anything. A lesson once learnt in the Lander court was not usually forgotten.
Your Honour has, however, always been scrupulously fair – correcting and apologising for any question, criticism or observation you later discovered had been unfairly put. Your Honour is renowned for having an excellent command of the law and is passionate about the judicial process. We have heard that you have had the great fortune to sit on the Full Court on the C7 appeal, an experience your Honour described as one of the highlights of your judicial career. Your Honour's work in developing the new Federal Court rules introduced on 1 August 2011 represented a significant commitment to the conduct of litigation in this court and in particular to assist with the just resolution of proceedings according to law.
Those words themselves, as reflected in section 37M of the Federal Court of Australia Act highlight in part your Honour's approach to the conduct of litigation that came before you. Your Honour's no-nonsense approach ensured that, as far as was possible, the objectives ultimately identified in section 37M were met. That in turn is a manifestation of your Honour's attention to detail and insistence that things be done properly. That even extends to gardening and your Honour's attention to the lawns around your house. When your wife, Liz, suggested she mow the lawns, you relented – reluctantly, I am told – but purchased a self-propelled mower to assist her.
Alas, the straightness of the mower's lines were not to your liking. No doubt displaying the sensitivity and compassion we have heard about, your Honour explained to Liz that you would mow the lawns as you needed the exercise and then promptly purchased a ride-on mower. The lines, I am told, have never been straighter. One of the regrets your Honour expressed upon your appointment as a justice of the Supreme Court of South Australia was that you would inevitably see less and less of your former colleagues in chambers and other colleagues within the law. Nonetheless, your Honour has been a great supporter of the profession and in particular the independent Bar.
You have always been ready to assist in continuing professional development and I mention a presentation on cross-examination, participation in the Bar's witness statement workshop and your involvement in the Bar's annual conference held last weekend. All three of those events highlight aspects of your career about which you are passionate. In your time at the Bar you were openly acknowledged as the best cross-examiner in South Australia, a trait which, it has to be said, has not been lost upon you in your time on the bench. In particular your grasp of financial documentation is exceptional. Witness statements and the role of expert witnesses are a matter in which you have a great interest.
It concerns you, and it has always concerned you, to ensure that things are done appropriately and with integrity and it is against that background that you now take up your role as the first Commissioner of the Independent Commission Against Corruption in this state. Those whose matters come before you will be ensured of a fair but searching inquiry. We trust that within the constraints of your Honour's position you will not be a stranger to us and that you will continue to join us whenever the opportunity presents. Thank you for your work as a Justice and for the service that you have given to the independent Bar, the legal profession and the community. I know that I speak for members of the Australian Bars when I say that you have put your indelible stamp on the courts in which you have served and we wish you all the best in the next stage of what has been, by any measure, an outstanding career. I entertain no doubt you will enjoy further success. May it please the court.
MARSHALL J: Thank you, Mr O'Sullivan. Mr White.
MR J. WHITE: May it please the court. I, too, acknowledge the presence of Your Excellency, Rear Admiral Kevin Scarce, Governor of South Australia and the other many distinguished guests. In addition to the Law Society, I appear today also on behalf of the Law Council of Australia to express its gratitude to your Honour for your many years of service to the court. I do so on behalf of each constituent body and section of the Law Council and their respective members. The President of the Law Council, Mr Michael Colbran QC, regrets that he is unable to be here today but sends your Honour his personal best wishes in your new challenge. It is customary and entirely true to say that it is a privilege to speak on behalf of the provision on occasions such as this.
Ceremonial sittings emphasise the crucial role which the legal profession, as practitioners and as judicial officers, plays in the maintenance of the rule of law and the division of powers in the most successful and just form of government known to us. These sittings also underscore the professional ethos which unites the profession. We are necessarily adversarial, even at times between bar and bench, but an occasion like this emphasises the common purpose we all serve. Justice Lander, you are to leave the mainstream activities of the litigating profession and to take a new place in executive government. It is a role which is substantively different to the exercise of the judicial power in a common law tradition. In many ways, its investigative nature and powers of compulsion are foreign to that tradition.
Your Honour will go into that role deeply imbued with the best qualities of our legal system: impartiality, fairness, due process, learning and a clear understanding and acceptance of the limitations of the law. You will also bring to the role other qualities mentioned at your two swearings-in. In your own words, your qualifications for judicial office included being a former footballer, snooker player of renown and a reformed smoker. These are valuable attributes.
They equip you with a degree of understanding for the frailties of others but, as Mr O'Sullivan said, particularly in your new position sympathy, perhaps, may be too much to ask. Your Honour attended Unley High School and you were encouraged and supported by your parents to enter the law. We have heard briefly of your career. It was said by former President Dean Clayton QC that from the time of your first days in articles it was clear that you would practice as a barrister. You rapidly developed expertise in damages claims and defamation which soon broadened into a wide commercial practice. You went to the separate bar and became Queen's Counsel. In your time at the bar you appeared in many and – I think it would be fair to say – most significant South Australian commercial cases, including the first instalment of the protracted Duke litigation. As to your cross-examination skills, you were heard to say that the quickest way to the truth was to get a witness into the box, another skill that will doubtless serve you well going forward.
Despite that busy practice and the demands of your family you found time to serve the profession. You were a member of the Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee and you chaired the Disciplinary Board. Both before and after your initial appointment, you were a frequent presenter of papers and seminars including specialisation in the analysis and cross-examination of expert witnesses and your trademark laugh was often heard at functions of the society, for example, at Victor Harbor. On some recent occasions your Honour has said that your appointment to the bench rescued you from a career of losing cases. Normally I would hesitate to challenge what is a quasi-judicial pronouncement but I cannot help observing some inconsistencies. At your appointment in 1994 it was observed that over 23 years you had appeared in 77 reported cases in the state reports covering the field of civil litigation and you can't have lost them all.
In fact, in connection with your appointment you were reported as saying, "I have been very lucky in the law." You also said, "It has been good to me and now I think it is time to give something back." Perhaps the answer to this apparent contradiction lies in your skill in cross-examination. As an example, in the case of Sir Joseph Verco many years ago, a fishing research vessel which turns turtle immediately upon departing the slipway; your Honour was defending the first of several marine architects responsible for the design of this boat, and on the first day you cross-examined the Crown's expert to such effect that at the mid-morning adjournment he was observed to be taking solace in the bible. He was reading the story of Noah, the first marine architect; the Book of Job might have been more apt. The Crown immediately settled the case and, no doubt, but for that fact, you would have won that one. Your judicial career saw no respite from activity.
A 1995 newspaper article described a working day which began at 7.30 am and finished at 6.30 pm and often later. Your role in crafting the present Federal Court Rules has been mentioned. You also had a significant part in the development of the present Supreme Court Rules and in their interpretation and implementation. It was a significant disadvantage to appear before your Honour to try to argue a contrary interpretation to the one that you had already formed. Volume 68 of the state reports includes an example of you interpreting a rule that you had written. It also reports eight other cases on which you sat over a period of about seven months. And as we have heard, that work continued on your sideways promotion to this court. At your appointment to this court you spoke of the enthusiasm that a judge must bring to the bench. You have demonstrated that enthusiasm.
You also have said, as a matter of balance, "It is a good thing for a judge to be humbled," but you were, of course, referring to your interactions with your children, rather than with the profession. And that profession welcomes your appointment as Commissioner. We might infer, from Mr O'Sullivan's remarks, that there is an element of relief that your interrogation skills will be turned on others, but no doubt the profession will continue to be involved in your investigation, although, I hasten to add, as counsel and advisers. Your Honour has in recent times drawn attention to section 53 of the ICAC Act which prohibits impersonation of the Commissioner. Given your enthusiasm that section may need to be revisited in the event that, perhaps, an excess of investigative enthusiasm gives need to rise for a decoy double. But, otherwise, given the breadth and variety of your Honour's characteristics, the risk of a successful impersonation does seem rather slight.
Your Honour, on behalf of the profession the Law Society thanks you for your long and distinguished service to the law in this state and national. We wish you and your family all the best in your challenging new position. The profession has high expectations of your performance in the role of Commissioner and full confidence in your ability to fulfil them. May it please the court.
MARSHALL J: Thank you, Mr White. Justice Lander.
LANDER J: Thank you, Justice Mansfield, for your very generous words. Thank you, in particular, for mentioning my modesty. It may have easily been overlooked. Thank you, Ms Glanville, Mr O'Sullivan and Mr White for your kind words. Both the court and I are honoured by the presence here today of his Excellency the Governor, Rear Admiral Scarce. I know that he rearranged his busy schedule so he could attend today and I am most grateful. I also want to thank Justice Gageler of the High Court who has been good enough to travel from Sydney especially for this sitting. I would like to thank the judges of the Family Court, Chief Justice and judges of the Supreme Court and the judges of the Federal Circuit Court for their presence today. The Deputy Premier and Attorney-General for the state, John Rau, with whom I have been working closely over the last six months and has been good enough to attend.
Also the deputy leader of the opposition, Vickie Chapman, and the former leader of the opposition Isobel Redmond. I also want to thank each of my colleagues on this bench who are not resident judges of this state who travelled here today for this sitting. Justice Marshall from Melbourne, Justice Dowsett from Brisbane, Justice Jacobson from Sydney and Justice Gilmour from Perth. I was somewhat undecided as to whether or not to agree to this sitting today because, like any other retiring judge, I could not be confident about what would be said about me. I think I have got away with it. In the end I agreed because I was keen to hear my obituary while I was still alive. The Federal Court of Australia was established to exercise the judicial power of the Commonwealth in discrete matters. In his second reading speech in the Commonwealth Parliament the then Attorney-General Mr Ellicott said:
The Government believes that only where there are special policy or perhaps historical reasons for doing so, should original federal jurisdiction be vested in the Federal Court.
He then referred to industrial matters – bankruptcy and trade practices, and for judicial review of administrative decisions by Commonwealth officers as being the appropriate jurisdiction for the Federal Court. The jurisdiction that was invested in this court in 1975 was far less than had been envisaged in previous bills which had been put before the Parliament by the previous Whitlam Labor Government which would have removed from state courts the bulk of the federal jurisdiction exercised by those courts. The Liberal Government in which Mr Ellicott was Attorney-General did not support the previous bills because it was thought that would greatly weaken the status of the state courts and the quality of the work dealt with by those courts.
For that reason the Federal Court was created but with quite a limited jurisdiction. However, since its establishment, its jurisdiction has been extended well beyond the jurisdiction envisaged in 1975. It now exercises jurisdiction in respect of more than 150 statutes of the Commonwealth Parliament. The court's jurisdiction is sometimes exclusive, sometimes concurrent with the Federal Circuit Court and sometimes concurrent with the Supreme Courts of the states. Curiously, it now does not have the exclusive jurisdiction for the Trade Practices Act, the reason for its creation. Apart from appeals from decisions of single judges of the court, it also hears appeals from the Federal Circuit Court of Australia in non-family law matters.
The court's jurisdiction now covers almost all civil matters arising under the federal law and some summary and indictable criminal matters. The time will come, I hope, rather sooner than later, when the two federal courts will together exercise all of the judicial power of the Commonwealth, at least in the civil jurisdiction. That will require an exercise of political will on the part of future federal governments. The Federal Court of Australia enjoys a significant reputation, both nationally and internationally – a reputation, in my opinion, which is deserved. It enjoys that reputation because of the leadership at both the judicial and administrative level and the commitment and competence of the judges of the court and the administrators of the court.
During the time that I have been a judge with various courts to which I have been appointed, I have had, in all, 113 judicial colleagues. Somewhat remarkably, in a period of 10 years, I have had 85 judicial colleagues on this court. Because the Full Court of this court is comprised by the judges of the court, I have sat with nearly all of them on the Full Court over that period of time. Not surprisingly, because it is expected of judges, and because judges meet those expectations, I have been impressed by my colleagues' industry and dedication. I have socialised with most of them. A good deal of them have become close personal friends, including the judges sitting here today.
I have had the good fortune to have as my dutiful colleagues resident in this State: Justice von Doussa, the late Justice Selway, Justice Finn, Justice Mansfield and Justice Besanko. All of those judges have made – and Justice Mansfield and Justice Besanko will continue to make – a significant contribution to the reputation of this court. I started at law school with Justice Mansfield in 1964 and our careers have run nearly a parallel path. I was in chambers with Justice Besanko from 1983 and we have worked together for most of the time since. I am grateful for the friendship and assistance that those judges have provided me and I will miss their company.
During the time that I have been a member of this court, there have been three Chief Justices. I am particularly grateful that Michael Black, who was Chief Justice for most of my time as a judge, has travelled from Melbourne especially to be here today. Chief Justice Black had many attributes and qualities but none more valuable than his pastoral concern for the judges of this court. Chief Justice Keane, now Justice Keane of the High Court, was only a Chief Justice for a short time but in that time he made a significant contribution to the court and its reputation. The present Chief Justice, who cannot be here today due to a recent eye operation, was appointed after I had announced my resignation. There was no coincidence in those two events. I am sure he will leave the court with the same distinction as his predecessors.
During the whole of my term as a judge, the ultimate responsibility for the administration of the court has been in the hands of the national Registrar, Warwick Soden. He is an administrator par excellence. He is hard working, practical and strategic, all of which qualities have contributed to the smooth operation of the court. South Australian was often described by Michael Black as the jewel in the Federal Court's crown. He was not only referring to the resident judges of the court when he spoke but also to the administration of the court in this State. The court has been very well led administratively in this State. Registrar Pat Christie has been the District Registrar of this court for more than 12 years and in the whole of my time in this court.
She is a formidable woman, she is an excellent administrator and a first-class lawyer. Unfortunately, I think her talents have been under-recognised. In saying that, I am trying to explain my parting act of disloyalty by inducing her to resign from this court on the same day as myself to become the Chief Executive Officer of the Office for Public Integrity and the Independent Commission Against Corruption. I probably should apologise for my conduct but I am really not sorry so I won't. Although we will continue to work together, I would like to record my gratitude and appreciation for all the help and assistance that she has given me during my time as a judge.
Deputy Registrar Katrina Bochner is also a formidable woman. She also has strong administrative skills and is a highly competent lawyer. She, like Pat Christie, has supported me loyally and energetically throughout the whole of my time. I am most grateful for her support and assistance. When I had the responsibility for the rules revision project which has been mentioned by counsel, and my interest in the project was flagging and waning, Pat and Katrina stepped up and harassed me and bullied me unmercifully – and I suspect unlawfully – to bring the project to a successful end. I have spoken to the registry staff individually, however, I would like to publicly record my appreciation to a staff which is imbued with a can-do culture and which have been wholly supportive of the judges of this court.
I have had 19 associates over the period since I was first appointed a judge, ten of whom were associates whilst a judge of this court. I would like to thank each and every one of them for their assistance, their friendship and their loyalty during the time that they were my associate. An associate is an invaluable aid to a judge. Their contribution to the judge's ability to discharge the judge's duties should not be under-estimated. I have been fortunate for now, nearly 50 years, of having the support of my wife in the whole of my life. She has been a constant and undemanding supporter. I have spoken to her privately on a number of occasions in regard to her support and I do not intend to recount publicly what I have said to her privately.
It is enough to recognise how grateful I am for her being my wife. I am, of course, very grateful also to my family for their support and understanding over their lives. On 14 March 2004, Janet Rice became my Executive Assistant. After another act of disloyalty by me, this time directed to the Supreme Court and a judge of that court, Janet was, until she started with me, the Executive Assistant to a judge of the Supreme Court. When this court advertised for Executive Assistant, I encouraged her to apply. Again I should probably apologise for my behaviour but nearly 10 years have passed and I think the wounds have nearly healed so again I won't. With due apologies to all other executive assistants on the court, I have no doubt that Janet is the best in the court.
She is a very intelligent and competent woman who has the very best work ethic and who believes in loyalty. However, it is her personality that puts her above all the others. She has a very well developed sense of humour, she has what I would call a sunny disposition, she has a very positive outlook. She has been an excellent companion to me on all the travel which we have undertaken over the last nine and a half years. I had hoped that we could continue to work together but, for reasons that I need not explain, and which I completely understand, that has not proved possible. I am very grateful to Janet, indeed I am indebted to her for all she has done for me and my family over the years.
These are the last words I will utter in this court - I am not expecting to be a participant in a court proceeding in the future. It has been a privilege to serve on this court and discharge the responsibilities of a judge in this state. I am leaving the court of my own accord and because I now have the opportunity to serve this state in another capacity. I am looking forward to that task. I thank the rest of you, as I have already acknowledged, for your attendance today which does honour to the court and to me. Thank you all.
MARSHALL J: Thank you, Justice Lander. We will miss you and not the least for your friendship and your industry. The court will now adjourn.
