Chapter 20 - Relations with the judiciary
Interested senators
During the various debates leading up to the establishment of the first
and second Senate committees, senators expressed views, favourable and
unfavourable, about Mr Justice Murphy’s conduct. The question arises whether, in subsequent
proceedings for an address, those senators should have disqualified themselves
from participating or voting. This question was raised by counsel for Mr Justice Murphy before the second
Senate committee, when an unsuccessful attempt was made to have those members
of the committee who had also served on the first committee disqualify
themselves.
The possibility of members of the legislature having formed views on
matters which may subsequently come before them in proceedings under section 72
would appear to be inherent in the use of the legislature as the tribunal of
removal. If all of those who had expressed views favourable or unfavourable of Mr Justice Murphy had subsequently
been unable to take part in proceedings for an address, the principal members
of all parties in both Houses would have had to absent themselves. This would
have been highly anomalous, because they would have left behind all those
members and senators who had listened to the debates and could have been unduly
influenced thereby even if they did not express any views.
Any action under section 72, such as the establishment of an inquiry or
a decision to hear evidence, must start with a motion in either House, and such
a motion must be open to debate. It is difficult to see how any debate about
whether such action is warranted could take place without all members present
running the risk of disqualifying themselves, if members were to be regarded as
being subject to the same rules as jurors.
There is also the problem of members and senators being acquainted with
the judge under inquiry. Disregarding the fact that Mr Justice Murphy was a former
senator and minister and well known to many senators, there is still the
problem that federal judges tend to be known to federal legislators, before or
after assuming the bench.
The same questions arise in relation to impeachments in the United States, and senators
known and even related to the accused have sat in impeachment trials.
It would appear that, so long as the Houses have the responsibility for
removing judges, reliance must be placed on the members being enjoined to act
properly and make findings in accordance with the evidence before them. Under
the United
States
constitution (article I, section 3) the senators make an oath or
affirmation before sitting as a court of impeachment, and perhaps this could be
introduced as a procedural matter for the Australian Houses.
This raises the question of whether some other method of removing
federal judges should be adopted.
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
|
