Chapter 20 - Relations with the judiciary
The first Senate committee
Late in 1983 and early in 1984 two newspapers published what they
claimed were transcripts of tape recordings of telephone conversations which
had been illegally intercepted and recorded by members of the New South Wales
Police Force. The newspapers claimed that the transcripts revealed the
activities of persons associated with organised crime. Most of the parties to
the conversations were not identified by name, but one of them was referred to
as “a senior judge”. Included in the published transcripts were conversations
between the judge and “a Sydney solicitor” who was alleged to be associated with
leaders of organised crime. The judge was subsequently identified as Mr Justice Murphy, a justice of the
High Court, former senator, Leader of the Labor Party in the Senate and
Attorney‑General in the Labor Government of Mr Whitlam.
Demands for an inquiry into the matters revealed in the alleged
transcripts were immediately made by the Opposition. The Labor Government took
the view that no inquiry was necessary, on the basis that the transcripts had
not been authenticated and the conduct of the judge revealed by the transcripts
could not amount to misbehaviour within the restricted meaning expounded by the
Solicitor-General and adhered to by the government (see above). The Opposition
Liberal-National parties and the Australian Democrats, who together held a
majority in the Senate, took the view that an inquiry should be held into the
conduct of the judge. Their preference was for a royal commission or other non‑partisan
quasi‑judicial tribunal to conduct the inquiry, but the government
refused to appoint such a body, and it is very doubtful whether it could
constitutionally do so except by statute. Against the wishes of the government,
the Senate therefore appointed on 28 March 1984 a select
committee, which was called the Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge.
The committee was required to report upon the authenticity of the
alleged transcripts which, together with some tape recordings, had been provided
by one of the newspapers to the Attorney‑General, and upon whether the
conduct of the judge as revealed in the materials constituted misbehaviour
which could amount to sufficient grounds for his removal.
The resolution appointing the committee contained a number of unusual
features. The committee was enjoined to take care to protect the privacy,
rights and reputations of individuals, and to protect from disclosure the
operational methods and investigations of law enforcement agencies (there were
police investigations on foot into the tapes and transcripts). Witnesses before
the committee were to be given notice of the matters proposed to be dealt with
during their appearance and an opportunity to make submission in writing before
appearing, and were entitled to be assisted by counsel.
The committee determined for itself guidelines for proceedings, which
elaborated upon and supplemented the matters contained in the resolution of
appointment. These guidelines contained the following major provisions.
-
The
committee was to meet in private unless it made a determination that it was
necessary to meet in public, and evidence given in private session and material
submitted to the committee were not to be published except to persons
associated with the inquiry.
-
Witnesses
were to be notified of their rights under the Senate resolution, and were to be
informed in writing of the nature of any allegations made against them and of
particulars of the matters on which they were to be heard.
-
Witnesses
were to be allowed to consult counsel during their appearance and counsel could
make submissions to the committee.
-
The
committee would accede to any request by a witness for evidence to be heard in
private, unless it made a definite determination that it was necessary to hear
the evidence in public.
-
Witnesses
were given the right and the opportunity to object to any questions, on grounds
including irrelevance and self‑incrimination, and procedures were laid
down for the committee to consider and determine such objections.
The committee appointed, with the approval of the President of the
Senate, counsel to assist it. The committee’s counsel advised the committee,
participated in its deliberations and attended during the questioning of some
witnesses, but did not put questions to witnesses. All of the hearings of the
committee were held in private session.
When it had taken evidence in relation to the tapes and transcripts and
matters purportedly recorded in them, the committee indicated to Mr Justice Murphy that it wished to
hear evidence from him on a number of matters, and invited him to appear before
it. He was not summoned. The question of whether the Senate or its committees
could summon a High Court or any judge (see above) had been the subject of some
discussion, without any conclusion being reached on the matter.
The judge’s response to the invitation raised the major procedural difficulty
of the committee’s inquiry. The judge claimed all of the rights of an accused
person in a criminal trial, including the right to be notified of a specific
charge, the right not to give evidence if he so chose, and the right, before
making that decision, to have all the evidence heard in the presence of his
counsel and to have his counsel cross‑examine witnesses. It was not
within the power of the committee to allow the cross‑examination of
witnesses by the judge’s counsel, or, indeed, to allow the examination of
witnesses by any counsel. The standing orders of the Senate provide that
witnesses before Senate committees are to be examined by the members of the
committee; witnesses could not be examined by counsel except with the explicit
authorisation of the Senate, and the Senate had not given that authorisation in
the resolution appointing the committee. Had the committee wished to accede to
the judge’s demands, it would have had to go back to the Senate for an
enlargement of its powers.
As it turned out, this was not necessary. The committee took the view
that it was engaged in an investigatory inquiry, analogous to the inquiries
undertaken by a prosecuting authority to determine whether a prosecution will
be commenced. The committee considered that only if it determined that the
evidence so warranted should it recommend to the Senate that there be a formal
hearing of the evidence, with the rights of an accused person extended to the
judge.
The judge declined to give evidence, but gave the committee a written
statement on the evidence which it had received. His counsel made submissions
to the committee on its evidence and on matters of law.
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
|
