The Courier-Mail

Jus­tices play judge and jury on Car­mody


JUS­TICES have been caught out pass­ing judg­ment on each other.

In a Court of Ap­peal de­ci­sion, Jus­tices Philip Mor­ri­son and David Bod­dice took aim at the work of then-chief jus­tice Tim Car­mody, who cowrote the de­ci­sion with them.

Jus­tices Mor­ri­son and Bod­dice ques­tioned the rel­e­vance and ap­pro­pri­ate­ness of sec­tions of Jus­tice Car­mody’s rea­sons re­lat­ing to sen­tenc­ing prin­ci­pals.

But the then-chief jus­tice hit back in a post­script at “those who have or feel the need to ex­press a dif­fer­ent view”, re­ject­ing their claims and de­fend­ing the rel­e­vance.

Jus­tice Mor­ri­son specif­i­cally noted at the end of his judg­ment, “since pre­par­ing these rea­sons I have had the op­por­tu­nity to read those of Car­mody J ... none of those mat­ters (in spe­cific para­graphs) were raised by, or with, the par­ties”.

“For that rea­son this is not an ap­pro­pri­ate oc­ca­sion, in my view, to en­gage in such anal­y­sis.”

Jus­tice Bod­dice also sin­gled out parts of Jus­tice Car­mody’s rea­son­ing, ques­tion­ing their rel­e­vance.

“As those mat­ters were not the sub­ject of sub­mis­sions at the hear­ing of the ap­peal, I do not pro­pose to ad­dress those mat­ters,” he said.

In a post­script at­tached to the end of the judg­ment, Jus­tice Car­mody noted the com­ments about his rea­son­ing, added af­ter his draft was cir­cu­lated, and de­fended his work as “rel­e­vant and ap­pro­pri­ate”.

While the rea­sons for the judg­ment were pub­lished last week, the hear­ing was held on May 15, while Jus­tice Car­mody was still chief jus­tice. He stepped down on July 1, but re­mains a Supreme Court judge as pres­i­dent of the Queens­land Civil and Ad­min­is­tra­tive Tri­bunal.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Australia