 |
Chapter 20 - Relations with the judiciary
Compellability of judges as witnesses
A significant question, going beyond procedural requirements, is
whether it is proper, or within the power, of the Houses to compel a judge to
give evidence, either in the course of an inquiry or in the course of a hearing
of evidence.
As to the question of power, it may be asked whether the Houses possess
any power to require a judge to give evidence in any circumstances.
Among the undoubted powers of the Australian Houses is the power to
order the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents. Witnesses
may be summoned, or may be ordered to be taken into custody and brought before
either House for the purpose of examination. (See Chapter 2, Parliamentary
Privilege.) This power applies to all persons within the jurisdiction. The only
definite exception to this is that if a House wishes to secure the attendance
of a member of the other House, it requests that House to order the attendance
of that member. This restriction follows from the power of each House to order
the attendance of its own members: the only way in which the attendance of a
member may be enforced is by the agreement of the member’s House. (See also
Chapter 2, Parliamentary Privilege, under Power to conduct inquiries.) It is
also well established that the power to summon witnesses may be delegated by
the Houses to their committees. The refusal by witnesses to answer the
summonses of committees or to cooperate with committees in their inquiries is
another well established category of contempt, for which the Houses may commit
the persons concerned. Committees, of course, have no power to punish or coerce
recalcitrant witnesses.
There are no precedents of the Australian Houses or their committees
summoning judges to appear before them. There are several precedents, however,
which indicate that the power of the House of Commons, which is conferred upon
the Australian Houses by section 49 of the
Constitution, extends to judges. Judges have been summoned by the House of
Commons, both before and after the enactment of the Act of Settlement of 1701,
which allowed judges to be removed upon an address by both Houses, and judges
have appeared before the House in answer to its summonses. That these
precedents are old no doubt reflects the fact that there have been relatively
few inquiries into the conduct of judges since the enactment of the Act of
Settlement, and no inquiries in contemporary times, due to the great integrity
of the judiciary. The House of Commons has not only summoned judges but has
committed judges of superior courts.
An argument may be developed that the constitutional situation in Australia is different from
that in the United Kingdom, and that this constitutional situation imposes an
implied limitation on the use in relation to judges of the powers of the
Houses. It might be urged
that because of the constitutional separation of the legislative and judicial
powers in Australia, the Australian Houses do not or should not have the
power to summon a judge.
This argument might gain plausibility from the fact that the British
Parliament long regarded itself as a court, and the House of Lords exercised a
judicial function. It is to be noted, however, that the British precedents
referred to relate to inquiries apparently unconnected with this conception of
Parliament as a court, and the post‑1701 precedents may be safely
accepted as arising under the power contained in the Act of Settlement. The
precedents were also not dependent upon the power of impeachment, a power which
the Australian Houses do not possess.
Even if the separation of powers argument had general validity, it
probably could have no application to inquiries into the conduct of judges and
hearings of evidence for the purposes of determining whether action is
warranted under section 72. Such inquiries and hearings may be effective only
if the Houses have the power to compel witnesses, including judges. If this
were not so, a judge could prevent a proper inquiry and hearing preceding an
address by refusing to appear. Even if the accused judge is not to be a
compellable witness, a matter which will be further mentioned below, other
judges may be essential witnesses, especially in the case of alleged
misbehaviour on the bench.
Previous page | Contents | Next page
Website feedback: web.senate@aph.gov.au
Last reviewed 2 February 2010 by the Senate Web Administrator
© Commonwealth of Australia
Parliament of Australia Web Site Privacy Statement
Images courtesy of AUSPIC
|
 |
