Chapter 20 - Relations with the judiciary
Queensland precedent
The relevant provisions of the
Constitution of Queensland replicated the Act of Settlement: judges had tenure
of office during good behaviour but could be removed by the Governor on the
address of the Legislative Assembly. Misbehaviour was not stated to be the
ground of removal.
In the case of the removal of a justice of the Supreme Court of the
State in 1989, the body appointed to advise the Legislative Assembly, the
Assembly in its address to the Governor and the Governor in his response to the
address were all careful not to say that misbehaviour was the ground of
removal. The case, however, is a significant precedent for a consideration of
conduct which may be regarded as constituting misbehaviour under the federal
constitutional provision, if the restricted interpretation of that provision by
the Solicitor-General is not accepted and the interpretation of the
parliamentary commissioners and the other authorities referred to above is
followed.
After certain evidence was given before a commission of inquiry
concerning the conduct of a justice of the Supreme Court, Justice Angelo Vasta, a statutory
commission, called the Parliamentary Judges Commission of Inquiry, was
established in 1988 to inquire into the conduct of the justice. The Commission
consisted of three retired superior court justices, including a former Chief
Justice of the High Court. The Commission was enjoined to advise the
Legislative Assembly whether any behaviour of the justice following his
appointment to the Court warranted his removal from office. The Commission was
to present to the Legislative Assembly only so much of its evidence as it
thought necessary to support its findings of fact and conclusions. The Commission
clearly was modelled on the 1986 federal Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry.
The Commission reported that the following behaviour by the judge
warranted his removal from office:
-
giving
false evidence at a defamation hearing
-
making
and maintaining allegations that the Chief Justice, the Attorney-General and
the inquiry commissioner had conspired to injure him
-
making a
false statement to an accountant who prepared income tax returns
-
arranging
sham transactions to gain income tax advantages
-
making
false claims for taxation deductions.
None of the grounds of removal related to the judge’s conduct as a
judge, and the Commission did not advert to the question of whether any of the
judge’s actions could constitute criminal offences.
The Legislative Assembly allowed the judge to address the Assembly to
show cause why he should not be removed from office. Having heard the judge’s
address, the Assembly on 7 June 1989 concurred with the conclusions of the Commission and
resolved to address the Governor requesting the removal of the judge on the
grounds specified by the Commission. On the presentation of the address, the
Governor removed the judge from office.
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
|
