At Legal Home Loans, we use specialist knowledge to achieve the best possible result for our clients. As an elite barrister, your financing needs are bespoke, complex in nature, and differ to that of the average lawyer. We’re your experts to coordinate residential or investment home loans, implement working capital facilities for your practice, and organise loans for chambers.
With access to over thirty lenders, we’ll help you select a loan that best suits your unique situation, coordinating your application from start to finish with a dedicated specialist with you every step of the way.
Official partner of the Victorian Bar Members receive $500 cashback at loan settlement.* Scan below to find out more.
*Terms & conditions apply.
VBN 177 Contents
26 CommBar Annual Drinks Reception
RAINI ZAMBELLI AND DANIEL BRIGGS
Portrait unveiling: Andrew John Kirkham AM RFD KC VBN
2025 Victorian Bar Dinner
AND RACHEL MATULIS
22 The Victorian Bar Mediation Centre Launch VBN
24 Barefoot bowling on Valentine’s Day, family law style
SARAH HESSION
News and Views
38 Chief Justice Richard Niall
DYLAN DEXTER
40 British justice in relation to homicide involving the Aboriginal people of the Port Phillip District
ROB LARKINS
44 Candid Camera: Sartorial splendour
SEBASTIAN CAMPBELL
48 Victorian Bar Archives and Historical Collection
STEVE
STEFANOPOULOS
Editors: Tim Jeffrie, Angelo Germano, Alexander Di Stefano, Jessica Elliott.
Consultant Editor: Maree Norton SC
VBN Committee: Joel Silver, Owen Wolahan, Angelo Bartzis, Angus Willoughby, Annabelle Ballard, Liz Main, Sebastian Campbell, Rachel Matulis, Ivana Smojver
Bar Council Representative: Moya O’Brien
Contributors (in alphabetical order): Tiphanie Acreman, Róisín Annesley KC, Annabelle Ballard, Nikolas Barron, Angelo Bartzis, Michael Bearman, Morgana Brady, Daniel Briggs, Deputy Chief Magistrate Timothy Bourke, the Hon. Justice Mordecai Bromberg, Dr Coral Brown, Julian Burnside AM KC, Gemma Cafarella, Natalie Campbell, Sebastian Campbell, Sam Chizik, Marcus Clarke KC, Tom Clelland, Harold A Cottee, Dermot Dann SC, Daryl Dealehr, Brenton Devanny, Catherine Devine, Dylan Dexter, Jo Dougherty, Tim Farhall, Bill Gillies, Nick Goodenough, Nicholas JD Green KC, Peter Gray,
52 What was the first case argued by a member of the Victorian Bar in the Supreme Court?
NIKOLAS BARRON
54 The Victorian Reports turn 150
PETER WILLIS
58 125 Years of Diversity at the Bar?
NATALIE CAMPBELL AND ZUBIN MENON
60 Mandalay
TOM CLELLAND
62 Digital detox and the division of labour
JACK POPOLO
ISSUE 177 WINTER 2025
Back of the Lift
62 Adjourned Sine Die
64 Silence All Stand
69 Vale
80 Gonged
Boilerplate
82 Support the Arts
JULIAN BURNSIDE
86 What’s the purpose?
PETER GRAY
88 Grand Theft Hamlet
ANNABELLE BALLARD
90 Book reviews
DARYL DEALEHR, KM HAYNE AND IVY SMOJVER
93 Restaurant Review
TIM JEFFRIE
Justin Hannebery KC, Brett Harding, The Hon. Kenneth Hayne AC KC, Sarah Hession, Ron Jorgensen, Edwina Keynes, John F Larkins, Rob Larkins, John Leung, Rachel Matulis, Rebecca McCarthy, Zubin Menon, Angela Moran, Julia Munster, Catherine Parkes, Jack Popolo, John (Jack) Rush AO RFD KC, Jordan Schulz, Joel Silver, Ivana Smojver, Steve Stefanopoulos OAM, Eliza Tiernan, Peter Willis SC and Raini Zambelli.
Photography/Images (in alphabetical order): Peter Bongiorno, Caroline Paterson, Stephen Porter, Neil Prieto, David Rosendale
Publisher: Victorian Bar Inc., Level 5, Owen Dixon Chambers East, 205 William Street, Melbourne, VIC 3000
Registration No: A 0034304 S
The publication of Victorian Bar News may be cited as (2025) 177 B.N.
Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the Bar Council or the Victorian Bar or of any person other than the author
Advertising: All enquiries, including requests for advertising rates to be sent to:
Jo Dougherty, Victorian Bar Inc., Level 5, Owen Dixon Chambers East, 205 William Street, Melbourne, VIC 3000
Tel: (03) 9225 7111
Email: jo.dougherty@vicbar.com.au
Illustrations, design and production: Guy Shield - www.guyshield.com
Contributions: Victorian Bar News welcomes contributions to vbneditors@vicbar.com.au
Historically speaking
EDITORS 125 years of the Victorian Bar? Unfortunately, as with almost all things adjacent to barristers, the start date of our great institution is up for debate. As many of you would know from having perused Peter Yule’s Vic Bar: a History of the Victorian Bar, the “Victorian Bar Association”, was not Victoria’s first Bar if by “Bar” you mean a collection of barristers practising in a particular location. The controversy
“Barristers and lawyers have never been lauded for their mathematics prowess, but most (not all) of us would pick up that it has been more than 25 years since 1984”
around the start date of the “Bar” is such that at different times different Bar Councils have celebrated different anniversaries. Mr Yule writes that “In 1984, for no particularly sound reason, the Victorian Bar celebrated its centenary,” and opines that the case for that date was “flimsy at best”, but that “it was a good excuse for a party”. 1
Barristers and lawyers have never been lauded for their mathematics
prowess, but most (not all) of us would pick up that it has been more than 25 years since 1984—safe to say not much has changed!
Whatever the true anniversary however, the Bar is at least one year older than Australia as a federated nation, and barristers have had a presence in the area of land now called Victoria for much, much longer. In honour of the 125 year theme, this edition of Bar News has several
excellent pieces with historical focuses. Robert Larkins has written an in-depth analysis of the relationship between Aboriginal people and the British legal system on colonisation. His piece draws on primary sources to give a sombre account of one facet of Australian legal history.
Steve Stefanopoulos OAM, the Bar’s Archivist and Historical Collections Manager, has prepared an annotated photo essay of some of the artifacts under his care. These include a recording of a speech given by Sir Ninian Stephen on the Bar’s “first” centenary celebration in 1984, and the first minutes of the Victorian Bar from 1900. Nikolas Barron has also researched and written on the first case argued by a member of the Bar. Though there is no definitive citation, the historical nuggets uncovered (such as that one of our earliest criminal defence counsel self-represented on a charge of property damage, and was found guilty) are fascinating.
We are celebrating another anniversary this year: 150 years of the Victorian Law Reports (the oldest authorised law reports in Australia).
Peter Willis SC has written a piece on VLR’s inception, explaining how prior Barristers would rely in part on reports of cases included in newspapers.
In addition to the 125-year anniversary theme articles, there are also appointments to celebrate.
In particular, Chief Justice Richard Niall as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Victoria, along with the elevations across the Federal, Family and Supreme Courts.
This edition also includes fascinating comment from members. Jack Popolo writes about the historical parallels in founding philosophy between Scotland and Australia, while the Hon Peter Gray analyses the dominant approach to statutory interpretation and asks if there is a better alternative. No less important but decidedly less legal, there are film/game, book and
restaurant reviews. Of course, there are the usual digest of recent Bar events and launches, and a very special article on one of the former editor’s (Banjo McLachlan) chambers interior design. Before making our thankyous to the committee, we would like to express our admiration and thanks of Mr Julian Burnside AO KC’s contributions to the publication. He has been a regular contributor from at least 2011 with his “A Bit About Words”. In this edition we publish a heartfelt call to the Bar to support the arts. Thank you Julian.
Thank you to the diligent work of our contributors and committee members, without whom this great publication would not be possible (or enjoyable!). Special thanks goes to Maree Norton SC who has stayed on to assist us as “Consulting Editor”, and Yola Beaini and the broader Bar Office team who have greatly assisted in putting this edition together.
1 See page 2.
BACK ROW: Rachel Matulis, Ivana Smojver, Angus Willoughby, Jessica Elliott, Tim Jeffrie, Maree Norton SC, Sebastian Campbell
FRONT ROW: Owen Wolahan, Angelo Germano, Liz Main, Alexander Di Stefano
ROW (L-R): James Cameron, Maxine Lange, Matthew Harding, Jacob McCahon, Anthony
Kelly, Meg Stevenson, Jack
SECOND
THIRD
BACK ROW
Readers’ Digest
Each edition we reach out to the latest cohort of readers to get to know them better
Tidja Joseph
Favourite fictional lawyer? Diane Lockhart
(The Good Wife & The Good Fight), she’s the boss. If you could argue any historical case, what would it be? Mabo v Queensland (No 2), because terra nullius was not a thing. Best piece of advice you learnt in the readers’ course?
(Not from the course but from my mentor during the course): be affable, available and able in that order.
Who are you reading with? Clare Cunliffe. What is your guilty pleasure? Brillat Savarin triple cream brie.
Sverre Gunnersen
Favourite fictional lawyer? Dennis Denuto from The Castle, because of his “vibe” argument (of course).
If you could argue any historical case, what would it be?
Commonwealth v Tasmania (1983) 158 CLR 1, because on the one hand protection
of the Gordon River was very important, but on the other I’m not sure how comfortable I am with the external affairs head of power providing a basis to legislate on issues not truly external to Australia. Best piece of advice you learnt in the readers’ course? What question are you trying to ask? Ask that.
What is your guilty pleasure?
Chocolate chip cookies.
Ella Casey
Favourite fictional lawyer? Miranda Hobbes from Sex and the City, because she is hilarious.
If you could argue any historical case, what would it be?
Who are you reading with? Ruth Champion.
PBU & NJE v Mental Health Tribunal [2018] VSC 564, because it is a step in the right direction for people
FRONT
Stavrinos, Kirsty Ha, Hannah McIvor, Sam Dany, Brianna Melville, Martha Browning, Ella Casey, Hester
Gracie, Beatrice Paull
ROW (L-R): Csaba Baranyai, Alexander Pemberton, Jervis Dean, Anna Dearman, Ryan Mallia, Manny Cao, Timothy Huestis, Tim Sackville, Harrison Charles, Stephanie Howson, Thomas Clark, Marcel Delany, Alex Lee, Tidja Joseph, Ben Kelly, Alexandra McLure, Megan Blake, Alice Cooney, Tess Simpson, Katie Gardiner, Sunil Kemppi
ROW (L-R): Jarrad Mathie, William Liu, Declan Peacock, Nuwan Dias, Andrew Belyea-Tate, Daniel Miles, Jonathon Allan, Tom Carmody, Gabrielle Redmond, Giulia Frat, Penny Toniolos, Lauren Taylor, Georgina Long
(L-R): Harley Schumann, Kevin Li, Sverre Gunnersen, Keith Sypott, Andrew Spierings, Tim White, Patrick O’Bryan-Gusah, Alannah Slater, Tom Clelland, Nicholas Li, Jonathan Rose
Best piece of advice you learnt in the readers’ course? Don’t be boring. Who are you reading with? Stella Gold and Paul Smallwood.
What is your guilty pleasure? Smith's Original crinkle cut chips.
Brianna Melville
Favourite fictional lawyer? Elle Woods. Not only is she completely fabulous, but she taught me to have faith in myself even if I feel out of my depth.
If you could argue any historical case, what would it be? The Tasmanian Dam Case—a fantastic example of legal creativity, and learning about that case in high school is what made me want to become a lawyer.
(Aust) Pty Ltd v Registrar of Trade Marks (2002) 122 FCR 494 because the question of whether shape/ product design can be inherently distinctive is an interesting one. Best piece of advice you learnt in the readers’ course? If asked a question, make sure you actually answer it.
Who are you reading with?
Peter Creighton-Selvay. What is your guilty pleasure? Reading the CLRs.
Jervis Dean
Favourite fictional lawyer? Frank Galvin. Paul Newman’s admittedly problematic character in The Verdict. “Favourite” in the sense that it’s an incredible performance and my pick for the best legal drama. Shout outs to Sidney Lumet and David Mamet.
Best piece of advice you learnt in the readers’ course? Fifty per cent of briefs are losing briefs—and it’s (usually) the facts that are the downfall.
Who are you reading with? Rachel Ellyard. What is your guilty pleasure? Rewatching Gossip Girl with my cat—the original series, not the reboot.
Sam Dany
Favourite fictional lawyer? Jackie Chiles from Seinfeld, because I love the way he speaks!
If you could argue any historical case, what would it be? Kenman Kandy
If you could argue any historical case, what would it be? The George Blake case. It’s a fascinating case arising from an extraordinary set of circumstances that appeals to my deep interest in that post-WWII/ Cold War era of espionage. Best piece of advice you learnt in the readers’ course? Get to the point— relevant to all aspects of advocacy.
Stephanie Howson
Favourite fictional lawyer? Elle Woods— underestimated by all but still won the case anyway.
If you could argue any historical case, what would it be? Has to be the landmark decision, Mabo v Queensland (No 2) because of the vibe of it all. Best piece of advice you learnt in the readers’ course? Do such a good job for your client that you make the opposing instructor leave the court room wishing they had briefed you. Who are you reading with? Sam Tovey. What is your guilty pleasure? Weekly steak night at the local and of course a glass of vino to go with it!
Who are you reading with? Daniel Sala. What is your guilty pleasure? Norm Macdonald clips on YouTube.
What is your guilty pleasure? Second breakfast.
Dr Megan Blake
Anthony Stavrinos
Favourite fictional lawyer? Cleaver Greene for his ability to pull it together in court despite his life being a mess.
If you could argue any historical case, what would it be? The Mediana [1900] AC 113. It involved some fascinating discussion about a chair.
Best piece of advice you learnt in the readers’ course? Preparation. Preparation. Preparation. Who are you reading with? David Klempfner.
Favourite fictional lawyer? Jim Garrison, played by Kevin Costner. Other than that, I learnt all the facts I know about the Kennedy assassination from Stone’s epic documentary, I must have watched that movie at least twenty times as a kid—it was Garrison’s demand for the truth and his willingness to pursue it against all opposition. If you could argue any historical case, what would it be? The Engineers’ Case, 1920. Has any other matter been responsible for such a shift in our understanding of legislative powers—even Tas Dams?! Happy to argue on either side of it, just for the analysis.
Best piece of advice you learnt in the readers’ course? Don’t just get up and have a whinge: what do you want the judge to DO? Who are you reading with? Andrew Yuile, Senior mentor Eleanor Mallett KC. What is your guilty pleasure? As much ice cream as I can fit into my body, but I feel no guilt about it whatsoever, so I don’t think it counts.
Katie Gardiner
Favourite fictional lawyer?
Lawrence Hammil— the silk played by Bud Tingle on The Castle—kind and tactful.
If you could argue any historical case, what would it be? No.
Best piece of advice you learnt in the readers’ course? Be concise. Who are you reading with? Rebecca Davern. What is your guilty pleasure? All the legal ones.
Alex Lee
Favourite fictional lawyer? A Finch—calm + principled.
If you could argue any historical case, what would it be? Brown v Board of Education (1954); just to be there in the moment.
Best piece of advice you learnt in the readers’ course? “Don’t be boring.”
What is your guilty pleasure? Watching Married At First Sight (no further comment!).
Alexander Pemberton
Favourite fictional lawyer? Jude St Francis from A Little Life. Hanya Yanagihara’s simple yet beautiful depiction of Jude demonstrates that being a good lawyer requires compassion and integrity.
If you could argue any historical case, what would it be?
Who are you reading with? Olaf Ciolek. What is your guilty pleasure? Spring onion pancakes; extra crisp.
Dr Manny Cao
Favourite fictional lawyer? Harvey Spectre because he is always immaculately dressed.
If you could argue any historical case, what would it be? The People v OJ Simpson so I could be the one that came up with: “If the glove does not fit, you must acquit”!
Best piece of advice you learnt in the readers’ course? From Anthony Strahan KC: “Your job is to assist in the administration of justice and as such, sometimes the correct outcome is that your client must go to jail.”
Who are you reading with? Dr Paul Halley.
law in Australia, such as Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd v Wardley (1980) 142 CLR 237. Best piece of advice you learnt in the readers’ course? Cross-examination is a commando, not a siege. Get in, get what you need, get out.
Who are you reading with? Sarala Fitzgerald. What is your guilty pleasure? Haigh’s peppermint frogs.
Sunil Kemppi
submission. And I say “and” at the start of questions sometimes.
Who are you reading with? Yasser Bakri. What is your guilty pleasure? All of my pleasures are not-guilty.
Tom Carmody
Favourite fictional lawyer? Lawrence Hammill (Charles “Bud” Tingwell in The Castle). Taught me everything I need to know about statutory interpretation.
Representing Oscar Wilde because I would have followed the advice in my next answer.
Best piece of advice you learnt in the readers’ course? Always speak to and prepare your witnesses for court. Do not coach but do ensure they are familiar and comfortable with the process so that they can give their best possible evidence. Who are you reading with? Rahmin de Kretser. What is your guilty pleasure? Spending all my money on theatre tickets.
Alannah Slater
Favourite fictional lawyer? Jake Brigance, because my dad loves him and affectionally calls me “Brigance”.
If you could argue any historical case, what would it be? Probably a seminal case involving the intersection between constitutional and anti-discrimination
Favourite fictional lawyer? Atticus Finch, for his commitment to doing what’s right, regardless of whether it was popular. If you could argue any historical case, what would it be? Vaughan v Menlove—it’s the early case that establishes the reasonable person test. I’ve always just loved the way that courts grapple with trying to ideate an objective moral standard from a subjective perspective— it’s delightfully Kantian. Best piece of advice you learnt in the readers’ course? You do you. One thing that was impressed upon me is how each barrister will build their own practice in a way that suits their own lives, backgrounds and aspirations. It’s great to be part of something bigger than can also be shaped according to each person. Also, apparently I move my hands a lot when I get nervous during a
If you could argue any historical case, what would it be? Work Choices—a great brief to appear in the High Court and such a small chance of having to actually do anything amongst all the counsel.
Best piece of advice you learnt in the readers’ course? Say your piece and sit down! Who are you reading with? Amelia Beech. What is your guilty pleasure? A country bakery and that most delicious of (apparently Victorian) sweet treats—the iced apple cake.
Alice Cooney
Favourite fictional lawyer? Marshall Eriksen is the ultimate mix of heart and hilarity—a fiercely loyal friend with a strong moral compass, and just the right amount of goofy. “Boom! Lawyered!” If you could argue any historical case, what would it be? Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562.
It laid the foundation for negligence and the concept of a ‘duty of care’— who wouldn’t like to have been in the House of Lords!
Best piece of advice you learnt in the readers’ course? “Reflect on your advocacy and consider what you could have done better—but don’t beat yourself up.” That line has stuck with me. It’s a reminder to approach self-improvement with compassion.
Who are you reading with?
I am so privileged to be reading with Astrid Haban-Beer who has
so openly and warmly welcomed me to Crockett Chambers.
What is your guilty pleasure?
Amateur cake decorating! There’s something oddly therapeutic about piping buttercream flowers or trying (and usually failing) to get the perfect fondant finish.
Andrew Spierings
Favourite fictional lawyer? Horace Rumpole (for his irrepressible wit).
If you could argue any historical case, what would it be? Miller v Jackson [1977] QB 966 (to argue the merits of village cricket before a sympathetic Lord Denning MR).
Best piece of advice you learnt in the readers’ course? Get headlights for the tractor (thanks to Jim McKenna).
Who are you reading with?
Mia Clarebrough.
What is your guilty pleasure?
Never plead guilty (see answer to first question, above).
Verbatim
County Court of Victoria (sitting at Shepparton)
Rickards v NIARB Pty Ltd and Anor
19 November 2024
HIS HONOUR JUDGE CLARK:
Thank you. Just before I stand the matter down, I think it would be opportune for me just to make one acknowledgment. That, Mr Monti, as I understand it, was the last of what I suspect was many thousands of orders which you’ve obtained in this court in Shepparton and the northeast generally. I would just like to acknowledge your service to the citizens of country Victoria over your circuit career, in excess of four decades. So, congratulations on all that you have achieved over your long, successful and sometimes colourful times on circuit.
Congratulations, Mr Monti.
MR MONTI: Thank you, Your Honour. I appreciate Your Honour’s comments.
MR SCANLON: Your Honour, if I may?
HIS HONOUR: Yes, Mr Scanlon.
MR SCANLON: Today, 19 November 2024, is a momentous day; T.S. Monti KC appears on this circuit for the very last time. He was admitted, Your Honour, on 2 April 1973 and came to the Bar on 11 March 1976. As is the want of race callers to describe a horse having not had a start for 372 days, rather than just the years or months, Monti has not missed a game for 17,773 days at this Bar. He’s owned and controlled, Your Honour, the Shepparton and other circuits for all but 50 years. His contribution to this circuit and circuit life has been outstanding. His passion for his clients has been beyond admirable. He has been simply amazing. He is without peer at this Bar insofar as his clients are concerned, the most caring member of counsel known to us. He’s run and won some desperate battles. He’s never shirked an issue. He’s always known when to hold ‘em and after some film, he’s often
been known to fold ‘em. It’s been a stunning career by any measure, with such longevity that it’s unlikely to ever be matched. We wish him nothing but success on behalf of the Victorian Bar and say, God love Monti. If Your Honour pleases.
HIS HONOUR: Thank you, Mr Scanlon.
MR MONTI: Your Honour, that would be transcribed, we assume?
HIS HONOUR: Yes, it will be, Mr Monti.
MR MONTI: Thank you, Your Honour, because I would like to get a copy of the transcript.
HIS HONOUR: Thank you.
MR MIDDLETON: First time he’s read it.
MR MONTI: The other thing that we note is, there’s nothing but silence coming from Mr Middleton.
MR MIDDLETON: I know when to hold ‘em.
HIS HONOUR: Thank you.
President’s message
JUSTIN HANNEBERY
The lineage of independent counsel in Victoria dates back to 1841. Redmond Barry, Robert Williams Pohlman, Archibald Cunningham, James Murray, James Croke and EJ Brewster were admitted to practice at the Supreme Court’s inaugural sitting, presided over by Judge Walpole Willis, in a disused government store on the south-west corner of Bourke and King Streets. It is now an office building and the site of a heritage-listed 180-year-old honey locust tree from China.
The formalisation of the Victorian Bar Association, however, did not occur until the first meeting of the Victorian Bar Council on 20 June 1900. This year, we proudly celebrate the 125th anniversary of that event. What better moment symbolises the continuing contribution and significance of the organisation formalised that day than when on April 10 this year, 60 new barristers signed the Bar Roll of Counsel. The ceremony was, appropriately, held in Banco Court, inside the monolithic Supreme Court building. This location is steeped in tradition. It was the venue for the first sitting of the High Court of Australia in 1903.
Another 60 barristers will sign the Bar Roll in September, swelling the ranks of our esteemed college in 2025 to more than 2,300 barristers. A far cry from the pioneering six back in 1841. Happy birthday to our Bar! You can read more about the last 125 years at the Bar on pages 48-59.
Our March 2025 readers cohort was the first to participate in the revamped readers’ course—at six weeks (previously, nine weeks), shorter in duration following significant changes to the program approved last year.
This intensive course equips our newest barristers with the core written and oral advocacy skills they need to establish long and successful careers.
I would like to acknowledge their mentors, experienced members of our Bar who have voluntarily given their time to support the readers. This course in its new format would not be possible without the leadership of the Readers’ Course Committee and the Bar’s Education team, particularly Nikki Walker and Michelle James.
***
On May 4, the first of two Bar exams this year was held at the Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre. This format now comprises three papers to ensure candidates have a foundational understanding of ethics, evidence and procedure. It is intended that these changes address concerns the exam was preventing many worthy candidates from joining the Bar. The ongoing health of the Bar requires
that its talent is drawn from the widest possible pool and removing unnecessary barriers to entry are a core part of achieving this outcome.
Candidates are now required to pass all three papers to gain admission to the readers’ course with the option of choosing to sit either a civil or criminal procedure paper on the same or different occasions.
This successful evolution is testament to the significant amount of work undertaken by the 5-Year Exam Review Panel, which recommended the changes, the Readers’ Course Committee, the newly established Exam Committee, as well as the Bar’s education team.
As president of the Victorian Bar, I am privileged to attend many ceremonial sittings in our courts and welcome our newly appointed members of the judiciary. Among the appointments this year are the Hon Chief Justice Richard Niall of the Supreme Court of Victoria and my March 1998 readers’ course comrade, Justice Adrian Finanzio, also of the Supreme Court of Victoria.
I must also make special mention of my predecessor in this role, the Hon Justice Elizabeth Bennett of the Federal Court of Australia. Whilst we mourn a little for her Honour’s truncated presidency, she is a wonderful addition to the court. We thank her Honour for her extraordinary service to the Bar.
A very busy year commenced with the opening of the new Victorian Bar Mediation Centre at Castan Chambers. About 100 guests celebrated the official opening of these impressive facilities with their expansive views of the court precinct from the 11th floor. It was an enormous effort by the Victorian Bar team, led by Corporate Services Manager Miranda Tulloch, to move the centre from Douglas Menzies Chambers and set up in this prestige location. I highly recommend members arrange a tour of the modern facilities.
In February, I had the pleasure of welcoming participants to the 2025 New Barristers’ Conference for junior barristers up to six years’ call. They heard a thoughtful address by the Hon Chief Justice Richard Niall of the Supreme Court of Victoria, in his first official engagement since his appointment as Chief Justice. His Honour emphasised the importance of seizing opportunities, constant learning, and the value of relationships, both inside and outside work. We greatly appreciate his Honour making our event his debut speaking engagement as Chief Justice.
I also sincerely thank the Hon Justice Jim Delany, the Hon Associate Justice Catherine Gobbo and Judicial
Registrar Claire Gitsham, all of whom presented an insightful final session on what to do (and not to do) in the Commercial Court. They and many other presenters and panellists, including VLSB Commissioner Fiona McLeay, volunteered their time to deliver informative sessions. I commend the New Barristers’ Committee and CPD Committee for hosting the event, with assistance from the Bar’s education and events teams.
Also in February, our most recent silks took their ceremonial bows at the High Court of Australia in Canberra. This tradition dates back to 1921 and is a career highlight for all Senior Counsel and King’s Counsel. Justice Steward of the High Court of Australia was guest speaker at a gala dinner that followed the ceremony. It was a special moment for the new silks to share with family and friends.
The 2025 Victorian Bar Pro Bono Awards were held in March. The Victorian Bar has a proud tradition of providing pro bono legal assistance to vulnerable members of the community. It is a fundamental part of life at the Bar. These awards are an opportunity to recognise and celebrate this important work. Multiple members of the judiciary attended the biennial ceremony in the Peter O’Callaghan QC Gallery. The Bar also honoured the
lifetime of pro bono work undertaken by Peter Hanks KC, who gave the keynote address.
Fiona McLeod SC was a wildly popular recipient of the 10th Pro Bono Trophy for her pro bono advocacy over many years. Her moving acceptance speech noted the extraordinary circumstances of some of the clients she has assisted.
I thank Geraldine Gray, Laura Hilly and Christopher Lum, and the rest of the Pro Bono Committee for making the event a success. You can read about the Pro Bono Awards on page 18.
There have been two photographic portraits unveiled this year—Andrew Kirkham KC, taken by Earl Carter, and Jim Merrells QC, taken by his wife Rosemary.
Andrew was first called to the Bar in 1967. He served as Chair of the Victorian Bar in 1991–92, President of the Australian Bar Association in 1991–92, Deputy Judge Advocate General of the Australian Defence Force from 1998–2005 and Deputy Commissioner of Victoria’s Independent Broad-based Anti-Corruption Commission from 2013–16.
In 2012, he was recognised as a “Legend of the Bar”. The portrait was officially unveiled by Gary Hevey SC on 26 March 2025 at a gathering of family members, friends and colleagues.
After signing the Bar Roll in April 1960, Jim Merrells commenced reading with Richard Newton before joining Sir Owen Dixon as his Associate in 1960–1961. Jim combined practice of the law at the highest standard, especially in trusts, indirect taxes and constitutional law, with editorship of the Commonwealth Law Reports from 1969 until his death in 2016.
This unveiling was held in conjunction with the annual meeting of the Consultative Council of Australasian Law Reporting, which included the launch of a volume of essays to celebrate 150 years of authorised law reporting of the Supreme Court.
In May, a very well-dressed crowd of 500 gathered for the annual Victorian Bar Dinner in the Great Hall at the National Gallery of Victoria. Those in attendance were fortunate to hear a humorous, personal and thoughtful speech from our guest speaker, the Hon Chief Justice Stephen Gageler of the High Court of Australia. His Honour’s great fondness for the Victorian Bar was evident and we thank him for the memorable address.
***
Many of the decisions for determination by Bar Council are difficult and nuanced. We have had several meetings
this year that have been lengthy, with weighty matters for consideration.
I would like to express my gratitude to my fellow Bar councillors, all of whom make considerable sacrifices to contribute to the Bar. My observation is that each is motivated by a deep sense of responsibility to the institution, and a commitment to ensure the Bar serves both its members and the broader community.
I thank my colleagues for their contributions to robust but respectful debate, and for the sacrifice of time and energy each makes to be on Bar Council. Their assistance to me in undertaking this role in unexpected circumstances has been invaluable and appreciated.
The operations of the Victorian Bar would not run as smoothly without the Bar Office staff, under the leadership of Executive Director Amanda Utt. This hard-working team keeps the organisation functioning. We are grateful for their professionalism and enthusiasm to support our members.
And finally, I congratulate the new team of editors and their committee of the Victorian Bar News for producing such an outstanding publication in their first edition at the helm.
Wishing you all well for the rest of the year.
Around Town Legal Laneway Breakfast 2025
Over 250 members of Victoria’s legal community gathered on 4 February 2025 in Melbourne’s iconic Hardware Lane for the annual Legal Laneway Breakfast, hosted by the Victoria Law Foundation. Before judges, magistrates, barristers and solicitors, Victorian Attorney-General the Hon Sonya Kilkenny, Professor Melissa Castan, Executive Director of the Victoria Law Foundation Lynne Haultain, and Westjustice’s Vincent Shin shared the stage and gave their insights for the year that had been and the challenges and optimism for the year ahead.
The Attorney spoke to the critical importance of the legal sector contributing to law reform work around family violence, sexual offences, criminalising the Nazi salute and raising the age of criminal responsibility to 12. In her speech, she reminded guests that “All of you in the profession play a critical role in this law reform work, by sharing your insights and experiences to help guide the design and enliven those laws by interpreting them, and applying and giving effect to them.”
Mr Shin spoke of the innovative work of community legal centres and called on us all to consider mentoring and to embrace our sector’s diversity.
Sharing his story and journey in the law, Vincent’s speech, aptly titled “I am not your typical lawyer”, drew from personal experience and emphasised the importance of mentors: “Community lawyers do things slightly differently to conventional lawyers. They are able to do very innovative work to ensure the most vulnerable and marginalized members of the community are provided with access to justice.”
He gave the example of the “School Lawyer Program” (which Vincent previously worked on directly and now manages):
A youth lawyer is provided in situ at partner schools to provide the students with legal advice, representation and
legal education. Legal education sessions are delivered in class on topics like bullying, consent, family violence, police powers and employment rights. Legal education is a strong preventative tool for young people, in preventing them from unnecessary involvement with the justice system. Students are taught their legal rights but also their legal responsibilities.
Mr Shin’s journey to becoming a lawyer was unconventional. By his own admission, he did “horribly” in year 12, experienced family violence at home, and his father was sentenced to a significant term of imprisonment for attempted murder. Due to his poor VCE score, it took him many years to be finally accepted into law school. He completed an Advanced Diploma in Legal Practice at TAFE before being accepted into Victoria University law school.
Mr Shin had no connections with the legal industry until he completed placement through his TAFE course, where he met Magistrate Paul Smith. Magistrate Smith was a mentor to him for many years, and he could not understate how pivotal he was in Mr Shin’s successes as a law student and as a lawyer. In addressing the crowd on the importance of mentors, Mr Shin expressed his strong belief that if it weren’t for Magistrate Smith, he would not have been accepted into law school and would not have achieved all his successes to date.
In a critical reminder for all members of our profession, including the Bar, Mr Shin urged everyone not to underestimate the impact one can have on junior lawyers and law students, and encouraged active consideration of mentoring in any capacity, concluding that “the legal industry brings together people from all walks of life. Embrace our differences, as these differences make for a more well-rounded sector that caters to all the legal needs of our community.”
ANGELO BARTZIS
Advocacy and the administration of justice The 2025 Victorian Bar Pro Bono Awards
TIPHANIE ACREMAN
Speaking at the turn of the century, Sir Gerard Brennan remarked1 that one facet of a viable independent Bar is its internal ethos, which in turn is strengthened by its members being conscious that they are performing a social function of doing justice according to law. As officers of the court, barristers, and indeed all Australian legal practitioners, take an oath or make an affirmation which enlivens a paramount duty to the court and to the proper administration of justice. One expression of that professional responsibility is the provision of pro bono legal services, to ensure access to justice for those who cannot afford legal representation and to contribute to the
efficient operation of courts and tribunals. In recognition of the pro bono contribution made by members of the Victorian Bar, the Bar holds a biannual awards ceremony. The 2025 Victorian Bar Pro Bono Awards were held on 20 March in the Peter O’Callaghan QC Gallery where 15 barristers received awards for their outstanding pro bono contributions.
About 100 guests, including several members of the judiciary, attended the ceremony organised by the Bar’s Pro Bono Committee, and in particular by Geraldine Gray, Chair of the Committee and Co-Deputy Chairs Laura Hilly and Chris Lum. The ceremony began with a Welcome to Country from Wurundjeri Elder, Uncle Bill Nicholson
BACK ROW: Jordan Wright, Christopher Lum, Steven Castan, the Hon Justice Kristen Walker, Tiphanie Acreman, the Hon Chief Justice Richard Niall, Justin Hannebery KC, Fiona McLeod AO SC, Christopher McDermott, Felicity Fox FRONT ROW: Ron Merkel SC, Peter Hanks KC, the Hon Justice Michelle Gordon AC, Dr Laura Hilly, Geraldine Gray, Alexander Marcou, Callum Dawlings, Laila Hamzi, Julie Buxton, Joanne Poole, Kylie Evans KC, Emrys Nekvapil SC
who spoke about the importance of language and the practice of culture, and the meaning and significance of the Welcome ceremony.
The 2025 Victorian Bar Pro Bono Trophy for outstanding individual achievement in pro bono advocacy over a long period was awarded to Fiona McLeod SC. The trophy was presented by the 2023 winner, Julian McMahon SC with introductory remarks by Chief Justice Niall. Fiona is a leader in pro bono work at the Victorian Bar, having devoted significant time over many years to a large number of important pro bono matters related to climate change, human trafficking, modern slavery and justice for First Nations clients.
In accepting the trophy, Fiona highlighted the importance of pro bono work to ensuring access to justice, especially for highly vulnerable people, and noted the long history of the Victorian Bar in the provision of free and low-cost legal work. Through her work at the Bar and as president
of the Australian Bar Association, Fiona came to understand the high regard in which the pro bono work of the Victorian Bar is held both nationally and internationally: “Our Bar is extraordinary across Australia and across the world for the work we do. I am privileged enough to do some international work as well (where) they talk with envy about the pro bono culture in Australia.”
Fiona also reflected upon the work she had done on modern slavery which included working with vulnerable minors, including a case involving a 13-year-old girl who had been sex trafficked. Acknowledging the personal impact pro bono work can have on a practitioner, Fiona observed that “justice is so important, yet so unavailable to many of us in this country … You don’t walk away from this work untouched. It is the greatest privilege of my life to have appeared for some of these clients.” Fiona accepted the award on behalf of those she had acted for, and those for whom she could not act.
The Bar also honoured the lifetime of pro bono work undertaken by Peter Hanks KC, who gave the keynote address about his extraordinary work acting on behalf of vulnerable clients impacted by the Commonwealth’s Robodebt scheme. This work exemplifies the fundamental importance of equal access to justice through the provision of pro bono legal services.
Peter explained the genesis of efforts to challenge the scheme, which was launched by Centrelink in 2016 as a method to raise and recover “debts” from welfare recipients. The scheme was based on “income averaging” whereby ATO annual income data was used to produce a fortnightly average income figure which formed the basis for re-calculation of welfare entitlements. This average income figure was used despite the method for calculating entitlements under the Social Security Act 1991 being based on actual (not average) fortnightly income. Using this method, the
Ron Merkel SC
Elisa Hill, Kylie Evans KC, Christopher McDermott
Richard Wilson, Liam Connolly, Alexander Marcou
scheme raised debts against individual recipients going back many years and placed an onus on the recipient to disprove Centrelink’s assumption that the debt existed.
Peter along with other barristers from the Victorian Bar, instructed by Victorian Legal Aid, advised and appeared in two test cases brought in the Federal Court to challenge the scheme. Two weeks prior to final hearing in the second test case (Amato v Commonwealth), Centrelink staff were directed to stop raising debts based solely on income averaging. The case ultimately resolved by consent with the Commonwealth accepting that the demand for payment had not been validly made because it could not be satisfied the debt was owed.
This work led to Peter being described as “the lawyer who killed Robodebt by dragging it into court.”2 It demonstrates the power of pro bono advocacy to effect broad change and positively impact the lives of thousands of people.
In 2025, the Equality Award was renamed in honour of Justice Walker of the Victorian Court of Appeal and her Honour attended to present the award to Callum Dawlings and Alexander Marcou. The award was conferred for their work in appearing
for several Jewish former students of a public secondary school in a lengthy Federal Court trial that led to findings of racial discrimination and a failure by the school to protect students from antisemitic bullying. They were led by Adam Butt of the NSW Bar.
In concluding remarks for the evening, Geraldine Gray, Chair of the Pro Bono Committee, noted that the Tribunal Referral Scheme for Pro Bono Legal Assistance, a cooperative initiative of the Victorian Bar and the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, would be launched within weeks of the awards ceremony.
This scheme will be an important next step in the Victorian Bar’s provision of pro bono services to ensure the availability of access to justice, that parties are able to clearly articulate the issues in their dispute, and that courts and tribunals are assisted to determine cases efficiently.
2025 Victorian Bar Pro Bono Awards:
» The Victorian Bar Pro Bono Trophy - Fiona McLeod AO SC
» The Daniel Pollak Readers Award - Laila Hamzi
» The Ron Castan AM QC Award - Nick Boyd-Caine
» The Susan Crennan AC KC Award - Chris McDermott
» The Ron Merkel SC AwardEmrys Nekvapil SC
» The Public Interest/Justice Innovation Award - Kylie Evans KC and Jordan Wright
» The Debbie Mortimer SC Award - Tiphanie Acreman
» The Uncle Jim Berg Award - Julie Buxton
» The Kristen Walker QC Award (formerly known as the Equality Award)
- Callum Dawlings and Alexander Marcou
1 Sir Gerard Brennan, ‘Inaugural Sir Maurice Byers Lecture—Strength and perils: the Bar at the turn of the century’ (speech delivered at the New South Wales Bar Association, Sydney, 30 November 2000).
2 Bajkowski J, ‘Stuart Robert snuffed robodebt after government-solicitor warning of misfeasance in public office liability: Hanks KC’ The Mandarin, 27 February 2023.
» The Pro Bono Team Excellence Award - Justin Hannebery KC, John Kelly SC, Joanne Poole and Felicity Fox
Descriptions of the work done by the winners and a full list of those nominated for the 2025 awards are available on the Victorian Bar’s website.
Dr Beth Charles, Ron Merkel SC, Emrys Nekvapil SC, Uncle Jim Berg, Fiona McLeod AO SC
Women Barristers’ Association event—vicarious trauma and managing its impact
ELIZA TIERNAN AND RACHEL MATULIS
Have you ever thought about how much of a barrister’s life is spent engaging deeply with their client’s stories? For some areas of practice, this is perhaps less of a concern. But for barristers practising in other areas —crime, family law, personal injury, the Children’s Court, and the Coroner’s Court, to name only a few—stories of clients’ harrowing life experiences are an inevitable part of day-to-day life.
Those stories and experiences don’t remain in chambers when we leave at the end of a long day; they stay with us. What impact do they have cumulatively, over time?
On 17 February 2025, the Women Barristers’ Association (WBA) hosted an interactive session on managing the impact of vicarious trauma, delivered by Dr Carly Schrever and Sally Ryan, psychologists and directors of Human Ethos, which is a dedicated wellbeing service for the legal profession. The session engaged with two fundamental concepts: first, the definition and scope of vicarious trauma, and second, how vicarious trauma can be effectively managed by legal professionals.
experienced by those in the legal profession. Attendees were given an opportunity to reflect on experiences with empathy-based stress, prompting a meaningful discussion around triggers arising from work in particular practice areas, and experiences dealing with and processing client trauma.
The management of empathy-based stress and vicarious trauma is an ever-present hazard inherent in the work required of the legal profession. There is no “one size fits all” approach, but ultimately the goal is to maintain a balance which does not result in either emotional overinvestment, or extreme detachment. The seminar provided a range of strategies, both immediate and long-term, to effectively manage our secondary trauma responses. It was attended by barristers from a wide range of practice groups, causing surprise in some attendees to realise how commonly vicarious trauma can occur, across all levels of seniority and with a wide variety of different backgrounds and life experiences. But one thing attendees had in common is that they walked away equipped with an effective and immediately useful toolkit for managing the risks posed by vicarious trauma.
Many of us commenced careers in the law determined to help others, fuelled by deep empathy and a desire to deliver justice for those less fortunate by ourselves. While empathy allows us to engage effectively with clients by connecting with their stories, it is this very connection that, if unmanaged, may lead to a secondary trauma response. The seminar explored this concept of vicarious trauma in the context of broader empathy-based stress reactions often
The session was not recorded, so as to provide a safe space for discussion of attendees’ experiences of vicarious trauma. The WBA welcomes expressions of interest in additional sessions from those who were unable to attend the initial seminar. Please contact the authors of this article if you would be interested in attending a further vicarious trauma seminar.
Eliza Tiernan and Rachel Matulis are members of the Women Barristers’ Association Committee
Around Town
The Victorian Bar Mediation Centre Launch
VBN
Extracts of speeches delivered at the launch on 13 February 2025 are reproduced below. The President’s speech commenced with an Acknowledgement of Country and welcome to guests, before the following remarks were delivered.
Justin Hannebery KC, President of the Victorian Bar:
Welcome to the official launch of the Victorian Bar Mediation Centre in its new prestige location here at Castan Chambers.
The Victorian Bar first opened a purpose-built mediation facility on Level 3 of what is now Douglas Menzies Chambers on William Street in October 1996. The centre served mediators well for almost 30 years. Due to the intended upcoming sale of Douglas Menzies Chambers, the mediation centre relocated to this premier location. It offers twice as much space over one level (instead of two) and has the capacity to accommodate more mediations per day.
The Victorian Bar Mediation Centre has established a reputation for delivering exceptional mediation facilities and services.
I would like to acknowledge and sincerely thank our valued stakeholders—mediators, law firms, court staff and members of the judiciary—for attending tonight’s function and being an integral part of the history and success of the Victorian Bar Mediation Centre.
Michael Whitten KC,
Chair of the Victorian Bar
Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee:
We gather here at a time when the rise of ADR over the past few decades has reached a point where approximately 85 per cent of all disputes in Australia are resolved by mediation.
The principal work of the ADR Committee involves promotion, education and support for the Bar’s mediators. The ADR skills of barristers are valuably supplemented by their unique experience of court processes and the realities and risks associated with the curial determination of disputes.
In addition to the skills of an effective mediator, the prospects of success in any mediation can be affected by the nature and quality of the setting in which the parties meet.
“ The Bar’s new Mediation Centre is such a place. With its modern and spacious layout, cutting-edge facilities and excellent support services for mediators, practitioners and parties alike, the Centre may now be included among Australia’s premier ADR venues.”
Often, the strain of difficult issues and discussions on individuals and relationships can be ameliorated if they take place in a setting or environment which is conducive to calm and rational reflection—a safe and comfortable space to listen and be heard.
The Bar’s new Mediation Centre is such a place. With its modern and spacious layout, cutting-edge facilities and excellent support services for mediators, practitioners and parties alike, the Centre may now be included among Australia’s premier ADR venues.
Accordingly, may I, on your behalf, extend our congratulations and thanks to all those executive officers, external professionals and staff members from the Bar Office who have worked tirelessly to achieve the seemingly impossible in an extraordinarily short timeframe.
We wish the Centre’s operations and those who use it every success. I am very confident that the Bar’s accredited mediators and other ADR practitioners will look forward to enjoying the Centre for many years to come.
Barefoot bowling on Valentine’s Day, family law style
SARAH HESSION
Love was in the air on the evening of Friday 14 February 2025 as more than 150 members of the family law profession descended on the City of Melbourne Bowls Club in Flagstaff Gardens to participate in and celebrate the 7th annual Family Law Bar Association Barefoot Bowls event.
We were blessed with a balmy summer evening to catch up, have a drink and play some serious (in all reality, far from serious) lawn bowls!
The family law Bar and Bench were beautifully captained by her Honour Judge Jennifer Howe, as were the family law solicitors by Stefan Pantelis of Lander & Rogers.
Up for grabs was the Flagstaff Bell, which has adorned the offices of Sage Family Lawyers for the past 12 months, having been won by the solicitors in 2024.
Our official referee, with a passion for the microphone, was her Honour Judge Evelyn Bender, who returned to the role by popular demand after her Honour’s stellar performance last year.
Judge Bender’s dulcet tones could be heard far and wide as the speakers played throughout the Club, firmly reminding people to take off their
shoes and abandon their drinks before entering the green, directing players to their lanes and generally assisting with an orderly running of the event with judicial aplomb that was both feared and loved in equal measure.
There was much laughter, questionable talent and a genuine delight in the evening, with many describing it as one of the highlights of their family law calendars.
The family law Bar and Bench were ultimately triumphant and the Flagstaff Bell returned to what we at the Bar would say is its rightful home. Judge Howe gave a victory speech
reminiscent of Damien “Dimma” Hardwick after a Tigers win which had the crowd crying with laughter.
The skies followed our tears shortly thereafter with the warm evening giving way to much needed rain after an incredibly warm summer. Our hard-working bowlers headed into the night sheltered under umbrellas with both full bellies and full hearts.
Thanks must go to the Family Law Bar Association Committee who put in a tremendous effort to ensure the event runs smoothly every year, and in particular, to our extraordinary and much treasured Caroline Paterson.
Stefan Pantelis, Judge Jennifer Howe, Judge Evelyn Bender
CommBar Annual Drinks Reception—A celebration of collegiality and the commercial Bar
RAINI ZAMBELLI AND DANIEL BRIGGS
On Wednesday 2 April 2025, more than 250 members of the legal profession were welcomed into the soaring atrium of the Owen Dixon Commonwealth Law Courts Building for the Commercial Bar Association’s Annual Drinks Reception. Hosted by Chief Justice Mortimer of the Federal Court of Australia, Chief Justice Niall of the
Supreme Court of Victoria, and Chief Justice Alstergren of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, the evening reaffirmed its place as a staple of the CommBar calendar.
The event brought together commercial barristers, solicitors, and members of the judiciary in a relaxed and collegial setting—one of the few opportunities each year for informal engagement across the profession and between the Bench and Bar.
As is tradition, the evening featured speeches from each of the Chief Justices, who collectively expressed their appreciation for the important role played by the commercial Bar in the administration of justice.
Chief Justice Mortimer, as principal host, opened the proceedings and acknowledged the critical contribution of counsel to the efficient and fair resolution of commercial matters in the Federal Court. Her Honour reflected on the long-standing collaboration between the Court and the commercial Bar, and the important role played by commercial barristers in a jurisdiction in which commercial filings account for the vast majority of the Court’s total caseload.
Chief Justice Niall echoed her Honour’s sentiments, extending his thanks to commercial barristers for the indispensable support they provide in complex litigation. He spoke in particular of his appreciation
for the Bar’s diligence in its adoption and implementation of the revised Commercial Court Practice Note, which has led to increased efficiencies and helped the Court meet growing caseload demands.
Chief Justice Alstergren spoke of the increasing role of the commercial Bar in proceedings filed in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, particularly in more complex family law cases. He commended the members of the Commercial Bar for their ongoing role, expertise and valuable assistance they bring to these cases.
Finally, CommBar President Paul Hayes KC closed the formal proceedings with a vote of thanks. He acknowledged the enduring generosity of the Courts in hosting the event, and in particular, Chief Justice Mortimer for once again making the magnificent atrium of the Federal Court building available
for this purpose. He also thanked the CommBar Executive Committee for their efforts in coordinating a seamless and successful evening.
The Annual Drinks Reception has long served as a valuable moment for reflection on the work of the commercial Bar and the shared endeavour of the Courts and profession in advancing the rule of law. This year’s event was no exception. With its strong attendance, warm atmosphere, and spirited conversation, the evening exemplified the collegial values at the heart of CommBar’s mission.
For those who attended, the evening served as a timely reminder of the strength, talent and camaraderie within the commercial Bar. For CommBar, it was further affirmation of the value of coming together in person to celebrate the profession and the shared responsibility of delivering justice in commercial matters.
3. Sophie Kearney, Beatrice Paul, Jessica Apel, Lisette Stevens 4. Zoe Anderson, Nicholas Kotzman, Patrick O’Bryan-Gusah, Dr Laura Hilly, Kateena O’Gorman SC
5. Liz Main, David Blumenthal
1. The Hon Justice Stewart Anderson, the Hon Chief Justice William Alstergren AO, the Hon Justice David Beach, Louise Jenkins, Ben Gibson 2. The Hon Justice Matthew Connock, Michael Wyles, Michael Wyles KC
Portrait unveiling: Andrew John Kirkham AM
On 26 March, 2025, family, friends and colleagues of Andrew Kirkham AM RFD KC attended a warm reception for the formal unveiling of a photographic portrait by Earl Carter. The assembled guests were addressed by Gary Hevey RFD SC, who recognised Andrew as a “Legend of the Bar”, having been called to the Bar in 1967.
by Gary Hevey RFD SC
Mr Peter Willis SC Chair of the Art and Collections Committee and members of that Committee. Mr Earl Carter, photographer and author of Andrew’s portrait.
Honoured and Distinguished Guests one and all. And, most importantly, Andrew John Kirkham AM RFD KC and those members of his family that are able to join with us this evening.
It is my privilege to introduce tonight’s official unveiling of Andrew’s portrait in the Victorian Bar’s Peter O’Callaghan QC Gallery.
As one wanders through the Gallery in Owen Dixon East and West those who stare back at us from the walls represent a large part of the history of this Bar, and without doubt each of those so honoured have earned their right to watch over us as we go about our daily avocation.
Tonight, the Arts and Collections Committee, at the behest of Ms Jeanette Swann, Mr David Carne and the Family Law Bar Association along with others of Andrew’s friends add another distinguished portrait to this Gallery. This lad from Warrnambool boarded at Melbourne Grammar and later at
Trinity College attaining a first colours in athletics while in secondary school and a half blue in athletics while at the University of Melbourne. He obtained that half blue in the intervarsity 440 yards in Adelaide having to run three races in one day and besting Ralph Doubell in the process.
Andrew completed his articles with Davies Campbell and Piesse in 1964, was admitted to practice in 1965 and practised as a solicitor with JM Smith & Emmerton through 1965 and 1966.
He signed the Bar Roll in 1967 and has practised continually at the Bar for 57 years with over 40 of the years as a silk, which rank he accepted in 1983.
Despite his exalted status at our Bar Andrew still remains a student at the Middle Temple, having not completed his six dinners or given an assurance that he will spend at least 90 per cent of his time practising in England and Wales. When he first applied, he was met with resistance by the Benchers and was told there were no places, he then inquired whether they were maintaining that, “There was no room at the Inn”—a phrase that had gained some fame about 2000 years before. His gentle humour gained him a position as a student.
The notes contained in the invitation to tonight’s ceremony give but a brief
background to Andrew’s contribution to this Bar. He has been a true leader of three separate disciplines within the Bar: criminal, common law and family law. His participation in notable criminal trials and appeals include (but is not limited to): R v O’Connor, R v Lindy and Michael Chamberlain, R v Apostoulidis, R v Judge Foord, R v Kural and R v Terminals Ltd (the Coode Island Fire, in 1993)
One of his common law trials later attracted the attention of the press and the then Attorney who through ignorance and purely political motives sought to criticise Andy’s use of evidence from a previous proceeding when questioning the veracity of the answers given as to loss of enjoyment of life properly attributable to the current personal injuries claim rather than non-related terrible previous life experiences, also documented on oath in another court. This criticism involved a voice over re-enactment on the ABC Tony Jones late night program. Andrew was prepared to live with the nonsense of the criticism; what he was not prepared to accept was his pointed and perfectly proper questions put to the witness being portrayed by means of a pompous English accented voice over!
Speech given
Peter Willis SC, Andrew Kirkham AM RFD KC, Gary Hevey RFD SC
I know nothing of the Family Law Bar except that it is inhabited by a number of barristers I am proud to call friends. I do remember one night being at a dinner where the male next to me enquired as to what I did for a living. When I told him I was a barrister he recounted that he had once met an honest one. The story was that when divorcing his now ex-wife, who was sitting opposite us, that Kirkham had been briefed on his behalf for a mediation. Apparently, the other side were not in a position to proceed, and the matter never really got started. A few days later my fellow diner received a cheque returning half the brief fee as Andrew thought that an entire day’s fee was excessive having regard to the time spent. Years later, this fellow was still singing Andrew’s praise.
From 1979 to very recent times Andrew has run a parallel legal career in the Royal Australian Air Force. His service to his country has been quite extraordinary. He rose to the rank of Air Commodore and in that capacity served as Deputy Judge Advocate General of the Australian Defence Force. He was awarded the Australian Defence Force Medal, the Reserve Force Decoration with bar and in 2006 was made a Member of the Order of Australia in recognition of his duty to the Australian Defence Force. I recall how proud Jenny was of Andrew’s recognition and how humble Andrew
was when attending to receive his well-deserved award.
While I had met Andrew in the late ‘80s through the military and at the ABA conference in London and Edinburgh, while I was still living in Adelaide my first appearance against Andrew was while he was leading the counsel assisting team in the inquiry into the Blackhawk crash of 12 June 1986 in Townsville. I was acting for the Commanding Officer of 5 Aviation Regiment. Eighteen soldiers and officers lost their lives in that tragic accident. Emotions and egos ran high over a period of many months during this time as people fought to protect their positions while realising that a great deal of change was necessary if the maxim of training hard to fight easy was to remain extant. The inquiry was open, and ministerial direction was given that nothing was to remain secret. Many found this difficult to accept. One event reflects the steel that Andrew has carried with him throughout his professional career. At one stage it was suggested to him by a senior officer that certain witnesses would refuse to answer certain questions. Andrew replied in a measured and quiet, but firm tone (but all the more menacing because of the way it was delivered) that should this occur, he would repeat the question, and should the witness refuse to answer it on the two occasions asked,
Andrew would move for contempt in the face of the tribunal. Message received and understood. All questions were answered.
Some 16 years later I was leading the counsel assisting team in an inquiry presided over by Andrew. During that inquiry another very senior officer indicated that he would not answer a question I had put to him. Andrew looked at the witness and advised him that it would be Andrew who decided whether or not he would answer the question. The witness was directed to answer and did so. On a lighter note, the same witness referred to an order that he had given and when asked what record was made of that important order replied that it was a verbal record. Andrew and I looked at each other as we both pondered the next question: could we please have a copy of that verbal record?
I was fortunate to work with Andrew in numerous inquiries for the Australian Defence Force and for the IBAC. In 2014–2015 Andrew and the Hon Murray Kellam KC sat in an inquiry into the use of Lawyer X by Victoria Police. That inquiry and report remained secret for a number of years but eventually led to the Royal Commission, the Office of the Special Investigator and, to the surprise of a number of people, absolutely nothing else.
Andrew lists his interests as reading, walking and travelling. All who know him will appreciate that he is one of the most widely read people that you could meet. His tastes are eclectic. He can quote at will from the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam through to the Traveller’s Tool by Sir Les Paterson. His walks include a stroll up the Kokoda Trail, not once but twice, and his travels with Jenny included African Safaris and numerous trips to Europe and especially Italy.
Andrew’s work for the Victorian Bar and its various committees rightfully fills pages. It culminated in his service as Chairman of the Victorian Bar Council in 1991–1992 and President of the Australian Bar Association at the same time. It was the organisation of the ABA Conference in London
Brian Kirkham, Anne Cipriani, Andrew Kirkham AM RFD KC, Robert Kirkham
and Edinburgh in June–July 1992 that allowed Andrew’s Scottish heritage to be given full flight. Apart from having the English Bar allow the colonials to have entry to each of the Inns of Court during the London portion of the conference he also organised a most excellent dinner at Hopetoun House, the ancestral home of our first Governor General John Hope, Lord Hopetoun. Displayed on that night was a great deal of memorabilia from the good Lord’s time in the Antipodes. In keeping with Andrew’s military bent the local pipes and drums were arranged to “Beat the Retreat” in the forecourt of this magnificent home for the entertainment of the guests. It was a night that those present will remember forever.
Andrew was made a legend of the Bar in 2012. At the dinner to honour some 18 new legends, Justice Beach placed each of the new legends as if they were a member of an Australian Rules Football team and ascribed each a team position. My recall is that Andrew was named as the Centre Half Back. Justice Beach then referred to the photograph of Andrew on the Vic Bar website which he noted was generally accepted as being designed to attract solicitors to brief one particular counsel instead of any other. His Honour was unkind enough to suggest that Andrew’s marketing skills left a little to be desired with anyone viewing his photograph probably interpreting Andrew’s stern visage as indicating a “get stuffed” attitude to all and sundry. Jenny was heard to remark that she hated it when people called Andrew the Iceman!
One achievement of Andrew’s, and those who served with him on the Bar Council in 1991–1992, should be carved in stone by the Victorian Bar lest it fade into history and be forgotten. At that time there was a serious issue as to whether the Bar would continue to exist as we know it. There were those at the Trade Practices Commission and the Law Reform Commission who challenged the role of the Bar and viewed it as a monopolistic
organisation that should be bought to heel. That steely resolve of Kirkham has never proved more valuable. After marshalling the support of the then Chief Justice, Sir John Young, the heads of all jurisdictions and the Bar itself Andrew went into battle. His success is self-evident but ought never be forgotten. One anecdote is that after the Bar had triumphed, a newspaper article appeared with the defeated professor who had led the charge for the protagonists. It described how the interview was conducted on a Saturday morning at the professor’s home with the smell of blue mountain coffee wafting through the room accompanied by strains of a Mahler symphony. Andrew was not interviewed for the article. He was heard to remark that had he been so interviewed the wafting would have been of the remains of the kids’ previous night’s beer along with AC/DC blaring in the background. So, who is the Andrew that Mr Earl Carter captured in this portrait? Obviously, that will depend on the memories that each of us bring when we stand in front of this image. For my part, I see an Andrew that I have known for many years. I think that the portrait captures Andrew’s strength and wisdom. One of Andrew’s great
enjoyments has always been his visits to the Essoign where the camaraderie of the Bar, its wit and repartee were often on display. His enjoyment at being part of this great Bar and its traditions would often erupt in laughter. In this portrait, I see the steely exterior that Andrew presents to those who have not had the good fortune to get to know him, but as well, I see the faint glimmer of a smile just starting on the right side of his face, still partly in shadow but, ready to share whatever anecdote or joke that he is about to recount.
The other thing that I think absolutely captures Andrew is that just to his left, is a photograph of he and his beloved Jenny who was taken far too early.
To Andrew and Jenny’s children Robert, Anne and Brian, to their partners Emma, Damon and Tracey and to all their extended families, tonight is yet another night to be proud of your dad; this Bar is proud of your father’s achievements and honours him accordingly.
To each of those responsible for arranging Andrew’s portrait to join this Gallery, and most especially Jeanette Swann, David Carne and Earl Carter, we owe a vote of thanks for their work in ensuring that tonight has occurred.
Peter Willis SC, Jeanette Swann
Spectacular evening at the NGV
Highlights from the 2025 Victorian Bar Dinner
JO DOUGHERTY
On Saturday, 10 May 2025, more than 500 people dressed in their finest, including kilts, for the muchanticipated 2025 Victorian Bar Dinner at the National Gallery of Victoria.
For the second consecutive year, the NGV’s Great Hall provided the perfect backdrop for the black-tie affair, with Japanese artist Yayoi Kusama’s Dancing Pumpkin and silver reflective balls in the foyer proving very popular with guests.
Among the distinguished guests were Her Excellency Professor the Honourable Margaret Gardner AC and Victorian Attorney-General Sonya Kilkenny MP.
Numerous Heads of Jurisdiction were also in attendance, including the Honourable Chief Justice Stephen Gageler AC—the 14th Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia—who gave a warm and inspiring keynote address on the core values and collegiality of the Bar.
A special part of the evening was the acknowledgement of 13 Victorian Bar members who have achieved a remarkable 45 years of continuous practice. President Justin Hannebery KC said the “45-ers” commenced their professional journeys prior to the internet and mobile phones, and that they had lived and thrived through the revolution of these technologies.
Mr Hannebery KC also acknowledged the newest members of the Bar; some of whom had only signed the Bar Roll four weeks previously.
The Great Hall was abuzz with excitement throughout the evening as colleagues and friends from the judiciary and various Bars of Australia made the most of the opportunity to catch up in a social environment.
Of course, staging nights like this do not happen overnight with many months of work going into organising the event.
Special mention must go to Stephen Porter in the Bar Office, who worked tirelessly behind the scenes to ensure the dinner was a resounding success.
1. The Hon Chief Justice Stephen Gageler AC, the Hon Kenneth Hayne AC KC 2. Laila Hamzi, Rachel Amamoo, Maya Narayan, Monika Pekevska, Sam Jayasekara 3. Dylan Iaonnou-Booth, Georgia Suhren, Josh Cunningham 4. Liz Ruddle KC, Kylie Evans KC, Julia Nikolic, Kerry Paull 5. Her Excellency Professor the Honourable Margaret Gardner AC, Governor of Victoria 6. Lisa Hannon KC, Justin Hannebery KC, Fiona Ryan SC 7. Dr James Cameron, Ben Kelly, Jarrad Mathie, Johnathon Allan 8. Dr Ashleigh Best, Ruben Clark, Eliza Panckridge, Panagiota Pisani 9. Hetty Champion de Crespigny, Georgia Dobbyn 10. Keith Sypott, Andrew Spierings, Harley Schumann 11. Justin Brereton, Tamara Quinn, Natalie Sheridan-Smith 12. Christopher Lum, Caitrin Davis
1. Ffyona Livingstone Clark, Fiona Ryan SC, Fiona Forsyth KC, Fiona Spencer KC, Fiona McLeod AO SC, Fiona McLeay (aka “The Fionas”) 2. Marissa Chorn, Emily Golshtein, Anita Bartfeld, Carly Marcs 3. Lachlan Howe, Patrick Santamaria, Katie Manning 4. Tess Simpson, Alannah Slater, Alexander Pemberton, Meg Stevenson 5. Kathryn Browne, Daniel Wright-Neville, Tom Egan, Gavin Rees 6. Raini Zambelli, Fiona Forsyth KC 7. Zubin Menon, Fabian Brimfield, Bonnie Renou 8. The Hon Justice Michelle Gordon AC, the Hon Kenneth Hayne AC KC, Julia Watson 9. His Honour Judge Damian Murphy; Paul Scanlon KC, Paul Hayes KC, the Hon Justice Jack Forrest 10. Georgina Schoff KC, Will Houghton KC, the Hon Justice Claire Harris 11. The “Bar Mums” 12. The Hon Chief Justice Stephen Gageler AC 13. Nick Ellis, Adrian Dean, Carly Burgess, Rhiannon Saint, Harriet Geddes, Matt O’Grady 14. Ivana Smojver, Ruben Clark, Panagiota Pisani, Rachel Matulis 15. Jamie Blaker, Shawn Rajanayagam, Tom Wood, Rachel Amamoo, Nicholas Boyd-Caine, Chadwick Wong 16. Marcel Delany, Ella Delany, the Hon Justice Michelle Gordon AC 17. The Hon Tony Cavanough KC, Jeremy Ruskin KC, the Hon Justice David Beach.
Jason
Paul Scanlon KC, John Richards KC 4. Georgina
the
Attorney-General 5. Rowan Minson, Colette Mintz, Nick Wood SC, Emrys Nekvapil SC 6. Kate Gladman, Shivani Pillai, Rachel Matulis 7. William Liu, Csaba Baranyai, Sverre Gunnersen, Dr Megan Blake 8. Campbell Horsfall, Marian Clarkin 9. Dugald McWilliams SC, Ffyona Livingstone Clark, Andrew Spierings, Lachlan Armstrong KC (aka ‘The Scots’) 10. Anthony Nolan KC, the Hon Tony Cavanough KC, the Hon John Digby KC, the Hon Justice Jacinta Forbes
11. Victorian Bar President Justin Hannebery KC 12. Roshan Chaile, Richard Harris SC, Haroon Hassan, Huw Watkins 13 Rhiannon Saint, Annette Gaber, Olivia Callahan, Oliver Scoullar-Greig 14 Yusur Al-Azzawi, Laila Hamzi, Eugene Twomey, Andy Hanna, Gisela Nip, Sepideh Sadri
1.
Pennell, Gerard Meehan 2. Stella Gold, Anna Lord, Fiona Batten 3. Anthony Nolan KC, Shane Newton, Peter Kistler,
Costello KC,
Hon Michael O’Brien MP, Victorian Shadow
VICTORIAN BAR NEWS
News Views&
Fit to serve
Court appoints marathon-loving Chief Justice Richard Niall
DYLAN DEXTER
In a widely celebrated appointment, on 3 February 2025, Chief Justice Richard Niall was appointed the 13th Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Victoria.
His Honour’s path is one of both excellence and decency. He went to secondary school at Xavier College, completed degrees in Economics and Law at Monash University, entered legal practice in 1990, and came to the Bar in 1995. In his early years at the Bar, he shared chambers with Debra Mortimer, now Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Australia. The two remain close friends.
His Honour developed a national practice in public and industrial law, and a reputation as an advocate who ‘knew how to win’. He was one of the founding members of the impressive public law group on level 22 of Owen Dixon Chambers West. He was known for his pro bono work and his mentorship, having taken on 10 readers in five-and-a-half years and informally mentoring many other developing practitioners.
In 2010, his Honour was appointed Senior Counsel. He appeared in the High Court of Australia in a broad range of cases, including landmark decisions in human rights and environmental law. Notable examples include cases concerning Australia’s decision to send asylum seekers to Malaysia in 2011, the validity of the Commonwealth intervention in the Northern Territory in 2012, the mandatory indefinite detention of asylum seekers also in 2012, and the validity of adverse ASIO security assessments of refugees in 2013. He also appeared for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in a case concerning the power of the Australian Government to intercept and turn back asylum seekers at sea. He was retained by the Australian Fisheries Management Authority in matters about the allocation of fishing entitlements, and by
environmental groups in challenges to a large-scale pulp mill in Tasmania and to the logging of old growth forests in Gippsland, Victoria.
His Honour’s contribution to public interest advocacy was significant. In recognition of his work for refugees and asylum seekers, his Honour was awarded the inaugural International Commission of Jurists (Victoria) John A Gibson AM Award for Distinguished Human Rights and Refugee Advocacy in 2014, Life Membership of the Refugee and Immigration Legal Centre in 2012, the Victorian Bar Public Interest Justice Innovation Award, and the Australian Human Rights Commission Law Award (awarded jointly with the Refugee and Immigration Legal Centre, Allens Arthur Robinson and Debra Mortimer SC, as her Honour then was) in 2011.
In 2015, his Honour was appointed as Solicitor-General of Victoria. In that role he advised the state in developing its laws and advocated for the state in the High Court and intermediate appellate courts.
In November 2017, his Honour was appointed to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria. His Honour has sat in both criminal and civil appeals, as well as in matters in the trial division. In addition to his judicial work, the Chief Justice has also served on committees such as the Courts Koori Committee and the Rules Committee.
Chief Justice Niall’s legal acumen is indisputable. Less immediately apparent from his resume, but no less impressive, is his personal decency. His Honour is a keen long-distance runner, having completed the Gold Coast Marathon twice, the Berlin Marathon, and most recently, the New York Marathon. His Honour is also a music lover with diverse tastes extending to Kraftwerk and Wu Tang Clan.
British justice in relation to homicide involving the Aboriginal people of the Port Phillip District
ROB LARKINS
Before Victoria was separated from NSW and became a colony, the region was known by the British as the Port Phillip District.
Permanent settlement by Europeans commenced in 1835 when Fawkner, Batman and others sailed from Van Diemen’s Land to take possession and graze sheep.
From the outset, the British legal system failed to recognise Aboriginal ownership of land. Bearing that fundamental defect in mind, this article considers how the criminal law functioned in relation to homicides involving Europeans and the Aboriginal people. The names of deceased are mentioned in this article.
The early period
In August 1835, about two hundred Wurundjeri gathered by the Yarra River to watch the unloading of Fawkner’s Enterprize. A second ship soon arrived with Batman’s party. For the first time sheep were emerging onto Kulin land. The reaction of the locals seemed to be a mixture of curiosity and wariness, with no apparent resistance. Who could have imagined the devastation that was to follow?
The Europeans soon began dispersing onto Country. Charles Franks moved his sheep onto Wurundjeri land where he squatted north of Werribee. The reality of what was going on was now becoming apparent to the local people. They took action and killed Franks and one of his shepherds.
John Fawkner responded by organising a posse of vigilantes who travelled to the region and went on a killing spree. A Launceston newspaper reported on 30 July
1836: “This tribe, which we now presume to be no longer troublesome, were it appears, a particularly treacherous people.” 1 Nobody was charged with any offence. It was the first of the many massacres in the Port Phillip District that were to follow.
The arrival of Captain Lonsdale
In Sydney, Governor Bourke began hearing reports about killings in an unauthorised settlement down south. He published a proclamation directed at the people of Port Phillip: “…the promptest measures will be taken by me to cause all persons who may be guilty of any outrage against the Aboriginal natives…to be brought to trial… and punished accordingly”.2
Bourke followed up in September 1836, by appointing Captain Lonsdale as a Magistrate and sending him to Port Phillip along with a detachment of marines. Because the settlement was part of New South Wales, serious crimes were tried in Sydney before the Supreme Court of New South Wales.
Captain Lonsdale was soon faced with his first murder case. The killing occurred at the squatter run of Frederick Taylor, which was on Wadawurrung Country near Geelong. A Wadawurrung man was suspected of taking a sheep. He’d been captured and tied to a tree. Taylor went for assistance and asked John Whitehead to keep guard. After Taylor left, Whitehead shot and killed the prisoner. When Captain Lonsdale heard about the killing, he had Whitehead arrested. The accused was tried in the Supreme Court of New South Wales for murder. Like many that were to follow, the prosecution failed due to lack of evidence.3
Resistance
As Europeans spread across the District of Port Phillip, the Aboriginal people fought to
retain their land. British justice did not come to their rescue. Two massacres in 1839 serve as examples.
The Mount Emu Creek massacre all but wiped out the Tarnbeere Gundidj clan near Mount Emu Creek in Victoria’s Western District. A shepherd employed by Frederick Taylor reported that Aboriginal people had killed some sheep. Taylor led a reprisal party on horseback that shot dead 35 Aboriginal men, women, and children.4 When word got out about the atrocity, it caused disquiet among the white population. Frederick Taylor was concerned enough to fear prosecution so fled the jurisdiction by ship to India.
With rare exceptions, when there was a massacre, the Europeans involved maintained a code of silence.5 George Augustus Robinson, who arrived in Port Phillip in February 1839 as Chief Protector of Aborigines, got busy collecting evidence from Aboriginal witnesses. The judiciary did not trust the evidence of Aboriginal people. The rationale was that Aboriginal people were unfamiliar with the Almighty, so swearing of an oath was meaningless, and they were not permitted to give evidence.6 On a practical level, there was a dearth of interpreters. As a consequence, Frederick Taylor and others involved in the massacre were never prosecuted. By 1844, Taylor had returned to the District and taken up a run in Gippsland. Charles La Trobe, who was appointed the District’s Superintendent in 1839, reported to the Colonial Secretary that the decision whether to prosecute Frederick Taylor had “ended in satisfactory disproval”.7
The Campaspe Plains massacre near Campaspe Creek in Central Victoria occurred after Taungurung warriors killed two shepherds on land occupied by Charles Hutton. To teach them a lesson, Hutton led a posse of armed settlers who killed approximately 40
Taungurung. Robinson’s assistant gathered statements from survivors and concluded that the massacre was, “a deliberately planned illegal reprisal”.8 Despite the statements obtained from Aboriginal eyewitnesses, there was no prosecution. Charles Hutton remained a free man. He showed no remorse and maintained that Aboriginal people ought to be exterminated.9
As frontier massacres continued, Superintendent La Trobe was keen to ensure that Aboriginal warriors did not get hold of guns, and he wrote to George Augustas Robinson to remove any guns already in the possession of Aboriginal people.10
Supreme Court of NSW sitting at Port Phillip District
The Supreme Court of New South Wales began sitting at Port Phillip in 1841. Prisoners charged with murder would no longer have to be shipped to Sydney. The new courthouse was on the corner of Bourke and King Streets. The first resident judge was Justice Willis, who remained in the role until 1843. Willis was a racist who had been “amoved” through various British colonies until he was finally dumped at the end of the earth in Port Phillip.
In 1841, Justice Willis presided over a murder trial in which two brothers with the surname of Bolden were accused of shooting and killing an Aboriginal man named Tatkier. It was submitted in the Boldens’ defence that the deceased had been trespassing on land they claimed as their pastoral lease. Willis J found that even when there was no grant, lease or licence, the Bolden brothers had a right to turn-off a trespasser from their run. He directed the jury to acquit.11
Governor Gipps, in Sydney, heard about the situation and commented that, with Willis’ decision in Bolden, he had become an “apologist of the cruellest practices by some of the least respectable of the settlers on the Aborigines”. 12
In 1842, three white men callously killed three Aboriginal women and a child in what is known as the Muston’s Creek massacre. The authorities acted appropriately, and a reward of 100 pounds was offered. A white witness named Christopher McGuiness came forward and gave an account to Chief Protector Robinson. At a procedural hearing, Justice Willis expressed his annoyance at government resources being utilised to bring the three accused before a court in circumstances where, in another matter, a settler had been killed and no Aboriginal person had been charged. At their trial for murder, the three accused were found not guilty by a jury that reached its verdict before the prosecution had completed its case.13
Punishment
When Aboriginal people were accused of killing white people, the accused were invariably found guilty. Maulboyheenner and Tunnerminnerwait were Palawa men born in Van Diemen’s Land. They had been brought to the Port Phillip District from Flinders Island and were abandoned to fend for themselves in what was effectively a foreign land. Their group had a campsite at Western Port near where the bodies of two missing sealers were found. Maulboyheenner and Tunnerminnerwait were accused of the killings and charged with murder. Justice Willis presided, with Redmond Barry for the defence. When summing up, Willis reminded the jury to fulfil their duty to prevent the “recurrence of similar acts of aggression”.14 The jury deliberated for only half an hour before finding both accused guilty of murder. When sentencing, Justice Willis stated that, “the prisoners by now had been taught that there was a supreme being and that those who commit murder are punished by death”.15 The executions would be public.
On 20 January 1842, an estimated 5,000 people gathered to watch Maulboyheenner and Tunnerminnerwait die. The two Aboriginal men were the first victims of judicial killings in the Port Phillip District. Other Aboriginal men would soon follow them to the gallows. This was at the same time that the Aboriginal community was being overwhelmed by death from diseases like influenza, smallpox and tuberculosis. It was an apocalypse; loss of population, loss of Country and loss of culture.
The District of Port Phillip becomes the Colony of Victoria
Meanwhile, the killing of Aboriginal people continued. The Whyte brothers occupied land near Coleraine and were incensed when Aboriginal hunters killed some sheep. The predictable response was another massacre. Unusually, John Whyte, the youngest of the brothers, rode to Melbourne
and reported to LaTrobe that he and his brothers had killed 25 Aboriginal people. Assistant Protector Seivwright, then took depositions from the other Whyte brothers who all confessed. The only significant variation in their accounts was the estimates of the number they had killed which varied from 30 to 80.16
This surely would lead to murder convictions? But the Crown Prosecutor, James Croke, decided the statements were inadmissible because they were made without informing the suspects of their right to silence and the Aboriginal people had started it by killing the sheep. Without independent witnesses there would be no prosecution.17
In 1851, on the cusp of the gold rush, the Port Phillip District of NSW was established as the Colony of Victoria. During the entire Port Phillip District period, only one European was ever found guilty of killing an Aboriginal person. That was in 1848, and the prisoner only served two months.18
1 The Cornwell Chronicle (Launceston, 30 July 1836) 2.
2 Ian MacFarlane, The Public Executions at Melbourne (Victorian Government Printer, 1995) 5.
3 from Foster Fyans to Colonial Secretary, HRV, Vol 1, 234-5.
4 Ian D Clark, Scars in the Landscape (Aboriginal Studies Press, 1995) 105-118.
5 Clark, 9.
6 Paul Mullaly, Crime in the Port Phillip District (Hybrid Publishers, 2009) 37.
7 Clark, 117.
8 Bain Attwood, ‘My Country’- A History of the Djadja Wurrung (Monash Publications in History; 25, 1999) 7-9.
9 George Augustus Robinson’s Journal, 1840, RHSV.
10 Public Records Office of Victoria VPRS 11/ P0000/304.
11 Clark, 130.
12 MacFarlane, 3.
13 The Hon. Marilyn Warren AC KC (Speech, Royal Historical Society of Victoria, 28 April 2011) 19.
14 Marguerita Stephens and Fay Stewart-Muir, The Years of Terror (Australian Scholarly Publishing, 2023) 223.
Tunnerminnerwait and Maulboyheenner by Marlene Gilson, 2015, synthetic polymer paint on linen
CANDID CAMERA
Sartorial Splendour
For this edition’s Candid Camera, we head to Level 21 of Owen Dixon Chambers
West to visit commercial barrister and former VBN Editor Banjo McLachlan in his light-filled, thematically mercurial chambers, which meld the classical and the contemporary.
BY SEBASTIAN CAMPBELL
The first thing you notice when you enter Banjo’s chambers is the light. Lumens, lux, or candela—whatever your preferred unit of measurement, there’s lots of it. This north-facing room efficiently scoops up whatever the sun has blessed Melbourne with on any given day, providing as much light to bask in as your schedule, or your host, will allow.
Despite a complexion which confirms his distant Scottish ancestry, and employing a healthily guarded approach to the Australian sun’s damaging rays when outside, Banjo’s attitude to internal light is different: “My mother really only has one rule about real estate: it must face north. And I’m at an age where strong overhead lighting is not your friend.”
Calling this space home for the past two years, Banjo has been resident on Level 21 for 11 years. When this current room became available, it presented the challenge, and opportunity, to do something different with a new, bigger space. To assist, Banjo
eschewed the old adage of ‘never hire someone you can’t fire’, and enlisted the help of his husband, interior designer Paul Mahony of design firm Fifteen Eighteen.
To soften and temper the natural light, Banjo chose the paint colour ‘blue spruce’ for the walls. The hue is so subtle that at times you forget it’s even there. His workspace comprises a Nomos desk designed by Sir Norman Foster, which he bought during his reading period from Dr Andrew Hanak KC for a fire sale price (as Andrew was upgrading to a sit/stand desk—very avant-garde at the time). The glass and chromed steel desk has been with him ever since in rooms large and small.
A round, low-set Calacatta Viola marble coffee table occupies the centre of the room, positioned to make the most of ample sun. Flanked by a tan leather sofa, and two smart upholstered club chairs which Paul rescued from a vintage store for $30 and masterfully upcycled, it provides a meeting point for conferences with instructors, or coffees with colleagues.
In the north-western corner of the room, perched upon a desk otherwise occupied by readers, sits a sandstone Discobolus, primed and ready to cast his oblate spheroid stone down Lonsdale Street. The readers’ desk (where your correspondent sat during his first nine months at the Bar), is bathed in Melbourne’s soft autumnal, then winter sun, from March–September, and has views out to the You Yangs and the West Gate Bridge in the distance, and Marvel Stadium and the Bolte Bridge nearer afield.
Despite being a conscientious objector to ball sports, a red Sherrin is right at home nestled amongst Banjo’s VRs and model aeroplane collection. Visitors are forgiven for assuming that this confirms their suspicions that he is an avowed footy fan, but a closer inspection reveals the AFL logo has been surreptitiously replaced with the word “YES”.
Only 20 of these Sherrins exist, the limited run made to mark the AFL’s support of same-sex marriage around the time of the Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey. One was gifted to Banjo by a family member, and Banjo considers this particular football sufficiently meaningful to warrant a workaround to his sports moratorium.
Several other items bearing a familial connection also find a home in Banjo’s chambers, including a leatherbound copy of The Companies Act 1934 belonging to his great-grandfather Stanley Murray (complete with handwritten redline markup), and the wigbox belonging to Stanley’s uncle, and Banjo’s thrice great-uncle, George Murray, who served as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of South Australia between 1916 and 1942.
In keeping with the South Australian theme, two striking works by young Adelaide-born artist Angus Hamra adorn the walls: one an oil on canvas landscape, the other a sprawling piece of bleached denim.
Of vastly different mediums, the two works bear few similarities outside their artistic merit.
Banjo commissioned Angus to paint the landscape piece—an imposing, gnarled redgum keeping watch over a dry riverbed. The scene, emerging from generous dollops of impasto and taking up much of the southern wall of his chambers, depicts one of his favourite places on his family farm in South Australia.
On the eastern wall, the enormous piece of dark blue denim bears the words “QUIET HEART”, in a notso-quiet nod to cult favourite indie rock band The Go-Betweens. Banjo confesses he was not exactly au fait with the band’s expansive, albeit niche, catalogue when he bought the piece, but it caught his eye as he scrolled through Instagram whilst sitting on the tarmac on a delayed flight to Sydney. “I was drawn to it as soon as I saw it but had no idea at that point that it was made of denim. Or that it was six metres long. It arrived rolled up in an Australia Post tube. Luckily it fitted in my old shoebox chambers—sort of.” Sitting quietly below that piece, the eastern wall is completed by a modern lamp and the sofa, upon which Banjo admits he occasionally lies supine to complete the Wordle, denies he ever naps, and does not know so cannot admit what his readers do on it when not under his watchful eye.
From the moment you set foot in Banjo’s chambers, there’s an intentional sense of calm. Less Byron Bay yoga studio, more trendy and refined bookstore, or art gallery, with an inviting lack of pretence. Part of this, of course, is due to the nature of the occupant. But the balance is due to the space he has been able to create, which succeeds in serving the dual purpose that good chambers must: a place which is welcoming and comfortable, but undeniably professional.
Victorian Bar Archives and Historical Collection
STEVE STEFANOPOULOS
Celebrating a quasquicentennial is a major milestone for the Victorian Bar. To mark 125 years, we are showcasing some of the highlights in the Archives and Historical Collection.
This rich collection of historical material includes an array of traditional business records such as minute books, registers and other paper-based items; photographs including a vast series of group photographs of the many readers who have come through the doors of Owen Dixon Chambers in recent decades; a number of old format and obsolete audio and video recordings—many yet to be digitised; a complete set of newsletters, magazines and other publications (some of which have been digitised in recent years); objects such as silver-plated candle sticks, architectural drawings and the many framed items including the extensive portraits in the Peter O’Callaghan QC Gallery.
In late 2024, the Bar Council appointed me as the Bar’s professional archivist to oversee the gathering and accessioning of the archives and historical collection. The collection will soon be moving into a new repository in Owen Dixon Chambers East, which will help preserve these important records.
Steve Stefanopoulos OAM is the Victorian Bar’s Archivist and Historical Collections Manager
Victorian Bar Council Minutes Book 20 June 1900 –14 November 1907
The small, leather covered, 200-pluspage book documents the first meeting of 25 barristers held in John Box’s chambers “to consider the advisability of appointing a Committee to represent those gentlemen who practiced exclusively as Counsel at the Bar in matters affecting them in the practice of their profession”. The hand-written entries can be difficult to read but it is anticipated that the book will be digitised to ensure its future preservation.
Paper records
The collection includes a comprehensive series of records documenting the obituaries of many members of the Bar, which appear in the famous lift noticeboards. These records, as well as the speeches given by many members—whether upon appointment to higher office or retirement—are also well documented.
A recent donation of correspondence documents the life of Sir Robert Vincent Monahan (1898–1975) and features letters and telegrams from prominent Victorians marking (among other milestones) his appointment as King’s Counsel in 1947 and his Knighthood in 1967.
Audio and visual records
Two orations by Sir Ninian Stephen at Wilson Hall, University of Melbourne, were captured on audio cassette. The first was on 18 July 1984, to mark the centenary of the Victorian Bar1 and the second, on 28 April 1986, commemorated the centenary of the birth of the late Sir Owen Dixon. Fast forward 20 years and two video
cassette recordings were made of Judge Walsh’s “All-Stars” at the annual Bar Dinner.
Also held in the collection is a microfilm copy of the Bar Roll, captured on 23 July 1974. The Bar Roll, which registers all members from 1900 onwards, is one of the collection’s most valuable and critical records.
capture a significant day in the life of all barristers.
The featured photo was taken in the Supreme Court courtyard—possibly around 1913 or 1917, according to the handwritten notation on the back of the photo, which also features some names and appears to be the “opinion of [Sir] James Tait 1980”.
1 Readers who are puzzled as to how the Bar could have turned 100 in 1984 and 125 in 2025 are referred to the editorial on page 5.
VICTORIAN BAR
What was the first case argued by a member of the Victorian Bar in the Supreme Court?
The answer depends, as most do.
NIKOLAS BARRON
On a grey, wet morning in October 2022, I took the train to Sunshine to seek an interim personal safety intervention order in a matter arising from a commercial tenancy dispute. Officially and ceremonially, I had joined the Victorian Bar a few days earlier by signing the Roll. But it was not until I emerged back into the light spring rain that I felt my career as a barrister had truly begun.
The Bar tracks many of the landmarks and milestones of its own history. One can readily find out when a barrister first set foot in Melbourne (Edward J Brewster, followed by James Croke and Redmond Barry, in 1839), when the first barristers were
admitted in a court in Victoria (at the first sitting of the New South Wales Supreme Court in the Port Phillip District, 1841), or learn the name of the first woman to join the previously all-male profession (Joan Rosanove (née Lazarus), 1923).
These are all important moments, to be sure. But is a barrister a barrister simply by virtue of entering the profession, or by doing their work? Was I a barrister before I walked into the Sunshine Magistrates’ Court, or did I become one by doing so?
Or, to put it another way, what was the first case to be argued by a Victorian barrister? The answer depends, as most do.
Whatever brief Brewster first picked up on his arrival in 1839, it is beyond my ability to find. It would have been an inferior court matter, because New South Wales did not make legislative provision for its Supreme Court to sit in Melbourne until 1840, and did not make practical provision for it to do so until it sent Judge Walpole Willis to the Port Phillip District (now the State of Victoria) in March 1841.
The early business of the Supreme Court included several matters which laid bare the tension between the ongoing violence of colonisation and the self-conception of the British as a lawful and law-abiding power.
In September, Redmond Barry QC defended the accused in R v Bonjon, arguing that his Indigenous client was not subject to British laws. Later that year, he defended two Indigenous
men and three Indigenous women, all of whom had been forced from Tasmania to the mainland, after they waged a campaign of anticolonial resistance. His efforts were unsuccessful. Despite the jury’s plea for mercy, Judge Willis saw to it that the two men, Tunnerminnerwait and Maulboyheenner, were sentenced to death for the murders of two sailors in a shootout. They were the first people to be executed in the colony.
But those cases, while notable, were not the first that the new Supreme Court dealt with. The daily work of the court was more prosaic in nature— commercial disputes, and crimes of various levels of severity.
Perhaps the answer to our question lies elsewhere anyway. The court was, after all, a New South Wales court at the time. And the barristers themselves, though significant figures in the legal history of Victoria, all began their careers elsewhere.
The newly independent Supreme Court of Victoria first set rules for admission to practice as a barrister in 1852. The first person to make it through the process was a reporter for the Argus, John Morris Travers McDonogh. A criminal defence advocate, McDonogh was admired for his skill with juries, and for taking on clients who could not pay. It is unclear what his first case was, though he had a later sideline in representing himself. He contested a charge of property damage in a Castlemaine police court in 1858 (he was found guilty and fined
£10, with his request to delay payment refused) and told a jury considering a charge of perjury against him in 1859 that he would pray for death were he convicted (they acquitted him).
Nevertheless, one might wonder if there truly were Victorian barristers without a Victorian Bar. Horsburgh v Christie, decided on 3 October 1900, is an unremarkable case regarding the jurisdiction of a court of petty sessions. It is noteworthy only for the fact that it was decided only some 12 days after the formation of the modern Victorian Bar. Previous associations of barristers had existed before—Table Talk noted the tendency of such organisations to spring up periodically in the “unemployed moments” of Melbourne’s barristers. But nearly 125 years later, the Bar endures. Table Talk ceased publication in 1939. What can we take away from all this? For one, the regular practice of the law is easily lost to history. Seminal cases endure, but the Bar’s ordinary, daily work generally only survives in the archives of the courts and the memories of practitioners. But tracing it allows us to see both the evolution of the profession and to find continuity with the past.
On 15 April 1841, the first civil sitting of Melbourne’s new Supreme Court was adjourned after Judge Willis took to the Bench to discover nothing before him but a “beggarly account of briefless barristers”. It makes one all the more grateful for an early first brief (even if not before the Supreme Court).
The Victorian Reports turn 150
PETER WILLIS
The Victorian Reports are the oldest authorised law reports in Australia. Just 10 years junior to those of England and Wales, the Victorian Reports are published by the Council of Law Reporting in Victoria, formed in 1874. Commencing formally in February 1875, the Reports and the Council have just turned 150.
Why was Victoria first in this field? Perhaps because it had the most sophisticated and busy Australian courts of the day, reflecting the gold rush induced explosion of the population, commerce and disputes, as well as a Bar that was highly aware of the latest developments in law reporting in London. In the 1870s, more than half the Victorian Bar, whether born locally or in England or Ireland, had trained in London. All this underscored the desire to have the most authoritative and current reports of Victorian decisions.
The Council of Law Reporting was modelled on the English body established in 1865.1 The purpose was to move from private law reports to law reports with judgments revised by the judges.
The Victorian Council was formed at the instigation of the nascent Victorian Bar, at two general meetings of the legal profession of Melbourne, held in August and December 1874. This was a remarkable instance of collective action by the profession, at a time when there was a recognisable Bar (albeit without any formal committee or organisation) and the solicitors and attorneys’ Law Institute was still in comparative infancy.2
Before the Council of Law Reporting and authorised reports
Reports of decided cases—in particular, authoritative reports of cases of precedential importance—are an essential feature of the common law system of jurisprudence. Prior to the establishment of the Council, law reporting in Victoria, as initially in all the Australian colonies, was a matter of newspaper reporting and of privately produced ‘nominate’ reports.
The first separately produced reports, from 1846 to 1851, consisted of annual digests of reserved judgments decided by the resident judge, prepared by his clerk, Robert Shadforth, “from the Judge’s notes”.
Private law reports were mostly culled from newspapers. And, indeed, from the 1850s, The Argus regularly and diligently reported cases. It had anonymous barristers filing reports; for the most interesting and newsworthy ones, setting out argument by argument, including virtual transcripts of evidence, with full accounts of dispositions and ex tempore reasons of the Supreme Court. The Age also reported court proceedings, although with less formality, consistency and detail.3
From 1861, there began a series of highly regarded and professional private law reports of decisions of the
Supreme Court, under three successive editorial teams, collectively, the first Victorian Reports. The founding series was edited by barristers Alfred Wyatt and George Webb (covering cases decided in 1861–1863). Wyatt (1819–1901) was the senior, admitted to the Middle Temple in 1845, he came first to South Australia, where he was a newspaper editor before seeking reciprocal admission as a barrister there in 1853, followed by admission in Melbourne in 1854. He departed the editorial role after the 1869 volume, perhaps seeking judicial preferment— eventually he was appointed a paid magistrate and acted as a County Court judge on multiple occasions. Webb (1828–1891) trained initially as a Parliamentary shorthand writer in London. He came to Melbourne in his twenties and prepared the official transcript of the Eureka trials. He studied law at the then new Melbourne University Law School and came to the Victorian Bar in 1860. He built a flourishing equity practice, took silk and later became a Supreme Court judge.4
From 1864, these privately owned reports became ‘Wyatt, Webb and a’Beckett’ when a young Thomas a’Beckett (1836–1919), nephew of the first Chief Justice of Victoria and later himself a Supreme Court judge, joined the enterprise, and then, as the Victorian Reports, edited by Webb, covered 1870–1872.5 These reports quickly established themselves as authoritative. In the style of certain privileged private English reports in London, they were reviewed or approved by the judges. Yet, they were slow. As George Webb confessed in 1874:
he had long seen the necessity of having full and early reports of the proceedings in the Supreme Courts, and he had done his utmost to supply them as far as possible. He had, however, found that he could not bring them out in time.
This became the impetus for a new structure for law reporting in Victoria.
A proposal for a Council of Law Reporting
As noted, the Council of Law Reporting in Victoria was formed out of meetings in 1874. The proceedings of the meetings were fully reported in the daily press, with every speaker identified and their comments set out verbatim.6
The law officers, George Kerferd, Attorney-General,7 and Townsend McDermott, Solicitor-General,8 actively participated. In addition, politician barristers, George Higinbotham and Henry Wrixon, led the discussion, in dialogue with George Webb, and with forthright contributions from John Burnett Box, then a junior, later to be Secretary of the Bar, first `Chairman’ of Bar Council, Editor of the VLRs and County Court judge.
One Friday afternoon in August 1874, about 30 members of the Bar met at the chambers of Henry Wrixon at 73 Chancery Lane (Little Bourke St), “to take into consideration the advisability of establishing a council of law reporting, with a view of placing the Victorian law reports on a satisfactory basis”. George Kerferd opened proceedings:
it had been considered desirable to convene a meeting of legal profession, in order to ascertain whether it was not possible to place the reports of the Supreme Court on a more satisfactory basis than was the case at present. … The best course to adopt would be to appoint a committee that would ... make full inquiries relative to the cost of securing full and authentic reports of the proceedings in the various law courts. There was no necessity for him to point out to the members of the profession present that authentic reports of cases were in reality their tools of trade, and it was therefore very desirable that they should be obtained as early as possible.
Everyone agreed with these sentiments. The question was how and at what cost? Would the Government
“The Victorian Reports not only record the law authoritatively but offer insight into the changing face of society at large”
subsidise? (No, else the doctors would claim subsidy for their learned proceedings.) After some debate, the meeting appointed a committee, comprising Higinbotham, Edward Holroyd and Webb, representing barristers, and Ramsay, Malleson and John Mark Davies representing attorneys.9
“Inquiring into the whole subject”, the committee interviewed two local publishers and barrister, Peter Stevenson Davis, proprietor and editor of the Australian Jurist and its competing Australian Jurist Reports supplement.
In mid-December 1874, at a meeting again in Wrixon’s chambers, Higinbotham presented the committee’s recommendation for the establishment of a Council of Law Reporting, accepting an offer by Charles Maxwell (scion of London legal publishers, Maxwell & Sons) to publish the new reports for one year “at his own risk”. Maxwell agreed to pay £500 to the Council for the “literary matter” (that is, fees for the editor and reporters) if a guaranteed sale of 300 copies at £4 4s pa could be obtained.
Attorney-General Kerferd committed government to subscribe for 200 copies in the first year.
Remarkably, notwithstanding these arrangements were only firm for a year, all enthusiastically agreed to proceed. “Mr Maxwell thought that if the reports held their ground for a year or two, the sale of them might be extended to the neighbouring colonies and also at home.”
On the motion of Dr John Madden, future Chief Justice, it was resolved: “That a council of law reporting be appointed and that to such council be left the arrangement and supervision of all matters connected with the publication of the reports.”
Wrixon, Higinbotham and Holroyd were the Bar’s first members of the
Council. The solicitors appointed included Frederick George Moule, the first of a remarkable dynasty of members of the Council. He assumed the secretaryship in 1887 and to this day, a member of his firm and its successors (in modern times, Freehills now Herbert Smith Freehills) has served as honorary secretary of the Council.
The Council first met in February 1875. Its minute book survives: the Council appointed George Webb as Editor and two reporters: one for Equity, Insolvency, Ecclesiastical and Mining; and one for Common Law, Matrimonial and Admiralty (this was before the Judicature Act). Webb was the obvious choice and rightly can be seen as the progenitor of authorised law reporting in Australasia. Stevenson Davis closed the Jurist and joined the show; he became second editor in 1886, followed by Box in 1888.
When the Council was finally incorporated in 1967, under a simple, sparse Act, the Attorney-General observed “the origin of this council and its original constitution appear to have become shrouded in the mists of antiquity and little appears to be known of them”. We now know a great deal more.
In 2025, the Council of Law Reporting celebrates its sesquicentenary with a volume of essays, titled Binding Authority, discussing noteworthy cases from every decade.
Tools of the trade no doubt, but also a quarry for historical nuggets, the Victorian Reports not only record the law authoritatively but offer insight into the changing face of society at large.
This is an abridged version of a chapter in Binding Authority – 150 years of Authorised Law Reporting In Victoria, edited by Peter Willis SC (published May 2025).
1 See Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England and Wales v Attorney-General [1971] Ch 626, 639-43.
2 See Peter Yule, Vic Bar – A History of the Victorian Bar (2021), 85—94, and Simon Smith, Solicitors and the Law Institute In Victoria 1835-2019 – Pathway to a Respected Profession (2019).
3 Few accounts of the Court’s business were as arresting as the law report in The Argus of 15 September 1854: ’The Court sat at eleven o’clock, and disposed of motions of course. There was, however, so much confusion in the court, through attorneys, attorney’s clerks, and clients, mixing in little interesting groups, together with a stray barrister or two, commingling their many voices in chit-chat or conversation, and keeping up a Babel of confusion, now high, now low, as restless as the sea waves beating on the shore, but not quite as soothing, that anyone wishing to hear or understand any of the proceedings before the Court would not be much the wiser.’
4 See Robert Miller, ‘Webb, George Henry Frederick (1828–1891), Australian Dictionary of Biography, vol 6 (1976) and online; and Sir Arthur Dean, A Multitude of Counsellors (1967), 141 There is no biographical summary of Alfred Wyatt’s life: see Binding Authority (2025), 33-34, for a first pass.
5 In this final iteration, Webb and a’Beckett reported the Equity cases, while in succession, Hartley Williams, William McKinley and John Burnett Box were the common law reporters.
6 The Argus gave the fullest accounts: 8 August 1874, p 5 and 16 December 1874, p 10. The Age reported the substance of the first meeting with extra detail: 8 August 1874, p 5.
7 A Beechworth brewer and wine merchant, MP (1864-1886) who turned law student and barrister while serving as an MP; briefly Premier and four times Attorney-General, a Justice of the Supreme Court 1886-1889: Margot Beever, ‘Kerferd, George Briscoe (1831–1889)’, ADB, vol 5 (1974); Dean, 140-1; Yule. 62.
8 For most of his time a Ballarat based barrister, McDermott was an MP for a single term 1874-7 and Solicitor-General 1874-5. A member of the Irish Bar, ‘a picturesque and distinguished figure’, he was admitted in Melbourne in February 1854 a month prior to Higinbotham. See Dean 151-2; Yule 90, 113.
9 The solicitors on the committee and those first appointed to the Council were all leaders of the Law Institute.
T125 Years of Diversity at the Bar?
NATALIE CAMPBELL AND ZUBIN MENON
he 2020 edition of a History of the Victorian Bar, now five years old, poses a question in Chapter 20: A Diverse Bar? That question, as it relates to cultural diversity, is worth reflection. The independent Bar remains a crucial component of our legal system. It is a wonderful institution that serves the community in so many ways. The answers to the question posed about cultural diversity and the Bar are often informed by an individual’s lived experience as well as their position on a multitude of other political, social and cultural ideas. Many might lament the lack of cultural diversity at the Bar. Others, perhaps looking at the progress that has been made and with an eye to the future, might prefer to focus on the fact that we, as a professional college reflecting an important public institution, are becoming more diverse every year. Some might say it’s the wrong question; or might rhetorically ask: is it even important? When couched in the framework of respectful dialogue, each of these answers can be a good starting point for reflection on where our profession has come from, where it’s going, and why it’s worth traveling towards a diverse professional membership that reflects our community.
Let’s take stock of where we are currently: the Bar is becoming increasingly more culturally diverse. From one perspective, this was inevitable. Our community in Victoria is regarded by many as the most culturally and linguistically
diverse amongst the states and territories of Australia. We are comprised of more than 260 languages, 135 different faiths, and nearly half of all Victorians are either born overseas or have at least one parent born overseas. That our law schools and the promise of a career within the law might attract broad interest from all parts of our community should be of no surprise.
The Bar has worked in this space too. Diversity and inclusion have largely been welcomed and encouraged by the Bar. There have been particular efforts to build on the success of gender diversity to encourage the inclusion and participation of members of our community from First Nations, culturally and linguistically diverse, disabled, and LGBTQ communities. Many of the standing committees of the Bar offer a range of valuable internships and mentoring programs driven by volunteers from amongst our members. The LSB&C has improved its ability to gather data on cultural backgrounds, and in the future there will be great value in being able to see what our membership looks like and assist us to pitch our programs most effectively.
Balanced against this, we can look towards data from other professions and see that our membership is still not as culturally diverse as many other professions and remains quite different from the demography of our community. Many readers will have experience of the business sector,
medical profession or academia and reflect upon the diversity of cultural backgrounds present within those professions. The way we bring talent through is also worth considering. This is by no means unique to our profession but when one looks at Senior Counsel—who are our leaders in many ways—we see that there is little reflection of cultural diversity within those ranks. The judiciary too remains largely irreflective of the cultural diversity within the community that it serves particularly in superior courts.
On 20 May 2025, as part of Law Week 2025, the Equality and Diversity Committee of the Victorian Bar hosted an event showcasing some of our diverse leaders. Our panellists, led by moderator Rabea Khan, explored a variety of intersectional issues related to the question of diversity.
Premala Thiagarajan SC spoke to the issue being not just for the Bar but one that affects the whole profession and the potential for the law to develop and be practised as well and as fully as it can be. She noted how work opportunities and real and active mentoring are essential for ensuring those of diverse backgrounds are welcomed into the profession and stay in the profession.
We asked Tomo Boston KC what his primary advice to advocates from diverse backgrounds would be. His answer was, “Find your own voice.” He spoke about the need to resist the impulse to mirror anyone. His theme centred on how the strength of your advocacy can come from your authenticity.
Franceska Leoncio, when asked to reflect upon her time as an associate and her career at the Bar, referred to the important role that the courts can play in encouraging cultural diversity at the Bar. Simple practices
“There have been particular efforts to build on the success of gender diversity to encourage the inclusion and participation of members of our community from First Nations, culturally and linguistically diverse, disabled, and LGBTQ communities”
such as the court’s practise notes regarding the correct pronunciation of names for all court participants can change culture in a positive way. With respect to pronunciation of names, she said, “It’s a small but meaningful step towards ensuring all those who are participating in the court’s processes of all backgrounds are afforded basic levels of dignity and respect in the courtroom.”
Across all of the panel members, some key themes emerge. It was fascinating to see how each of the panellists, regardless of seniority, see their diversity of background and experiences as strengths in how they practice most effectively. They each spoke about opportunity, authenticity, respect, and inclusivity. The latter was particularly important. It is an inclusivity that brings everyone together on a shared journey rather than separates us. Which leads usefully perhaps to a return to the question of why cultural diversity and inclusivity are important for our profession now and into the future.
First and foremost—improving cultural diversity does not mean the attraction or promotion of “unmeritorious people”. Widening the pool which our members come from simply means attracting the best potential to our membership regardless of background. It can’t be controversial that there are some communities within our society that for a variety of reasons might never contemplate a career as a barrister. How many brilliant advocates, jurists, legal reformists might never find their way to the Bar because they erroneously think they won’t find opportunity or be accepted? Work around workplace safety and deconstructing barriers to entry are vital to ensuring that we provide pathways for the best and brightest to join our profession. Simple things such as open sessions about
what a career at the Bar is like, making the readers course more affordable, improving parental leave subsidies, and strengthening the wonderful mentor/reader relationship can all have substantial impact on a choice to come to and then remain at the Bar.
Secondly, improving cultural diversity creates opportunities for shared knowledge. Diversity of thought is so vital to our profession. Many of us will be lucky enough in terms of personal background and socio-economic position that we could exist quite comfortably in our own bubbles if we wanted to. However, we also know that there are inherent limitations to this approach that will impact our capacity to be better professionals, colleagues, teammates or leaders. We benefit from working with people who have a wide variety of personal backgrounds and experiences. It reveals our blind spots and expands our knowledge. It gives us opportunities to learn and teach others. It assists us to self-reflect when we reach roadblocks in our thinking. Of course, it can make us feel uncomfortable and take us out of our comfort zones. However, our profession often talks about these things as necessary for us to be the best lawyers and advocates that we can be: persuasive to the widest audience possible; capable of recognising nuance and complexity in events in our world; and comfortable with balancing competing ideas in difficult circumstances.
Improving cultural diversity at the Bar is not the aim in and of itself. The aim is a culture of self-reflection and self-improvement that results in greater excellence both individually and collectively. Amongst our members, the diversity of thought and ideas that flow from a variety of lived experiences can only make us stronger and more effective advocates and representatives.
Mandalay
TOM CLELLAND
In the north of Myanmar, the timeless old and the brutal new collide. Horse drawn carriages filled with bald, magenta-robed monks slowly roll past the long lines at the petrol stations as people queue for increasingly scarce fuel. The air smells like woodsmoke from cooking fires, and of exhaust. Through the smoke around the city the gold stupas and pagodas dot the land, reflecting the sun. On windless days, the haze looks almost solid, and the strange kind of half-light as the sun rises reminds me of a bushfire sunset in Australia.
I found myself in Mandalay for a month in January of this year at the behest of the International Legal Foundation (ILF), an international non-profit organisation whose mission is to provide access to quality criminal defence lawyers for some of the world’s most marginalised people, and to build and strengthen legal aid systems globally. The ILF has programs in Afghanistan, Myanmar, Tunisia, Nepal, and Palestine, to name a few. Its International Fellows, of which I am one, are an important part of the training and mentorship that the ILF provides to their in-country lawyers and social workers.
is to persuade the court that bail should be granted despite the absence of money for surety.
While we are preparing the bail appeal paperwork in my first week at the office, his 13-year-old sister dies. She contracts a food-related illness and perishes of dehydration. Our client’s elderly mother was afraid to take her to hospital as it would cost the remainder of the family’s meagre savings. She has another child to provide for.
Myanmar is in the midst of a prolonged civil war, and during my time in Mandalay the fighting begins to encroach on the city. Very few international organisations remain in operation, and the burden on the ILF increases by the day. My mornings begin with a commute via tuk-tuk to the ILF office, in central Mandalay. Breakfast is simple: rice, beans and green tea. I work with the Burmese lawyers on their individual cases, on general advocacy skills, and on strategic appellate litigation. The cases are marred by systemic issues including arbitrary arrest and torture.
In one case, a man from a shanty town on the east side of Mandalay has been arrested. He and his large family live in a tumbledown shack with a roof thatched from palm. The floor is dirt. He is in gaol awaiting a trial on the charge of possessing stolen machine parts, and has no money for a surety for bail. He is the sole income provider for his elderly mother and two younger siblings. Our most pressing task
It is explained to me in blunt terms that the child died of diarrhoea. In my ignorance I had never thought of the power of diarrhoea to kill. The lawyer blames herself for not succeeding at the initial bail hearing, though she tried. I am then asked whether they should tell their client that his sister has died, as his lawyer is the only contact he is permitted with the outside world. I don’t know, but I tell the lawyer what I would do in Australia. I have never had to face such a question.
In another case, a young woman has been detained for an analogue offence of soliciting for prostitution. The prosecution case is based upon a statement that was signed by our client when she was detained. They have no other evidence. The description of the torture she recounts is chilling. While in detention she was blindfolded, sexually assaulted, and burnt with cigarettes. She describes the fear of waiting, blind and shackled to a chair, for the next torment to emerge from the darkness. She faces a prison sentence of three years.
There are many other cases. In some, we achieve meaningful outcomes. In others, though we try, we do not. If not for the ILF, there would be no advocacy, no contradictor. A focus of my time is the pursuit of bail for children and women charged with non-violent and non-political crimes. They bear the brunt of carceral brutalism, in Mandalay as everywhere.
The work is more than legal, over-extended by the exigencies of conflict. As other aid organisations have exited Myanmar, those remaining have tried to step into the breach. In addition to representing people who have been arrested or detained, we are tasked
with providing some small material support to bereft families.
I find myself in a village market with the sole social worker, trying to follow furious haggling over the per-kilogram price of various kinds of rice. We buy large hessian sacks of the stuff, because the organisation does not make direct cash payments. They travel on the back of motorcycles to hungry mouths. Despite the quasi-famine conditions endemic to the country, many of the families are entrepreneurial and driven to escape the mire. They leave their hunger unsated and instead use the donations to open road-side stalls and shops. In the village, I receive exaggerated thanks for carrying the sacks of rice despite the bent and gnarled old men carrying more than me.
The lawyers recalibrate my sense of what it means to be brave in this line of work. They willingly enter police stations and gaols that resemble gulags, and agitate for the rights of their clients. They are pressured
“The lawyers recalibrate my sense of what it means to be brave in this line of work”
to pay bribes, cajoled, threatened, intimidated, and yet they continue. I feel foolish for ever having considered my job in Australia difficult. They become my friends.
During my time in Mandalay, sweeping cuts to US foreign aid are announced. The abrupt dissolution of the funding base destabilises the remaining NGOs who haven’t yet departed. Panic is rife among the Burmese professionals who work for the aid organisations. The alreadyanaemic NGOs now contemplate an impossible choice. Where to cut in a world of boundless suffering? Though severely impacted by these funding cuts, the ILF remains program in Myanmar remains operational against the odds.
Shortly after my return to Australia, a major earthquake strikes 17
kilometres from Mandalay. Bridges around the city collapse, pipes burst, and water stops flowing. Thousands are killed. Neglected infrastructure buckles. Intermittent power shortages become full blackouts.
The ILF office is damaged, and no longer safe to use. The building next door is rubble. My colleagues are physically unharmed, but food, clean water and electricity are scarce. The ILF staff in Myanmar labour under increasingly intolerable strain, and yet they continue to represent their clients day in, day out.
To help sustain the ILF’s work in Myanmar and around the world following severe U.S. funding cuts, please visit: theilf.org/donate-crisis.
The ILF is also actively recruiting experienced lawyers and social workers for its International Fellows Program.
Precision and speed for the modern barrister
✓ Trusted by industry leaders, built by legal experts.
✓ Achieve in minutes what used to take hours.
✓ Complete, current and correct.
Turn research hours into strategic minutes with Westlaw Precision Australia
Scan here to learn how.
Digital detox and the division of labour
JACK POPOLO
Every January, our family leaves the city for a quiet island, where we are strangers to all.
People on this island don’t care what car you drive, how many followers you have, or where your home is. Bragging rights are confined to fishermen talking about the size of the whiting they say they have caught. Here, my anxiety slowly but surely abates as we prepare for the year ahead.
This year, the parents decided to engage in a digital detox. It turned out that the children have nothing much to say to me anyway, and after 37 games in a row of Articulate, they were done communicating with me.
My partner got into the rhythm very quickly, getting up early every day to read and work on her own projects. I made the mistake of forwarding her an article that warned of the risks of cancer from even moderate drinking, leaving me without a drinking companion at nighttime. And the scented candle I had thoughtfully purchased on the mainland and placed in our bedroom remained in its box.
So, I was on my own and left with nothing to do other than open and read the books I received for Christmas.
I sailed through Precipice by Robert Harris, Einstein by Walter Isaacson (who I noticed observed that red tape encases the mind like the hands of a mummy), In the Garden of Beasts by Erik Larson, Citizens by Simon Schama, The House of Islam by Ed Husain, and finally, The Scottish Enlightenment, by Arthur Herman.
Regarding myself as reasonably well read, and history being written by the victors, I originally thought the title, The Scottish Enlightenment, was an oxymoronic English joke. But I ploughed on.
I discovered that Scotland and Australia have much in common. Both are small countries which are, to some
extent, at the mercy of larger countries, and highly reliant on free trade. They are countries that need to keep innovating and adapting in order to ensure that more and more of their people can live fulfilling lives. They have friendly people with a rebellious spirit who, at least in their mythology, are larrikins and like to regard rules as being for other people.
I read that through the establishment in the 17th century of legislation requiring schools in every parish, Scotland became Europe’s first modern literate society.
The book tells the story of how the resulting Scottish Enlightenment, led by great thinkers and writers such as Francis Hutcheson, Lord Kames, David Hume, Adam Smith, John Witherspoon and others, created the basic institutions, ideas and habits of mind that characterise the modern era.
The Scottish philosophers were deeply admired by the French philosophes. Upon first reading Adam Smith, Voltaire exclaimed, “We have nothing to compare with him, and I am embarrassed for my dear compatriots.”
The Scots were the first to wrestle with the proper balance between everyone’s right to acquire property for themselves, and the role of government to ensure a fair playing field and provide protection against uncontrolled avidity. As Hume noted, “…there is a perpetual … struggle … between Authority and Liberty, and neither of them can ever absolutely prevail in the contest.”
For Hume, the mission of good government was to “employ the force of the society to restrain those who are subject to its authority from hurting or disturbing the happiness of one another” and to use an effective civil and criminal legal system for this purpose.
Adam Smith is of course famous for his book, The Wealth of Nations, and his “invisible hand”, the genius of markets and the insight that the division of labour together with the “emotional spur of self-interest” were
“So, I was on my own and left with nothing to do other than open and read the books I received for Christmas.”
essential conditions for the making of a civilised society. But Smith was no apologist for unbridled capitalism. He recognised that through capitalism we gain but also lose (for example, through the “alienation” identified by Karl Marx and illustrated by Smith’s famous example of the employees in a pin factory). Smith saw a critical role for government and civic institutions to ameliorate these hardships of capitalism but was adamant that history had shown, and would continue to show, that capitalism and competition in the marketplace were better systems than the alternatives.
Smith was very critical of unwanted government meddling in the lives of people and in economic affairs. It made me wonder what Smith would have thought about how hard it is today for someone with an idea to list their company on the ASX in order to access public markets. Once listed, our inventor’s company would then be subject to regulation from multiple regulators (in the financial services space, for example, it would be regulated by APRA, ASIC, AUSTRAC, ACCC, AFMA, the RBA and numerous state regulatory bodies). Our inventor would have to be on the lookout for class action law firms patrolling for possible breaches of the continuous disclosure regime, activist proxy advisers, avoid being controlled by large superannuation funds, and find directors who were prepared to spend 80 per cent of their time reading papers relating to corporate governance and to take the personal risks involved in being held liable in the future by regulators and courts in possession of the turbo-charged genius that comes with hindsight.
Surely Smith would recoil at the number of barnacles that have accumulated on a modern-day corporate ship. Being classically educated, perhaps he would think to himself, “Even Hercules only had to perform 12 labours.”
Given the history of the Scots, it is perhaps little wonder that another famous American with Scottish blood, Andrew Carnegie, when extolling the virtues of America to the British said, “The great error in your country is that things are just upside down. You look to your officials to govern you instead of you governing them.”
There are chapters in the book on many famous Scots in America. As an example, Witherspoon’s story struck me as relevant to universities today. He was one of the most influential first presidents of Princeton, and the foremost American educator of the late 18th century. Witherspoon saw education not as a form of indoctrination or of reinforcing a form of religious orthodoxy (in Witherspoon’s case, Presbyterianism) but as a broadening and deepening of the mind and spirit. He included a wide range of authors, many of whom Witherspoon disagreed with but “in the spirit of free inquiry”, students were expected to read and understand. Witherspoon regarded Princeton as a place not just for teaching students and would-be ministers, but also for training future public leaders. He wanted Princeton to be as inclusive as possible and, amazingly for the 18th century, recruited Native Americans and African Americans to Princeton.
John Witherspoon well understood that before students can branch out, they need knowledge of the tree.
I ran a draft of this article by one of my children in order to check that I was not going to unwittingly upset people. She said I should change “fishermen’ to “fishers”. I said that’s an ugly neologism and I couldn’t possibly make that change. She said I was a Boomer, refused to read on, and went back to playing Monopoly Deal with her siblings.
Jack Popolo considers himself an emerging writer. He enjoys fishing for whiting, and burning scented candles while reading.
Back Lift OF THE
Adjourned Sine Die
SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
The Hon Anthony Cavanough
Bar roll No 1560
Justice Anthony Lewis Cavanough (known affectionately as Cav J) retired as a judge of the Supreme Court on 13 December 2024, after nearly 19 years of service.
His Honour obtained a Bachelor of Economics and Bachelor of Laws with Honours from Monash University and completed articles at Mallesons Stephen Jaques. In 1979, his Honour served as associate to Sir Gerard Brennan, who was then a judge of the Federal Court and President of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (as it then was). He was admitted on 2 April 1979 and signed the Bar Roll on 19 June 1980.
His Honour read with Peter Heery KC, and had six readers of his own— Dennis Meadows, Kathryn Rees, Samantha Burchell, Peter Morrissey SC, John Buxton, and (now Justice) Peter Gray. His Honour took silk in 1996. While at the Bar, his Honour appeared predominantly in federal and state administrative law matters.
His Honour was appointed a judge of the Trial Division on 8 May 2006. His Honour heard all manner of cases including judicial review applications, appeals from the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, personal injury cases (including jury trials), medical panel reviews, planning and environment matters, and land acquisition and compensation cases.
His Honour assumed important leadership roles within the Court, most notably as chair of the Rules Committee from 2012–2018 where his Honour’s keen eye for detail and impeccable drafting was put to good use.
His Honour had a well-deserved reputation as an intelligent, fair, kind, and thorough judge. His diligence and hard work was very much appreciated by the Bar (even if counsel were often left wondering whether his Honour knew their cases better than they did). His Honour’s judgments were always so thorough that an Associate Justice tasked with mediating appeal proceedings complained that it is impossible to mediate if there are never any errors.
His Honour approached his role as a judge with a deep sense of public duty, having embraced Sir Gerard’s philosophy that every case, no matter how large or small, was very important to the parties. His Honour was renowned for his prodigious work ethic, often burning the midnight oil in chambers. He would on occasion work through the night to finalise judgments to be handed down the following day.
His Honour greeted his associates and tipstaves each day with a cheerful “Hi Boss” and was so appreciative of their assistance that some wondered whether he knew they were paid. He continues to be a great friend and mentor to them many years into their later careers.
His Honour was always generous with his time, and unfailingly polite. He was rarely known to speak an unkind word, his greatest criticism of someone with questionable competence being that they were “just doing the best they can”. This was an example of a ‘Cavism’ enjoyed and adopted by his associates and admirers at the Court (such as this author). No
matter how long and difficult a day in court had been, his Honour would never lose his temper or good humour. Only one notable exception came close to cracking his Honour’s patience. Following a long and trying day in the Practice Court, it emerged that an applicant (being one of the big four banks) had not filed an originating process as it could not pay the filing fee (its solicitors not having to hand a payment method accepted by the registry). Junior counsel for the bank was quick to take out his wallet and ask his instructor how much money was needed. His Honour cried at senior counsel in exasperation, “Are you seriously telling me that the bank is coming before this court and saying it can’t file because it’s got no money?!”
Outside of the courtoom, his Honour was a regular at the Port Fairy Folk Festival (which often fortuitously coincided with the Warrnambool civil circuit), a lover of all things Irish, and a keen follower of horseracing. His Honour was a fixture at the ‘big round table’ at the Essoign together with Justice David Beach, and his presence there will be missed.
We know that his wife Gabrielle, daughters Amanda and Katrina, and grand-daughter Camille, will enjoy having him back after decades of shared custody with the legal fraternity.
BRETT HARDING
The Hon Cameron Macaulay
On 20 December 2024, Justice Cameron Macaulay retired as a judge of appeal in the Supreme Court of Victoria. His Honour had served as a trial judge in the Common Law division from September 2010 before being appointed a judge of appeal in February 2022.
His Honour sat on a great range of cases throughout his time on the Bench, including appeals of all kinds, criminal trials, civil jury trials, probate matters as well as the kinds of professional negligence and commercial matters that his Honour
had made his specialty during his time at the Bar. One particularly notable matter (not least for the media attention it received) involved the proper characterisation of a suburban sheep named “Baa” as a pet or livestock. His Honour ruled that “Baa” was to be treated as livestock.
Consistent with his reputation at the Bar, his Honour maintained a scrupulously even-handed and fair approach on the Bench, giving away little—which led many advocates to be unsure of how well their arguments had been received until the final decision had been handed down.
Having spent over a decade in the trial division, Justice Macaulay was appointed to the Court of Appeal which, as his Honour would admit, put his famous organisational and time management skills to the test with the role’s constant and consistent demands. Nonetheless, it was a role that his Honour enjoyed greatly and fulfilled with aplomb.
As an early adopter of technology during his time at the Bar, his Honour was equally instrumental in the introduction of a number of digital improvements to the work of the legal profession as chair of several bodies, including the Supreme Court Library Committee, the Law Library of Victoria Committee, the Council of Law Reporting in Victoria and the Consultative Council of Australasian Law Reporting. In many ways these developments encapsulated his Honour’s approach to legal and judicial life—embracing the benefits of modernity while honouring the past.
However, for Justice Macaulay, nothing was ever more important than family. His Honour would regularly regale his associates with the whereabouts of his ever-mobile flock as they made journeys across the world including demonstrating on Google Maps their precise whereabouts at any moment in time. There was no better demonstration of this family ethos than at gatherings at the Macaulay homestead in Mount Duneed, attended by current and past
associates and whichever members of the Macaulay clan happened to be in the state, as well as the resident dogs, ducks and chickens.
Now Justice Macaulay has left the Bench, there will be much more opportunity for spending time with the ever-growing Macaulay clan, freezing open-water swims and caravaning adventures on the open road. We wish his Honour and Jennie all the best in retirement.
JOHN LEUNG
Silence All Stand
FEDERAL COURT
The Hon Justice Elizabeth Bennett
Bar roll No 4180
“Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end.” — Spock
On 19 February 2025, the Federal Court was bursting at the seams for the welcome ceremony for the Hon Justice Elizabeth Bennett. Seats in Court 1 were filled with distinguished guests, while dozens of counsel gathered in the court’s outer, where it was standing room only. More guests assembled to watch proceedings from the overflow court. Justice Bennett’s wife, Dr Carly Schrever, their twin boys, Ned and Clancy, and daughter Matilda sat in prime position as Justice Bennett (Mum J) beamed at them and the assembled guests.
Justice Bennett’s appointment was, of course, a moment of celebration for the Bar. Signing the Roll in 2009, Justice Bennett read with Dan Star KC and established a broad practice in public, regulatory, and commercial law. Her Honour took silk in 2021, and during her 16-year career at the Bar was widely admired for her sharp legal mind, her love of the law, and her unwavering integrity—all qualities which will serve her well in her new role as a judge of the Federal Court. She
was also (perhaps slightly less widely) known to be a huge Star Trek fan. It is somewhat less clear whether or how a deep knowledge of the voyages of the starship Enterprise will be useful to her Honour on the Bench.
Justice Bennett’s career at the Bar was marked by several significant cases that highlight her dedication to justice. In Christian Youth Camps v Cobaw, her Honour helped to secure justice for a group of same-sex-attracted teens denied access to a holiday resort. The case was notable for its impact on discrimination law and the protection of the rights of the LGBTIQ+ community. In her regulatory practice, her Honour appeared for the Victorian Legal Services Board in Victorian Legal Services Board v Gobbo and for ASIC in numerous National Credit Code prosecutions. Her Honour made a substantial pro bono contribution in numerous cases. She was part of the team that won the LIV President’s Pro Bono Award, and was also awarded the Debra Mortimer SC Pro Bono Award.
Justice Bennett also contributed significantly to the work of several landmark commissions and inquiries. Her Honour acted for ANZ in the Banking Royal Commission and appeared on behalf of the State of Victoria in the Yoorrook Justice Commission. She also served as counsel assisting the Disability Royal Commission and the Commission of Inquiry into the Tasmanian Government’s Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in Institutional Settings. As Justin Hannebery KC reflected upon in his address to Court to welcome Justice Bennett, in both those roles, her Honour demonstrated an exceptional ability to balance emotional intelligence and forensic precision. She sensitively supported vulnerable and traumatised witnesses in providing their evidence and effectively held institutions and corporate entities accountable.
While the Bar applauds Justice Bennett’s appointment and welcomes her further contribution to the legal profession from the Bench, many of
us also lament her departure from our ranks. Her Honour’s contribution to the Bar was enormous, serving as a member of the Bar Council for three terms—as vice president from 2022 to 2024, and (briefly) as president in 2024. Her Honour was co-chair of the LGBTIQ Working Group, a member of the Indigenous Justice Committee, and was also appointed as a peer support barrister.
Justice Bennett mentored many junior barristers, both formally and informally. As mentor to six readers, her Honour was generous and unwavering with her support. She always celebrated the wins, debriefed about the losses, and was available for the “stupid” questions or late-night crises of confidence. Her support and care for her colleagues extended well beyond those who read with her. As a leader, Bennett SC was pragmatic, fearless and decisive. As a member of chambers, she made everything warmer and brighter. Justice Bennett’s capacity to balance her professional and personal life with grace and good humour made her a much-loved and admired leadership figure at the Bar.
The Bar’s loss is the Court’s gain. Consistent with her Honour’s optimistic and indefatigable spirit (and with apologies to Spock), we say: may she serve long and prosper.
MORGANA BRADY & GEMMA CAFARELLA
The Hon Justice Graeme Hill
Bar roll No 4011
The appointment of the Hon Justice Graeme Hill to the Federal Court of Australia marks a new chapter in an already distinguished career.
His Honour attended Canberra Boys’ Grammar for high school, where he was reputedly an intimidating fast bowler and can claim to have dismissed (later) international cricketer Michael Bevan. He graduated from the Australian National University with a University Medal in Law, before working in the Attorney-General’s
Department and then the Australian Government Solicitor, with a particular focus on constitutional litigation.
His Honour was also an associate to Justice Kenneth Hayne KC of the High Court of Australia, with other mentors along the way including both David Bennett QC and David Bennett QC (of the New South Wales Bar and the Constitutional Litigation Unit at the Australian Government Solicitor, respectively).
In 2001, his Honour completed a Master of Laws at Columbia University, taking US election law in the year that the US Supreme Court decided Bush v Gore and graduating as a James Kent Scholar (the highest level of honour). Somehow, he achieved this while spending what a reliable source described as “inordinate” amounts of time enjoying the theatre and other distractions of Manhattan and making life-long friends including Justice Jill Copeland of the Court of Appeal for Ontario.
His Honour came to the Victorian Bar in 2007 and read with now Chief Justice Richard Niall. His practice at the Bar centred around complex administrative and public law cases, particularly involving constitutional law, migration law, and native title. In addition to appearing in many significant cases—too many to list here—his Honour has extensively published on constitutional and administrative law, and was a co-author of several editions of Hanks’ Constitutional Law in Australia. Despite his trademark modesty, his Honour was renowned for his understated mastery of highly complex and rapidly evolving areas of law and took silk in 2021.
For many years, his Honour occupied chambers on level 22 of Owen Dixon West. There he routinely stunned visitors with his unerring ability to answer every pop culture question on The Age newspaper’s quiz and, in the next breath, recite from memory the Commonwealth Law Reports citation of any case they cared to name. In chambers, his readers
were treated to scholarly discussion, considered advice and YouTube clips in roughly equal measure.
His Honour remains a cricket fan, film buff, music aficionado and—as if that were not enough—a composer. He is devoted to his wife Adrienne (Melbourne Laureate Professor and Director of the Centre for Comparative Constitutional Studies at Melbourne Law School), their two sons David and Jonathan, and Brian the mini-dachshund.
The Court will benefit from his Honour’s legal ability, fairness, and impish sense of humour. On behalf of the Bar, we wish his Honour a long and fulfilling career on the Bench.
TIM FARHALL
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
His
Honour Judge Peter Fary
Bar roll No 3438
The appointment of his Honour Judge Peter Fary as a Judge of the Federal Circuit and Family Court (Division 2) is a homecoming of sorts. Before being called to the Bar in 2001, his Honour used to walk the back corridors of the Commonwealth Law Courts Building on William Street as a Registrar of what was then the Federal Magistrates’ Court. Although the floorplan may have changed in the intervening years, the surroundings nevertheless remain familiar; his Honour will settle deftly into this next phase of his legal career on the Bench.
After graduating from law school in 1992, his Honour joined the firm JM Smith & Emmerton. His Honour was articled to Garry Bigmore KC, through whom his Honour was swiftly delegated responsibility for a number of bankruptcy and corporate insolvency cases. From these early cases his Honour quickly developed the expertise in insolvency law for which he became renowned. This expertise was honed when his Honour went on to serve in the roles of Deputy District
Registrar of the Federal Court and then Registrar of the Federal Magistrates’ Court.
His Honour was called to the Bar in 2001 and read with James Peters KC. Having previously sat on the Bench in insolvency matters, his Honour found his expertise in the area was in high demand from solicitors and he quickly became a fixture in many of the major hearings in the bankruptcy and insolvency courts.
In addition to his insolvency work, his Honour also developed a diverse practice incorporating general commercial law and family law. Despite this busy practice, his Honour nevertheless made time to sit on the Consumer Action Law Centre pro bono advice panel. His Honour was an effective mediator (having conducted over 750 mediations) and, in later years, taught the Victorian Bar mediation course.
His Honour was a long-standing co-author of LexisNexis’ Bankruptcy Law and Practice publication. In 2024, his Honour authored Family Law and Bankruptcy, which was so popular that a further edition has been requested. His Honour’s knowledge on bankruptcy law is especially impressive and, by his Honour’s reckoning, as a barrister he had been involved in a case in respect of each major section of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth).
His Honour was an early member of Lonsdale Chambers, a group of commercial and insolvency barristers established by the Hon Michael Sifris KC in 2006. His Honour remained a much-valued member of the floor over the next 20 years of his distinguished career at the Bar.
Outside of his life at the Bar, his Honour spends much of his time with his wife, two daughters, and beloved dog Coco. Despite the demands of work, he still managed to make the time on many occasions to run “urgent” shopping errands for his daughters.
His Honour will be missed by all at Lonsdale Chambers, not least by his former readers to whom his Honour
was always gracious and generous with his time—for a chat and to offer his sage advice about any legal problem. We wish him well in what will be, without doubt, the continuation of a distinguished legal career on the Bench.
BRENTON DEVANNY, JORDAN SCHULZ, EDWINA KEYNES & REBECCA MCCARTHY
SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
The Hon Justice Adrian Finanzio
Bar roll No 3224
The appointment of the Hon Justice Adrian Finanzio to the Supreme Court on 17 March 2025 is bittersweet. While the Court gains a first-rate mind with a prodigious work ethic and a strong sense of justice, the Bar loses a barrister who in many ways exemplified the best traditions of the Bar. His Honour was a forthright, but scrupulously fair, advocate in courts and tribunals; a deft and strategic advisor to clients; and a supportive and patient mentor and colleague for other barristers.
Born and raised in Reservoir to parents of Italian heritage, Sam and Cherie, his Honour did not come from an established legal background. His Honour studied arts and law at Monash University and took articles at the firm of Maddocks (then Maddock, Lonie and Chisholm), where he routinely appeared as a solicitor-advocate in the planning division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
An early indication of his Honour’s commitment to fairness arose in Vidovich v Mildura RCC, when his Honour, still a solicitor, was summoned to a directions hearing before the Tribunal without the other parties present. His Honour suggested that the other parties should be advised of the hearing. On the inevitable appeal, the Court of Appeal remarked upon his Honour’s “commendably prudent and proper attitude”.
His Honour came to the Bar in 1998 and read with John Larkins. His
Back of the Lift Honour immediately began appearing in the Supreme Court, including seminal Local Government and planning cases such as Calabro v City of Bayside and Rumpf v Mornington Peninsula Shire Council. In 2009, he was one of several counsel who appeared for the Volunteer Fire Brigades Victoria at the Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission.
Taking silk in 2012, his Honour’s star continued to rise. Throughout the 2010s and early 2020s, in addition to his day-to-day practice, his Honour appeared at inquiries considering major state infrastructure, including East West Link, Melbourne Metro and North East Link. These inquiries will continue to shape the city for years to come. Beyond planning, his Honour also served in the demanding role of senior counsel assisting at the 2021 Royal Commission into the Casino Operator and Licence. His Honour also appeared pro bono in environmental matters, including Dual Gas v EPA in 2012, where he appeared on behalf of Environment Victoria to oppose a new power plant using synthetic gas from coal. Although the Tribunal upheld the decision to grant a licence, it imposed conditions that meant that the project was unable to proceed. In 2014, he appeared in the Queensland Land Court on behalf of objectors to a coal mine. Showcasing his Honour’s ability to understand large volumes of complex information quickly, he was able to get across the details of groundwater in the Galilee Basin sufficiently to convince the court that it should recommend refusal.
Education was an important part of his Honour’s career. From the time he became able to take readers in 2008 to the time he took silk in 2012, his Honour took a reader in each intake except for one. Each of his readers remembers him for his kindness, if necessary, in the form of tough love, and willingness to take time from his own practice to discuss their cases. Outside the Bar, his Honour taught planning law at the University of Melbourne and advocacy at Monash. When his advocacy teaching took him to Monash’s campus in Prato, Italy, he declined to take teaching fees to enable
the university to fund more students to attend.
His Honour is the devoted and proud husband of Rebecca Brezzi, herself a member of this Bar, and father to Sofia and Isabella. He is a truffle producer and an unflinching supporter of the Collingwood Football Club.
His Honour will be missed at the Bar and especially by his colleagues on Level 24 Owen Dixon West. But the Bar’s loss will no doubt be the Court’s gain.
JOEL SILVER
COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA
His Honour Judge Justin Lewis
Bar roll No
On the 25th of February 2025, Justin Lewis SC was appointed as a judge of the County Court of Victoria.
His Honour studied Art History at Latrobe University and then a Bachelor of Laws at the University of Wolverhampton.
His Honour completed his articles at Richmond & Bennison Solicitors in 1995 and was admitted to practice in 1996.
In 1998, his Honour became a lieutenant in the Royal Australian Navy after completing the officer’s training course at HMAS Creswell in New South Wales. He retains the rank to this day. He later obtained a Graduate Diploma in Military Law from the Australian National University.
After working as a solicitor in personal injury law and commercial litigation, his Honour came to the Bar in 2003. He initially read with the Hon Peter Riordan KC. However, due to Mr Riordan KC soon after taking silk, his Honour then read with Jonathan Davis KC.
When his Honour commenced his career at the Bar, he decided to focus on criminal law; setting him on a 22-year-long path of great success and achievement.
In 2014, his Honour was appointed a Crown Prosecutor. He held the role for a number of years as the designated Crown Prosecutor for the
Office of Public Prosecution’s Geelong office. This involved a large volume of circuit work in the western region of Victoria.
Although his Honour had no readers due to his appointment as a Crown Prosecutor in his 11th year at the Bar, he began in earnest the role of informally mentoring junior barristers, both as leader, and adviser. His Honour was a steady source of wisdom, support and encouragement for many. To those lucky enough to be the recipient of his calm guidance, they would never fail to emerge from a conversation with his Honour feeling understood, supported and with a renewed energy to keep going, even in the most difficult of matters.
During his Honour’s tenure as a Crown Prosecutor, he served as a member of the Therapeutic Treatment Board.
In 2023 his Honour was appointed a Senior Crown Prosecutor and in 2024 was appointed Senior Counsel. As a Crown Prosecutor and Senior Crown Prosecutor, his Honour accumulated vast experience in all jurisdictions, primarily in the Supreme Court and in the Court of Appeal. He prosecuted numerous high profile and complex cases, including more recently the trials of Malka Leifer and Geoffrey Clark. He was known to all, including his opponents, as a meticulous, scrupulously fair and highly skilled prosecutor. Humble and self-deprecating, he would quietly and diligently go about his work, keeping his “head down and getting the job done”. His Honour’s friends in the profession know him to be the consummate gentleman and a person of the upmost integrity. He is kind, compassionate, generous with his time and a loyal and steadfast friend. Whether it be debriefing after a long day in court, offering much needed support in times of stress, or analysing the antics of a protagonist in a television show, his sparkling sense of humour and sharp wit always make the conversations enjoyable.
His Honour ensures that he has a balanced approach to life. Outside of the law, he is dedicated to his family –
wife Lisa, daughter Madeline and son Fraser. He is a passionate musician and plays the guitar in a band called the Ruminators. He continues to use his naval skills indulging in another of his passions - sailing the beautiful waters of Tasmania in his yacht, Iolanthe which is moored in Hobart.
His Honour also spends time at his and Lisa’s labour of love, “Nimmitabel”, a circa 1881 mansion in Inglewood which they have been renovating for a number of years. The renovation features in the current season of the ABC television series Restoration Australia.
His Honour will be greatly missed in Crown Prosecutors’ Chambers. Our loss and that of the Bar is most certainly the County Court’s immense gain. We wish His Honour “fair winds and following seas” for a long and distinguished career on the bench.
CATHERINE PARKES AND ANGELA MORAN
Vale
DDavid McKenzie
Bar roll No 1971
avid McKenzie was a member of the Victorian Bar for almost 40 years. He signed the Bar roll in 1985 and practised in criminal law. He was a powerful advocate for those with no voice. But he was much more than that.
David understood, from personal experience, the many struggles and challenges of his clients. His journey to become a lawyer was difficult. His words, rather than ours, tell his story the best:
I was raised in the Orana Methodist Peace Memorial Home for Children in Wattle Park and miraculously was returned to the custody of my parents after they married in the Chapel of Orana. I was nine. There was no single parents pension then, and I never knew any child who was released prior to turning 14 (boys) to work as farm hands, or girls in domestic service in country
properties.
My father was a Scot and worked in a rubber factory in Montague with Dunlop. Like many of his countrymen, violence and domestic violence was widespread in the shocking tenements of Edinburgh. Malnutrition and disease were widespread. The Navy was his way out, and he was recruited by the RAN.
Domestic violence was a scourge then, and when my father arrived in Oz the violence was to lead me to run away from home as a 13-yearold. Buying a ticket at Spencer St Station was easy. Nobody queried my purchase of a ticket to Sydney. I found it too hard to get a job in Sydney and camped out in the work men’s huts on the building site for the Opera House.
I returned to Melbourne and found a private employment agency in Hardware Lane (no questions asked). I secured a farmhand position for 10 shillings, and worked on a chook farm on Sydney Road, Sommerton. No running water, no gas, no electricity, no sewerage, and 3000 chooks and 30 milking cows via a petrol engine. My wage was £3, 2 shillings and sixpence, plus board, and I got to drive the ancient T-Model Ford truck to get the milk urns ready to be collected at the farm gate.
My next job took me to Boggy Creek, then Cobden, then hay carting, sheep farming, then I was surely not on the “Wanted list” … years later I realised that nobody was looking for me, let alone the police.
I returned to Melbourne to see Mum, who had organised alternative accommodation and left my father. My money ran out, and I stole and burgled to survive. The ignominy of being caught and charged ended up in the Malvern Children’s Court and off to the Salvo’s Hostel in Auburn, and a job at Susan Day Cakes as an assistant baker. Sounded good. But the Salvo’s took all my money (a tiny bit was put into a bank account but I never saw it)!
More stealing and burgling and back to the Children’s Court in Batman Ave., and back to Turana Youth Training Centre for 20 months. My Dad passed away at the age of 42 from lymphoma, cirrhosis, bronchitis, and other conditions. I was given a week’s leave for the funeral. I was so angry with him and it took years to resolve my aching heart.
While at Turana, I was encouraged to sit for the Commonwealth Scholarship and won one! Mum sorely needed financial help with my two younger brothers aged five and three. Legacy refused help because Dad served in the Royal Navy in the Pacific and Burma and he couldn’t be a returned Aussie serviceman! I wrote to the War Office in London and they sent his service record and that fixed the original refusal of help.
I was released and after many school refusals to accept me, Kew High took me in. I matriculated in 1968 with first class Honours in English, and a 2nd in Australian History, etc. I was admitted to the University of Melbourne Law School and obtained a Commonwealth scholarship for my combined Law and Criminology course.
I nearly finished my law degree and was dismayed that my childhood criminal offences might pose a problem. The Dean of the Law Faculty referred me to a visiting fellow Sir George Whitecross Paton who was the Chairman of the Board of Examiners. He required me to disclose my criminal history in all applications for Articles. I wrote to 150 firms in Victoria with no success at all.
I took my little family to Warrnambool for two years where I was a senior tutor in Tax and Company Law at Deakin University. Great place. Then I worked at Malmsbury Youth Training Centre for 10 years, with seven as the Superintendent (CEO).
I used my long service leave to undertake the six-month Leo Cussen Practical Training Course. Again,
the issues of my criminal history arose. Graham Thomas SC (retired) represented me before the Board of Examiners and seven upright persons attested to my character. I stood out of my chosen career for 12 years. I hoped it would not happen again.
After finally being admitted to practice, David moved straight to the Bar and made lifelong friends. After nine years at the Bar, he moved to Victoria Legal Aid, where he worked for 21 years. Initially, he managed VLA’s Bendigo office. From June 2000 until his retirement in 2018, he was a Senior Public Defender in what was then known as the Public Defenders Unit (now VLA Chambers). Those who worked with David know the strength of character he brought to each case and the commitment he gave to each and every client he represented. He was particularly known for the care and interest he put into junior practitioners. In particular, his personal experience enabled him to understand and connect with young men in criminal justice in a way few others could.
If David were to read this tribute, he would slowly shake his head at us, with a beer in his hand, foam on his beard and a twinkle in his eye. He is survived by two daughters and a son.
The
Hon Kevin James Andrews AM
Born 9 November 1955 in Sale, the son of Roy and Sheila Andrews, Kevin Andrews died on 14 December 2024, his wife Margaret by his side. After a year-long arm wrestle with cancer, Kevin gave up the ghost. College captain of St Patrick’s College Sale in 1973, president of the Newman College Students’ Club in 1977, he took out a BA and LLB from the University of Melbourne. He later graduated LLM from Monash University. Newman afforded him a community,
a forum and a platform. One Sunday evening in late 1977, without notes, in a packed Wilson Hall he introduced BA Santamaria on the occasion of the first Daniel Mannix Memorial Lecture, a lecture series Kevin co-founded. At the outset, Mr Santamaria told the audience that Kevin’s introduction was one of the finest speeches he had heard. Forty-eight years on, the Lecture continues to be delivered annually.
If the Newman experience was formative, it was also crucial. Newman is next door to St Mary’s College. It was at St Mary’s that a young student enrolled at Lincoln Institute, Margaret Ryan, from Yarrawonga was in residence. Kevin and Margie met. They fell in love. Their subsequent union proved to be the cornerstone of a human dynasty. Their marriage lasted 45 years.
In his prime he was an athlete and he was a race-caller. In his more sedentary years, he took up cycling. He did so with gusto. Witness the Pollie Pedal, of which he was a co-founder.
Having served as Sir James Gobbo’s Associate for two years, in 1985 Andrews read in the chambers of AJ Myers. This was a propitious beginning.
As counsel he practised in commercial law and equity. In his early days Mr Andrews of counsel persuaded Vincent J, sitting in the Practice Court, to grant an interim injunction restraining a public hospital in Melbourne from letting a neonate die. The next day The Age ran the story on page one.
In 1991 he won Liberal Party preselection for the seat of Menzies. Succeeding Neil Brown QC at a by-election, Kevin won Menzies, a seat he held until 2022. At the time, he was the longest-serving member of the House of Representatives. Keith Wolahan, a member of the Victorian Bar, succeeded Kevin as the member for Menzies.
Andrews rose through the ranks of his party and the Parliament of Australia. In 2001 until 2003 he was Minister for Ageing. From 2003 to 2007 he was Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. During the same period he was Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service. In 2007
he was Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. From 2013 to 2014 he was Minister for Social Services. From 23 December 2014 to 21 September 2015 he was Minister for Defence, a portfolio which he prized.
Posterity will perhaps best remember his parliamentary career for his moving the Private Members’ Bill which, on enactment as the Euthanasia Laws Act 1997 (Cth), overrode the Northern Territory legislation permitting euthanasia under certain circumstances. The Commonwealth Act also prohibited the territories from legalising euthanasia.
Had Andrews continued to practise as a barrister, he would have risen to the top rank of counsel. He had the intellect, constitution and hunger to have done so. He chose instead to paint on a broader canvas.
Kevin was the author of four books. At the time of his death he was working on his memoirs. One hopes that those memoirs will be published.
In his maiden speech in the House on 5 September 1991 he said: “…I declare my political creed here and now. It is that the essential end of government is not power or glory, but the good life for ordinary men and women.” From that credo he never swerved.
Kevin Andrews was a shy man. He was not easy to get close to. But if you did, you experienced a person of wit, kindness and a capacity for self-irony.
At a State Funeral Service held at St Patrick’s Cathedral on 23 December 2024, over 1,200 souls mourned the death of a good man.
I too mourn his death.
He is survived by Margie, their five children and seven grandchildren.
Kevin James Andrews’ influence on the lives of ordinary Australians is yet to run its course.
NICHOLAS JD GREEN KC
David
C Langmead
Bar roll No 3203
David Cameron Langmead was a member of the Victorian Bar for 26 years. He read with Robert Hinkley and, like his esteemed
JULIA MUNSTER & NICK GOODENOUGH
mentor, mainly practised in industrial and employment law.
David was a seasoned practitioner long before coming to the Bar. From 1986 and under the supervision of Simon Williams (later Deputy President Williams of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission), David learned his craft. By 1991, David led the industrial and employment law practice at Maurice Blackburn—a practice which was and remains one of Australia’s best known and most respected industrial law practices.
It is my great privilege to write about my friend and supporter. Like all barristers, I will always remember and appreciate the solicitor who gave me my first break at the Bar. My first significant brief, in what became my area of specialisation, was in a substantial industrial law matter in which I was briefed by David and led by Robert Hinkley. David, Bob and I worked as a team on many more occasions in the 1990s and ultimately, David became one of my best supporters and a favoured solicitor and friend.
What marked David out as both a solicitor and a friend was that he was always ready to help and assist in whatever way he could. David was dedicated to building and nurturing long-standing relationships. If you were special to David, his dedication became devotion. David lived a life devoted to good causes and good people.
At the fore of all of David’s devotions was his love for his daughter Ellen. Ellen was never far from his thoughts. David cherished Ellen and his grandchildren James and Isla. They were undoubtedly his proudest achievements.
David was involved in many of the most important industrial cases of the time. And it is critical to emphasise that the time I am speaking of was one of the most challenging decades ever experienced by David’s mainstay clientele—the union movement. This was a period of tumultuous change for industrial relations in Australia. It was an era in which conciliation and
arbitration were largely replaced by enterprise bargaining. It was an era in which the widespread applicability of industrial awards as a mechanism for setting and protecting terms and conditions of employment for millions of Australian workers was being undermined by privatisation, by contracting-out, and in the case of Victoria, by the wholesale abolition of the entirety of Victoria’s industrial relations system. It was, of course, the era of the Australian Workplace Agreement by which employers were given the capacity to override industrial awards. It was also an era in which unionism was itself challenged by exclusionary practices, culminating most famously in the Waterfront Dispute of 1998.
With all of those problems, unions increasingly looked to their lawyers for innovative solutions. The 1990s was a uniquely challenging time to be an industrial lawyer. Right in the middle of many of those challenges was David Langmead. David made an enormous contribution in defending the hard-won terms and conditions of employment of ordinary workers. There were many cases and many victories. The best example of David’s contribution was the work he did in helping secure federal industrial awards for over 500,000 Victorian workers whose Victorian awards were abolished in 1992.
David was a cool head. He was an astute lawyer who traded on hard work, common sense and good judgement. He was always available to assist. He was always devoted to his clients and their cause. His loyalty and commitment to his clients is legendary. He had very long-standing relationships—30 years or longer— with several unions for whom he was their go-to lawyer. Not many lawyers can sustain relations of that kind. David could, and the fact that he did was a testament to the respect in which he was held, and to the loyalty and devotion that marked him out as the special person that he was.
David was a surprise package to many and in so many ways. He was
enigmatic. As a solicitor and as a barrister he chose his words wisely and proceeded cautiously. On the weekends, David liked to live more dangerously. David had another life— somewhat out of character with his life as a lawyer. He was not always the quiet, relaxed man of few words that many lawyers were familiar with. His courtroom style was considered and methodical rather than flash. However, on the weekends David flashed past countless finishing lines in first place in either his competition yellow Corvette, or in his Austin Healey Sprite, his Midget or his Valiant Charger. Beyond his many racing cars, David also loved his BMW 650 motorbike and his 1996 Ford F150 pick-up truck.
“Langers” competed in car racing from the early 1970s until just a month prior to passing away in July of 2024. He won the National Corvette Challenge several times and was often the winner of the Corvette “Leadfoot” Challenge. He was regarded as the “benchmark” for Corvette club racing, and was described to me by a fellow enthusiast as “gutsy, brave, unstoppable, risk-taking and always safe”. It’s not clear how David could have been all those things at once, but if anyone could have done so, I am not surprised that David did.
He was a life member of the Sportscar Owners Club of Victoria and for the last decade its president.
In both the law and on the track, David had many admirers. He was a man for all people who made important contributions across many fields of endeavor. He was good company and could always amuse with his dry but penetrating wit. He was always kind and considerate.
David Cameron Langmead lived a life well lived. He will be greatly missed.
THE HON JUSTICE MORDY BROMBERG Peter F McDermott Bar roll No 1092
Peter Francis McDermott (known to many as “Wings McDermott” for his love of flying), was an impressive, humble man with many
diverse skills and interests. He sadly passed away on 26 June 2024.
Peter was born in Sydney on 15 December 1949, the only child of Max and Sheila McDermott. The family moved to a sheep station in Jerilderie in the Southern Riverina, NSW before moving to Melbourne. Peter was then educated at St Kevin’s College, Toorak where he rowed, was a champion inter-school high jumper, and became Regimental Sergeant Major of the St Kevin’s school cadet corps.
Peter completed his law degree at the University of Melbourne where he was a resident of Newman College. He then returned to Newman College as a resident tutor in law and later lectured at the University of Melbourne Law School. After completing his law degree, Peter attended the ACT College of Law rather than taking up Articles and worked in the office of Senator Ivor Greenwood. Upon returning to Melbourne, Peter became a solicitor at Ellison Hewison and Whitehead. However, his real calling was to be an advocate and a member of the Victorian Bar.
Peter read in the chambers of the late William Bernard Frizzell (Barry Frizzell) QC, and signed the Bar Roll on 28 March 1974.
Peter was a very skilled advocate practising primarily in criminal law, initially for the defence and later for the prosecution. He developed a criminal law appellate practice and appeared frequently in the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction. It was during this time that he was also lecturing in law at the University of Melbourne.
Peter also appeared as Counsel in Royal Commissions of Inquiry into the Builders Labourers, Federation and the Costigan Royal Commission into the Ships, Painters and Dockers Union.
He was a member of the Criminal Bar Association committee and a member of the Readers Practice Course Committee, which demonstrated his continued love of educating others.
Peter had seven readers: Ian A Arnold, Anne C Thacker, Andrew G Lyons, John Casson, Stephen J Winter, Anthony T
Schlicht, and Fiona Thompson.
Peter had an unfailing sense of fairness combined with an encyclopaedic knowledge of criminal law and the rules of evidence. Throughout his career, he had no hesitation in providing the benefit of his skills to other lawyers. The Bench could be assured that when Peter was involved in presenting cases, it would be conducted with preparation, fairness and ethics.
Apart from the law, Peter’s life was driven by other interests. One of his passions was all things military and he served for many years as an officer in the Army Reserve Artillery Division. If there were to be a war, it would have been an honour and privilege to have been led by Peter. He would have been a caring and skilled commander.
His greatest interest, however, was flying and all things aeronautical. Over the years Peter owned two single engine Piper planes, a Cherokee and an Archer, which he used to travel to circuit courts. Just as he was in preparing his cases, Peter was meticulous with his preparation both pre-flight and in-flight.
It was a great struggle for Peter when he could no longer fly because of his medical condition. Nonetheless, he turned to his other hobby of model plane construction. This was conducted on an almost industrial scale. Large model planes inhabited almost every room.
When Peter had to retire early from the practice due to illness, he found great happiness living at Bolwarrah near Ballarat. He had the space to do the things that he always enjoyed, particularly spending time with his horses. Peter loved open spaces away from the city.
Peter married his greatest passion, his wife Gabrielle Morgan, at Newman College. They were married for 46-and-a-half years at the time of his death. Peter’s love and devotion to Gabrielle was deep and profound. His support for her many professional and charitable endeavours was unfailing.
Whether it was Gabrielle’s full-time work as principal of her own successful legal practice or the enormous contribution she made to the many programs of Rotary International, especially youth programs and, in particular, the Youth Exchange program, Peter was always there in support.
Together they hosted secondary school exchange students from across the globe, including France, Brazil and Germany. These students gave them great joy and happiness, and essentially became members of the family.
Those close to Peter know how ill he became and the health battles he fought over many years. Throughout and without reservation, Gabrielle’s love and caring of Peter was extraordinary and unstinting.
Peter was a witty man, a great raconteur, highly educated and a man of many and varied interests, successful, but above all a man of integrity who was both fair and loyal in all his dealings. Peter is greatly missed by all those who knew him.
HAROLD A COTTEE & DR CORAL BROWN
Michael John O’Brien
Bar roll No 1040
Michael John O’Brien, or “Mick” as he was known, particularly to his colleagues at Seabrook Chambers, was admitted on 1 March 1966 and signed Bar Roll on 8 March 1973.
He read with my uncle, the late Judge Eugene Cullity KC. Mick was the eldest of a large Horsham family, a country town connection he was pleased to share with the late Peter O’Callaghan QC. Mick’s father Mark was a well-known and much-admired country doctor who went to St Patrick’s College, Ballarat, at the same time as my own father. Mick was very proud of his father and his family.
As an advocate, Mick brought to his role a direct and somewhat combative attitude. Being in a case with him could be a bruising experience for both his opponent and the presiding
judicial officer. In truth, he was a great champion to have in your corner. Whether as a barrister, a willing participant in a political discussion (he once stood for preselection in his electorate), a contributor to a Chambers Board Meeting (Mick was a much-loved member of Seabrook Chambers for over 30 years) or as a passionate Essendon Bombers supporter, Mick was full-on in arguing his cause.
Yet as a mate, Mick had a heart of gold and was generous to a fault. A decent and loyal friend, Mick thoroughly enjoyed the social elements of Seabrook, including in particular the annual grand final eve lunch.
At a guess though, I think the speech of which Mick would be most proud was the eulogy he delivered at his father’s funeral, which was reported in the local newspapers. Those who heard it confirmed that it was his finest hour combining his passion for advocacy and his love and admiration for his late father.
Despite considerable health challenges, Mick was a character who left a very positive stamp on the world. We will miss him.
JOHN F LARKINS
The Hon Thomas Hughes AO KC
Bar roll No 644
It is with deep regret that I acknowledge, on behalf of the national Bar, the death of the Hon Thomas EF Hughes KC, who died on 28 November 2024, two days after his 101st birthday.
Tom Hughes was a prominent figure in the Australian legal profession for more than 60 years. Although his home jurisdiction was the New South Wales Bar, he was also a member of the Victorian Bar from 1961 until his retirement in 2013. His reach and expertise, however, were not limited to a single Bar, Hughes was a national figure.
Hughes was born on 26 November 1923 in Sydney. He was educated at
Saint Ignatius College, Riverview. Following the steps of his father and grandfather, he commenced his study of law at the University of Sydney, only to defer in 1940 in order to enlist in the Royal Australian Air Force at only 18 years of age. Between 1943 and 1945, Hughes flew Sunderland flying boats in Europe, escorting Allied convoys and destroying enemy U-boats. He flew with the RAAF’s 10th Squadron over the English Channel during the D-Day invasion of Normandy. He was awarded a number of medals by the British and Australian governments for his courageous military service. In 2005 the French government bestowed its highest award for military and civil service, the Chevalier of the Legion of Honour, upon Hughes for his service in WWII and in recognition of the role Australia played in the liberation of France.
At the conclusion of World War II, Hughes returned to complete his legal studies. In 1949, he was called to the New South Wales Bar, becoming one of Her Majesty’s Counsel in 1962. He served as president of the New South Wales Bar between 1973–1975. At the Bar Hughes was a fierce opponent and an extraordinary advocate. He dominated any court room in which he appeared. He had a great command of his own cases and a withering ability to identify the weaknesses in the case of his opponents. A brilliant crossexaminer, a hard and disciplined worker, Hughes was careful, clever and courteous.
Throughout his long and distinguished career, Hughes appeared in many prominent cases and on behalf of many high-profile clients. Although renowned in the public eye for his defamation cases, his practice was much broader, including constitutional, commercial and common law cases. Hughes argued cases before the Privy Council and the High Court of Australia.
In 1963 he was elected to the Commonwealth Parliament as the member for Parkes and later as the member for Berowra. During his
time as a backbencher, he remained in practice at the Bar. In 1969 he was appointed the 19th Attorney-General for the Commonwealth of Australia, under Prime Minister Gorton. Hughes acquitted himself as Attorney-General with the same brilliant legal acumen and prodigious work ethic as he exhibited as a barrister. He remained Attorney-General of Australia until 1971.
Hughes served on the Council of the Australian National University between 1972–1975, and as a member of the New South Wales Thoroughbred Racing Board Appeals Panel between 1998–2003. In 1988, Hughes was made an Officer of the Order of Australia, for service to Australian society as a parliamentarian and to the legal profession.
Hughes retired from legal practice after 64 years as a member of the New South Wales Bar in October 2013, one month shy of his 90th birthday.
The Hon Thomas EF Hughes AO KC was one of the finest barristers in Australian legal history. He was a doyen of the Bar, an exemplar of service to his country and to the legal profession.
On behalf of the Australian Bar Association, I offer my sincere condolences to his family and to his friends and colleagues.
Requiescat in pace.
RÓISÍN ANNESLEY KC, PRESIDENT OF THE AUSTRALIAN BAR ASSOCIATION.
The Hon John Campton KC
Bar roll No 415
The Hon John Richard Campton KC died in the early hours of Sunday, 30 March, 2025. He was 100 years and 16 days of age. Over those hundred years he enjoyed a full and exciting life.
Born in 1925, he was an only child who attended Melbourne Grammar school for his secondary education and then commenced a Law degree at Melbourne University. His legal education was interrupted by service in the Royal Australian Air Force between 1944–1946. He was a gifted
of the
student and won exhibitions in the subjects of Criminal Law and the Law of Wrongs.
In 1947, John served Articles with Mr Geoffrey Carter, gaining admission on 3 November 1948. Two days later he signed the Bar Roll of Counsel and was allocated the doyen of clerks, Percy Dever. John’s father, Harry Campton, was also a barrister and still practising when John signed the Bar Roll.
John read with the Hon Sir Alexander (Alistair) DG Adam QC, who later became a justice of the Victorian Supreme Court. John had a highly successful practice at the Bar which initially involved a little crime, a large practice in the Matrimonial Causes jurisdiction—he also became an expert in town planning, land compensation cases and commercial causes. However, over time his practice was dominated by licensing work. In this respect, John and his father were the first father and son combination to practise at the Bar at the same time and ultimately, the first father and son to be recognised as specialists in one particular field of practice.
He had a reputation as a learned, fearless, and responsible advocate. He achieved silk on the 26 November 1975 and was a member of the Bar for 76 years.
John was appointed Chairman of the Liquor Control Commission a week after taking silk. On the demise of the Liquor Control Commission, he sat on the County Court Bench where he remained over the years from 1988 to 1995 and subsequently appointed as a reserve judge of the County Court for a number of years.
He and his late wife Pat raised six daughters: her Honour Jane Campton, Prue, Penny, Rowena, Sarah [deceased], and Vanessa. Both her Honour and Prue continued the family legal tradition, obtaining legal qualifications with her Honour later being appointed a County Court judge.
John had much vitality and the capacity to mix with a variety of people. He was acutely intelligent and
erudite. Beyond his family, John had three particular passions. He was a great lover of good wine-particularly Bordeaux and Burgundy, he loved jazz, and the Melbourne Football Club. The year 2021 was a momentous one for John when Melbourne broke the drought and won the Premiership.
HIS HONOUR JAMES PARRISH
The Hon Eugene John Cullity AM KC
Bar roll No 529
Eugene had a long and distinguished career in the law. He was a leader of the Common Law Bar in the 1970s, a judge of the County Court between 1977 and 2000, and Chairman of the Victorian Youth Parole Board from 1985 to 2004. He died on 2 January 2025, aged 96.
His father, the famous “Black Jack” Cullity, who signed the Bar Roll in 1925 (No 222), was a leader of the Crime and Common Law Bar in the 1940s and 1950s (see Peter Yule, A History of the Victorian Bar at 174–5).
Eugene received his primary and secondary education at Christian Brothers College in St Kilda, and completed his matriculation at St Kevins College, Toorak. After completing the five-year Articled Clerks Course under the tutelage of Royston T Cahir, solicitor, he was admitted to practice on 1 March 1955 and signed the Bar Roll three days later. He commenced reading with John Starke in Selbourne Chambers and completed with John Mornane after Starke took silk.
He had six readers in five years— John McArdle (1970), Michael Ruddle (1971), Don Grace (1972), Michael O’Brien (1973), Robert Johnson (1973), and myself. I started reading with him in April 1975. I followed him around for two months until I could take briefs, and then followed him around some more until I got one.
To watch him in court was an object lesson in advocacy. His cross-examination was always succinct and to the point. When he sat down, his opponents would often
have felt relatively unscathed until his final address to the judge, or jury, when his points were so simply and skilfully revealed.
“Euge” was huge, not in stature but immensely popular as counsel and as a person. His best friends like John Monahan called him “titch”. Briefs would come in by the truckload.
He practised mainly in personal injury, probably because it was big at the time. But he was just as skilful in other jurisdictions. He appeared without fear or favour for plaintiffs with serious and permanent injuries, often unled, as well as for doctors on behalf of the Medical Defence Fund. He represented workers injured in the Westgate Bridge Collapse in 1970 and families of those killed. He also appeared for BHP at the Royal Commission into the petroleum industry in 1974.
He could have taken silk long before 1975. I believe he did not do so in deference to his father who never did.
He was appointed a judge of the County Court in July 1977. He wrote to me that he missed the camaraderie of the Bar.
I didn’t have much to do with him thereafter until I appeared before him in a trial in 1994. Unfortunately for my client, his judgment was unappealable.
He was a wise, learned and compassionate judge who applied a commonsense approach to legal problems. He was a strong advocate for the retention of juries. Prior to the digital era, he presided over the infamous “Grimwade” trial spanning 22 months, making it the longest criminal trial in the state’s history at the time.
As Chairman of the Victorian Youth Parole Board from 1985 to 2004, he recognised that most young offenders are themselves victims of child abuse and neglect.
He was appointed a Member of the Order of Australia in 2004 for his services to the law and the community, particularly through support for programs to rehabilitate juvenile offenders, and to Calvary Health Care
Bethlehem. He had many interests outside the law to which he gave his time and energy, most notably the Torquay Surf Life Saving Club of which he was a former president and life member.
SAM CHIZIK
Anthony Schlicht
Bar roll No 2738
Tony was different. He was a man full of contradictions. Let me explain. He would dress like a homeless person in a t-shirt and tracksuit pants tucked into his socks around chambers, yet he would emerge in a tailored suit to go to court, with a silk tie and patent leather shoes.
He was a fierce advocate that stood his ground. His style was perhaps more Brayden Maynard than Nick Daicos. He was hard working and well prepared; so much so, he was known around cafes on Domain Road as ‘the Cardinal’ due to his propensity to work all day Sunday.
Despite his gruff demeanour, he had a heart of gold. He often represented those were less fortunate pro bono. This included dogs who had been abandoned to be destroyed. He went to court to serve them, and at the time of his death, had three rescue dogs of his own. He also allowed refugees to use one of his rental properties until they could find a place to live.
On the one hand, he was extremely generous, and then on the other hand, it was a challenge to get him to pay for a cup of coffee. He spoiled his dogs and would often do anything for his three children.
Only once did he buy me a birthday present. It was after he returned from Bali. He threw a t-shirt at me and I asked him what it was for. He said, it was my birthday, wasn’t it? I asked him whether he had bought it at a flea market in Bali for $5 or something. He said, “No, no, no,” he got three for $10. He could be a conversationalist in a small group. Other times he could sit and say nothing all night. Once he attended the Essoign Calcutta
Luncheon, a formal Bar function, without a ticket or invitation and plonked himself on a table dressed in a t-shirt and tracksuit pants tucked into his socks and said nothing all night. He never said hello and never said goodbye.
Once I asked him what “Schlicht” meant in German. I knew, I said that “schlect” meant bad in German. However, even he did not know what “Schlicht” meant. So, we googled it. We found out that it had four meanings:
Plain
Simple
Frugal and tight-fisted.
Rude.
We had a laugh. He was different.
MARCUS CLARKE KC
Professor Douglas Williamson RFD KC
Bar roll No 1096
Professor Douglas Williamson will be remembered by those who knew and worked with him as having enjoyed a distinguished and varied career in law. In the words of the Hon Susan Crennan AO KC: “Douglas was an accomplished barrister and academic. His notable contributions to the law included service to important public instrumentalities. These called on his legal expertise in mining, banking and competition law.”
Born in Moe in 1933 and educated at Wesley College, Douglas graduated with an honours degree in law from the University of Melbourne in 1955. A protege of Sir Zelman Cowen (whom he described as, “simply an inspiring man”), Douglas made lifelong friendships and also met his wife, Wendy, during his university days. The couple went on to have three children—two sons and a daughter.
Admitted to practice on 1 March 1957, Douglas signed the Bar Roll later that year, reading with fellow RAAF pilot Peter Coldham. Known in particular for his expertise in trade practices and energy and resources law, he was often briefed to act for large mining companies. Douglas maintained his academic ties after
coming to the Bar, holding faculty and lecturing positions at both Melbourne and Monash Universities. He was appointed Queen’s Counsel on 25 November 1975.
Douglas gave service to the profession in a variety of ways, including as a member of the Bar Council and of various Law Council of Australia committees. In 1976 Douglas was one of four founding members of the Australian Mineral and Petroleum Law Association (now the Energy & Resources Law Association).
In addition to serving as an active reserve pilot, Douglas held legal roles within the RAAF, including as Deputy Judge Advocate General. He received various awards for his service, including the Reserve Forces Decoration in 1985.
Between 1990 and 1992 Douglas served as a Commissioner in the Royal Commission into the Tricontinental Group of Companies, with Susan Crennan QC (as she then was) leading the counsel assisting team.
Douglas went on to apply his considerable legal skills as a Professor at the University of Melbourne, including as Director of the Centre for Energy and Resource Law. He also served in part-time roles as Deputy Chairman of the National Electricity Tribunal and as a member of the ACCC and the National Native Title Tribunal. VBN
The Hon Austin Asche AC KC
Bar roll No 515
Keith John Austin Asche was born on 28 November 1925 and died on 14 December 2024. Universally known as Austin, his mother, Beryl, said she named him after the baby Austin car she drove, but his father, a lawyer, said it was after John Austin, the first professor of Jurisprudence at Oxford under whom he had studied. He was at least a fourth-generation lawyer.
Shortly after Austin was born, his father moved to the Territory of Papua
New Guinea at Rabaul and then to Darwin where he was appointed to the Crown Law Office. His father had seen service in the First Australian Imperial Force receiving a Military Medal. Gassed with mustard gas, he died of tuberculosis in 1940 just as Austin was entering senior school.
Austin attended Darwin primary school, which had a Boab tree in the playground. The primary school site is now occupied by Charles Darwin University which awarded Austin an Honorary Doctorate, and the tree remains. Secondary schooling was at Melbourne Grammar where he boarded—he reached the school by ship, returning every two years. He enlisted in 1944 and saw active service with the Royal Australian Air Force during World War Two as a radar operator on Bathurst and Millingimbo Islands off Northern Australia. Austin then commenced studying law at Melbourne University graduating his Bachelor of Laws with honours.
He was admitted to practise in Victoria on 1 December 1950 and then travelled to Queensland where he practised as a barrister from 1951 until he was called back to help look after the younger members of his family by his mother in 1954. He rowed with Toowong Rowing Club and was a member of the senior eight that missed selection for The Kings Cup representing Queensland by a canvas in the days when one club’s crew was selected in its entirety.
Austin specialised in obtaining Knighthoods for his mentors. He was articled to Rupert Hamer, later Sir Rupert Hamer, of JM Smith & Emerton. He read with Graham Hart later his Honour Mr Justice Hart of the Supreme Court of Queensland. When he returned to Victoria he read with George Lush later his Honour Sir George Lush of the Supreme Court of Victoria. He signed the Victorian Bar Roll on 9 April 1954.
He had a large general practice including crime and personal injuries,
and a remarkable capacity for hard work keeping three typists busy with paperwork in the days before computers and word processing. He had four readers, Robert Capes, Zia Bey, Lynette Opas and James (Jim) Nankivell. Austin was generous with his time and advice.
He gravitated to working largely in the matrimonial causes jurisdiction where fault had to be proved to enable a divorce to be ordered. He drew the petitions and affidavits, he saw the clients and appeared before the judge to obtain the necessary dissolution. Most matters were undefended, and it was unusual for Austin not to have the whole list and as many as 10 matters in a day. He was tall, handsome, courteous, moustachioed and urbane. Clients and courts liked his forthright and understanding manner.
Shortly before he took silk, Austin went to his clerk Jim Foley and asked if he could have a brief to Inglewood Magistrates’ Court. Jim asked why on earth would you want to go there, to which Austin said that it was the only court in Victoria that he had not appeared in. He was appointed silk in 1972, one of four appointed. The others were Leo Lazarus, Daryl Davies and Hartog Berkeley.
When divorce became no fault in 1975, he was appointed a Judge Designate of the Family Court of Australia on 29 August 1975 as he was pre-eminent in his field.
He ran a united and effective court. He was an excellent administrator. As an advocate and a judge, Austin was always well prepared, to the point, and gave counsel before him a fair hearing. He was industrious, courteous and wise. Counsel always came away thinking they had been able to put their case. He showed admirable restraint in the difficult family jurisdiction where, even with no fault, parties could become rabid.
Austin took the view that one should never refuse an opportunity and the opportunities, once he became a Family Court judge, came in rapid succession.
His heart never left the Northern Territory. So, in 1986, he returned when he was appointed a judge of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory and then Chief Justice in 1987, retiring in 1993. He was appointed the Administrator of the Northern Territory in October 1992 for five years. He was Chair of the Northern Territory Parole Board from 1987 to 1993, and Chairman of the Northern Territory Law Reform Commission between 1997 and 2018.
The range and breadth of his activities, associations and organisations was extraordinary. He was made a Knight of The Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem in 1993, and awarded Honorary Doctorates from Deakin University and Charles Darwin University. He was involved in an enormous number of community organisations. After he retired as an Administrator, he remained involved in the organisations even though he could have resigned.
He was appointed Companion of the Order of Australia (AC) in 1994 for his service to the law, tertiary education and the community, particularly the people of the Northern Territory. In 2001 Austin received the Centenary Medal and in 2007 he became a Freeman of the City of Darwin.
He was a patron of organisations such as The Friends of the Darwin Botanic Gardens, The Historical Society of the Northern Territory, The Australian Artillery Association of the Northern Territory, the Northern Territory University (where he was Vice Chancellor and President), Legacy Northern Territory, and a Freemason for over 70 years including Grand Master of Victoria from 1984 to 1986, the patron of Summerville Community Services and patron of the Northern Territory Red Cross. Not to mention Chief Scout of the Northern Territory and Honorary Colonel of NORFORCE. The list is not exhaustive.
He was a part time lecturer at RMIT from 1968 to 1975, and at Melbourne University from 1964 to 1975. He was
President of RMIT from 1981 to 1983, and Chancellor of Deakin University from 1983 to 1987 and Northern Territory University from 1989 to 1993.
A highlight of Saint Patrick’s Day each year, which happened to coincide with the installation of the Grand Master of the Freemasons in Victoria, was Austin and Val’s drinks party at the Savage Club to which many of his former colleagues at the Bar were invited.
A highlight of the Criminal Lawyers Association of the Northern Territory biennial conference was Austin’s portrayal of the presiding judge in such well-known productions as the Eureka Stockade Trail devised by members of the Criminal Lawyers Association of the Northern Territory.
His wife, Val (PhD, AM), who predeceased him, was in her own right a distinguished microbiologist and author who was director of the Clinical Department of Microbiology at Queen Victoria Medical. His son, Harry (PhD), is a professor of engineering at the University of Queensland, and his daughter, Wendy, is an anthropologist with the Northern Lands Council and referred to in the Griffiths case (Northern Territory v Mr A. Griffiths (deceased) and Lorraine Jones on behalf of the Ngaliwurru and Nungali Peoples [2019] HCA 7, commencing at [169]). Neither are lawyers, but his first cousin is Brind Zichy-Woinarski KC.
Austin’s state funeral was held at the Darwin Convention Centre. It was a large crowd presided over by the former Bishop of Darwin now Archbishop of Melbourne Phillip Frier. As a mark of mourning the flags in the Northern Territory flew at half-mast on 3 February 2025.
BILL GILLIES
Paul Holmes
On 19 February 2025, the legal profession lost one of its great people and great contributors with the passing of Paul Holmes.
Paul’s introduction to the law was as a clerk of courts, where he cut his teeth among the suburban courts of
yesteryear (such as Warburton and Lilydale), before moving to the bustling City Court.
In 1992, after working for a period at Barry Stone’s List, Paul started the Holmes List of barristers.
When he opened for business, Paul did not have a single barrister on his books, however, such was his popularity and the respect that he held, that he went on to build the list into a powerhouse with regular numbers of around 190 to 200 barristers.
For the 33 years that he presided over Holmes List, Paul was incredibly supportive, loyal and caring to generations of barristers. His generosity was legendary, and when times were tough or when solicitors were occasionally less than speedy in the payment of fees, Paul would regularly step in to assist.
For young barristers taking their first tentative steps at the Bar, walking into Paul’s office after a tough day at court would be like entering into some sort of wellness retreat. So that no matter how bruised and battered you were feeling or how demoralised you were after a loss—after a brief chat with “Holmesy”, your spirits and confidence would be restored and you would be looking forward to your next brief.
After having been given their start by Paul, barristers from his list have gone on to fill positions at every level of the judiciary in this state, all the way up to the Court of Appeal.
Paul saw his role as much more than running a business and supported so many causes.
In starting his list, he identified that women were not getting the opportunities at the Bar they deserved, and he actively recruited women barristers onto his list.
He then helped to establish the Women in Crime organisation, which is aimed at supporting female practitioners working in the criminal law field.
As another example, Paul was a major sponsor of the Galbally Cup. The Cup was an annual event where barristers played a football match
against solicitors to raise money for the Reclink organisation (which assists homeless men and women and those with drug, alcohol and mental health problems).
Paul not only sponsored the matches, but attended each year to cheer on the barristers. One year, when the barristers went into half time eight goals down, Paul was less than impressed by our lack of physicality.
In the first half, not one of us had even laid a tackle: I’m confident that our attack on the ball and the man would have been much more vigorous if we weren’t so worried about getting injured and not being able to fulfil our respective duties to clients and the courts the following Monday.
Paul came into the rooms at half-time, and although only a spectator that day, took matters into his own hands. He gathered us into a huddle and gave a short but powerful speech that struck a nerve that was so close to all of our hearts.
He said, “Fellas, when you go out in the second half, I want you to look those solicitors in the eye and remember how much money they owe you.
Inspired by Paul’s address, the barristers lifted and stormed home to record a famous two-point victory. Paul himself was a very talented and courageous footballer with Old Marcellin in the VAFA.
As a measure of how selfless and how decent a person Holmesy was, in 1979, after playing every game that season, he gave up his spot in the team for the Grand Final to his younger brother Tim, who was then still in his last year of school but a rising star.
As he recounted to the massive crowd at Paul’s funeral, Paul’s other brother and list member Gerry Holmes has fond memories of playing alongside Paul at Old Marcellin. He called the day that he (Gerry) was getting some unfair and unwarranted attention in the forward line from a brutal opposition tagger who just wouldn’t leave him alone.
In what turned out to be a tactical masterstroke, Gerry decided to bring his opponent with him to the other end of the ground where Paul was playing in the backline.
Moments later Paul and that brutal sniper somehow just happened to cross paths deep in the backline. It is suffice to say that, thereafter, that sniper was no longer in a position to bother Gerry or any of his teammates, for any part of the rest of the game.
In more recent times, List members had the privilege to see Paul working alongside his son Charlie for three years. It was a privilege because you could see a beautiful relationship built on mutual respect and love—father and son—the best of mates.
Paul was revered by his staff, who speak of a man who would do anything for them, personally and professionally. As a measure of Paul’s dedication to the health and growth of his list, for many years he would sacrifice his own private quality time, to go on an annual golf trip to venues such as Barnbougle in Tasmania, with a group of solicitors who were loyal supporters of the list.
Such was the heavy sense of responsibility with which he approached those trips, that Paul introduced a stringent—some might say capricious—rule to the morning golf rounds on those trips. In the face of the unbridled conviviality being enjoyed by those around him in the afternoons and evenings of those trips, with the assistance of a portable breathalyser and his renowned sense of humour, Paul made it a rule that you were not allowed to drive off the tees at the start of each hole until you had recorded a reading below .05. The story goes that one year a couple of gun criminal law solicitors were reduced to hitting chip shots off the tees until well into their respective back nines.
For the last 13 years Paul fought an amazingly brave battle with cancer.
Over that 13 years there were many times when we could see the terrible physical toll that the illness was taking on Paul. However, in an incredible and
enduring show of courage and will, each time Paul was somehow able to climb off the canvas, rally and continue to be the strength to so many of us that loved him and felt so privileged to share his company.
His loss will be deeply felt by so many in the legal community. We offer our continued condolences and support to Paul’s wife Nancy, his son Charlie, and Paul’s wider family.
Just like he did that Saturday afternoon out at Victoria Park, the spiritual home of his beloved Magpies—Paul’s memory will continue to inspire us, and we will remain so grateful for all that he did.
DERMOT DANN SC
Christopher (Chris) Wallis
Bar roll No 2631
Ifirst met Christopher Wallis in 1989 on a tram on Collins Street as he was on his way to an interview for a position as a solicitor in the revenue and taxation group at Mallesons Stephen Jaques, where I was employed. He got the job and quickly developed an unlikely but consuming passion for taxation law. We became and remained friends until he passed away in his sleep on 22 February 2025 at 72 years of age.
Chris was a latecomer to the law having previously qualified as an engineer, accountant and teacher. He was called to the Bar in 1991 and read with Manny Garantziotis. Entrepreneurial by nature, Chris co-founded a taxation training company during the recession of that era which successfully combined his numerous skill sets.
Chris had a sense of fair play derived from many years as a part-time VFL umpire. He was a tenacious and fearless advocate for all who sought his assistance. He refused to turn away clients who could not afford him, or whose causes were well-nigh hopeless. Instead, he proudly proclaimed on his Victorian Bar web profile that any year in which he did not set foot in a courtroom was a good year,
and fought for them by turning the revenue authorities’ own standards and administrative processes against themselves to procure settlements. Those tactics did not always endear him to the authorities. But if they did not love him, they certainly respected him.
Chris’s practice extended across Australia. He was generous with his knowledge and dedicated himself for over three decades to the development of taxation law, policy and governance as an active member of the Australasian Tax Teachers’ Association, a foundation member of the Tax Bar Association, and on numerous technical and educational committees of the Tax Institute of Australia, under whose auspices he was a Chartered Tax Advisor. Chris’s participation was highly valued by numerous tax discussion groups, and he was particularly esteemed in the Tasmanian tax community.
Chris applied the same relentless energy and enthusiasm to everything else in his life, especially cycling and, most recently, to travelling around the world with his partner, Soula.
Christopher Wallis will be greatly missed by Soula, his family, his many friends, colleagues, clients and former clients, as well as the wider taxation community throughout Australia.
MICHAEL BEARMAN (WITH THANKS TO RON JORGENSEN)
The Hon Sally Brown AM
Bar roll No 1449
The Hon Justice Brown AM passed on 21 March 2025 just shy of 75 years of age. She was called to the Bar in 1978 and read with the Hon Peter Heerey. Her Honour was school captain at MacRobertson Girls’ High School and a graduate of Melbourne University Law School. Her Honour commenced articles under the supervision of Bruce Moore of Coltman, Wyatt & Anderson. In 1975 she commenced practice as a solicitor at the firm of David Thomas & Frenkel before lecturing in contract and
company law at Footscray Institute of Technology and RMIT.
At the Bar she had a general practice with an emphasis on criminal and family law. Margarat Rizkalla, formerly of the Bar and eventually Judge Rizkalla, was the first woman appointed to the Magistrates’ Court. Sally Brown was second. They arrived at a time when the qualifications for the Bench had just expanded to take in practising lawyers. They arrived at a court that was in a state of change. They along with others that joined their ranks drove this change and lay the foundations for a modern court.
I was a young trainee clerk of courts when I first met Sally. It’s fair to say with our height differences we may have been a formidable ruck/rover combination. I had the privilege of admiring her from within the court and then from afar as she progressed through what can only be described as a ground-breaking career full of achievement and consistent excellence—a career devoted to her colleagues and more importantly the people who came before her. Her Honour worked tirelessly for the whole of the community. Her former colleagues mourn her passing and the memories working alongside her at the old City Court at Russell Street and the Family Court.
Her Honour was just two years on the Bench before being appointed as a Deputy Chief Magistrate in 1987 under the legendary John “Darcy” Dugan. Upon Darcy’s retirement in 1990 her Honour was appointed Victoria’s first female Chief Magistrate. In 1993 her Honour was appointed to the Family Court of Australia. She served in this role with distinction for 17 years until her retirement in 2010. Throughout her career, her Honour was a passionate advocate for the reform of laws relating to family violence and juvenile justice. She was instrumental in the development of judicial education programs, particularly those focused on gender and cultural awareness. In recognition
of her services, her Honour was made an Honorary Life Member of the Australian Institute of Judicial Administration.
Her Honour’s commitment to family violence reform was reflected in her role as Chair of the Victorian Family Violence Protocols Committee and her efforts in creating judicial awareness programs. In 2003, she was inducted into the Victorian Honour Roll of Women and, in 2006, was made a Member of the Order of Australia.
Her contributions to the law and her tireless work toward a more inclusive legal system will leave a lasting legacy. Justice Brown AM is remembered with deep respect and admiration by her colleagues, peers, and all who had the privilege of knowing and working with her.
DEPUTY CHIEF MAGISTRATE TIMOTHY BOURKE
Elizabeth Ann Shanahan
Bar roll No 2615
It is with regret that the Bar informs members of the passing of Elizabeth (Ann) Shanahan, who died peacefully in the company of her daughter, Zoe McKenzie MP, in Sorrento on 12 January 2025.
Ann signed the Bar Roll on 30 May 1991 and read with John (Jack) Rush AO RFD KC.
Ann was a woman of remarkable intellect, integrity, and strength. A pioneer in her fields, she practiced as a cardio-thoracic surgeon from 1968 to 2004 and, in a second distinguished career, served as a lawyer, sitting on the Administrative Appeals Tribunal from 1990 until 2018. She was widely respected for her sharp legal mind and incisive advocacy, particularly in asbestos litigation, where she proved an exceptional witness—always ahead of the cross-examiner, unshakable in her knowledge, and often deploying her trademark wit to devastating effect.
Beyond her professional achievements, Ann was a devoted mother, a fiercely loyal friend, and an avid gardener. She was ferocious, hilarious, formidable, direct, and
compassionate; that made her both a formidable opponent and a deeply admired colleague.
She will be greatly missed by her family, friends, and all who had the privilege of knowing her.
Vale Ann.
JOHN (JACK) RUSH AO RFD KC
Carmen Osborne
Bar roll No 2062
Carmen Osborne was born on 20 September 1942. After being admitted on 1 March 1979, Carmen signed the Bar Roll on 29 May 1986. She read with the Hon Geoffrey Flatman and was a member of the Victorian Bar for 14 years. We extend our deepest sympathy to Carmen’s family and friends.
Richard Spicer
Bar roll No 1374
Richard Spicer, who died on 17 April after a long battle with Parkinson’s, borne with typical courage and good spirit, came to the Bar on 9 February 1978. He had undertaken articles at Moule Hamilton Derham (now Freehills) in 1964–1965 and then worked as an employee, later a partner, at Mills Oakley McKay. After reading with David Byrne, later Justice David Byrne KC of the Supreme Court, Richard developed a successful practice in the industrial law milieu. He was in frequent demand, perhaps best instanced by being the counsel of choice for the University employers in hearings before the then Academic Salaries Tribunal.
Industrial law was by no means the sole area of Richard’s practice. Drawing on his experience as a solicitor in matrimonial work, Richard also developed a continuing practice in family law, and over the years that came to occupy most of his time. He was, for many years, one of the small handful of barristers who dominated the work of the Ballarat Circuit, an important and busy one with many
demanding forensic challenges. He continued to appear regularly in both the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court until failing health led him to retire in 2015.
The high regard in which Richard was held by the profession is reflected in the significant number of readers who sought him out to be their mentor. The Hon Philip Burchardt, Anton Lindeman, Richard Ingleby, Dennis Meehan and Marguerite Desmond read with Richard. All profited greatly from the experience. Richard had a profound respect for the role of barristers as officers of the Court and everyone who read with him emerged with an enhanced appreciation of the proper conduct that the Bar expects from its members. He was also, as the above has already indicated, a very skilled and effective barrister. He was fearless, devoid of nerves before any court or tribunal, and at times it must be said combative, although always entirely proper in advancing his clients’ cases. Some of his cross-examinations have passed into folklore among his readers and many friends.
Away from the Bar, Richard was a man who lived life fully. He was what one calls a ‘bon viveur’. Fond of a smoke and a good bottle of wine taken with many friends, and an enthusiastic and skilled player of cards.
Following retirement, Richard’s health declined with the onset of the debilitating effects of Parkinson’s and his last days were spent at a nursing home in Greensborough. Despite his obvious frailty he remained alert, engaged and humorous with his visitors. He was nursed and supported devotedly by his wife Carole, and had the joy of the visits of his daughter Penny and her children. Vale Richard.
Phelan
It is with deep regret that the Bar informs members of the death of Barbara (Barb) Phelan.
Barb was admitted to practice on 30 March 1989 and was called to the Bar on 31 May 1990, reading with Andrew Crozier-Durham RFD. Barb was a registered nurse before studying law in her 30s. Her diligence is best shown by the fact she completed her law degree whilst raising three small children.
Barb primarily practiced in family law and was also a Member of the Victorian Racing Appeals and Disciplinary Board. Barb loved horse racing, spending hours in chambers reviewing the form guide and the pedigree of different thoroughbreds. She enjoyed golf, travel and the Geelong Football Club—not necessarily in that order.
At the Bar, Barb was well known as a fierce and formidable advocate for her clients, going above and beyond to protect and advance their interests. She was briefed for her careful preparation and zealous cross-examination techniques. Barb’s opponents always knew they had a fight on their hands. Her intelligence and wit commanded the respect of the judiciary and her colleagues. In contrast to her court persona, Barb was a kind, devoted and loyal friend.
Barb had four readers: Cath Devine, Judge Jennifer Howe, Richelle Scherman and Sylvia Maramis. She remained a mentor to them well beyond their readers’ period and relished in their success.
Barb retired in 2018 after 28 years at the Bar.
Barb’s first passion was always her family. Barb was married for over 50 years to her beloved husband Pierce. Barb often spoke of her love for her children Kathleen, Bridget and Conor, and their spouses. Barb doted on her four grandchildren, Cara, Nell, Callan and Thomas.
The Bar extends its deepest condolences to Barb’s family, colleagues and all who knew her.
CATHERINE DEVINE
Gonged
Magistrates Court of Victoria
James FitzGerald
Matthew Page
Crown Counsel
Sarah Keating
Elevations
The Honourable Chief Justice Peter Kidd (Chief Judge County Court to Justice of the Court of Appeal)
Her Honour Judge Anna Parker (FCFCOA Division 2 to Division 1)
Her Honour Judge Joanne Stewart (FCFCOA Division 2 to Division 1)
Kristie Churchill (Crown Prosecutor to Senior Crown Prosecutor)
David Glynn (Crown Prosecutor to Senior Crown Prosecutor)
Australia Birthday Honours
Emeritus Professor Gillian Triggs AC
The Honourable Duncan Kerr AO SC
The late the Honourable Kevin Andrews AM
The Honourable Alan Robertson AM SC
The Honourable John Sackar AM KC
Michael John O'Brien
King's Birthday Honours
The Honourable Justice
Simon Harry Steward AC
The Honourable
Mark Samuel Weinberg AC KC
A List for Specialists
Boilerplate
Support the Arts
JULIAN BURNSIDE
For years now I have been urging people to support the Arts. The future state of the Arts is profoundly important. The importance of the state of the Arts is enhanced by the likely future of the human race, which is made all the more important by climate change.
It is not often remembered that during his lifetime Vincent van Gogh (1853–1890) sold only one of his pictures and received what is currently the equivalent of $15. In November 2022 a Van Gogh painting (a watercolour, not an oil) sold at auction for $50 million. Everyone has heard of Geoffrey Chaucer (c.1340–1400). Not everyone realises that his last poem, addressed as a complaint written in 1400 ostensibly to his purse, is in fact a complaint about how little money he has. It is an astonishing thing that the author of The Canterbury Tales had so little money at the end of his life. And remember Antonio Vivaldi (1678–1741). Everyone has heard his Four Seasons. Not everyone appreciates that for almost 200 years after his death, Vivaldi had been forgotten. His reputation was restored, and a great deal of his original work was revived, from the 1920s on. In the late 1960s the Nonesuch recording label produced the first vinyl disk of The Four Seasons. Cezanne (1839–1906) was once booted out of his lodgings and the angry landlord hurled some of his paintings out of the attic window into the courtyard below. Similar examples can be multiplied endlessly.
Would the world be poorer if Van Gogh had never painted Starry Night, or if Cezanne had not painted Les Grandes Baigneuses; or if Van Gogh and Cezanne had never painted at all? Would the world be poorer if Vivaldi’s music did not exist, or if Chaucer had never written The Canterbury Tales or Troilus and Criseyde? Would the world be poorer if Michelangelo (1474–1565) had never painted the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel; if Shakespeare (c. 1564–1616) and Balzac (1799–1850) had never written? Or if Leonardo da Vinci (1452–1519) had never painted at all?
Would the world be poorer if Beethoven (1770–1827) or Shostakovich (1906–1975) had never written a note of music?
In my view, the answer is an emphatic yes, because the Arts leave a mark on history.
If you have any money to spare at all, it is worth considering the following thought experiment. Everyone has heard of Geoffrey Chaucer and most people have heard of The Canterbury Tales (although few people have read it); everyone has heard of Leonardo da Vinci, and most people have seen Mona Lisa. Most people have heard the music of Vivaldi and Beethoven; most people have heard of Tolstoy, even if they have not read his books. But can anyone name a rich businessperson, an accountant, economist, or lawyer who lived in the same place at the same time as any of those people? The usual answer is no.
The simple fact is that the Arts leave a mark. Accounting, economics and law do not leave a
mark: but they make their practitioners rich. You don’t need to be a struggling artist to know that most artists aren’t rich.
Right now, for the first time in human history, we face the possibility of the human race becoming extinct. How long it will take for a new species to arise is unknowable. Only one thing is knowable for certain: the race of beings which arises and takes our place will look for its origins; just as we have done. If that race of beings is to understand anything about us, that understanding will come from the Arts.
In an interesting article in The Guardian (in about 2015), Jonathan Jones wrote: “Art has a long history of entertaining the rich. From ancient artisans who made gold drinking cups for kings, to the artists of today who sell installations to plutocrats, art has been a luxury product, the servant of money. And yet it also has a social conscience…”
So how do we support the Arts? A friend of mine commented recently that we spend millions of dollars on new and fancy galleries and yet artists typically do not have enough money to live on. Consider your friends: how many of them are rich; and how many of those people are artists?
The Arts are profoundly important to our society. Rewarding artists adequately is not only morally right, it is essential if the Arts are to flourish. Supporting artists is bound up with the importance of the Arts.
The case for the importance of the Arts is not difficult to make, but it is not often made.
Take a group of people of fair intelligence and average education and give them a list of names from each of the past five or six centuries and see which names they recognise, in the sense that they can tell you something meaningful about the person. Although this is only a thought experiment, I guarantee you that, overwhelmingly, the names most people recognise are those of writers, composers, painters and sculptors;
one or two tyrants perhaps, a couple of scientists and explorers as well; a few (very few) politicians and sportspeople. No lawyers or accountants. Go back a century or so and my instinct is that no politicians or accountants or lawyers will be recognised. Prove me wrong if you will.
The extent to which artists are recognised in an experiment like this is quite striking. While artists might represent less than one percent of any given population at any given time, they will represent 70 or 80 per cent of the names recognised, and the further back you go, the greater the disproportion in the results. What this demonstrates is that almost everyone acknowledges implicitly the importance of our received culture, the value of the inheritance we all receive from generations of creative artists. We cannot do anything to repay our debt to past generations of artists, but we can try to see the present generation properly rewarded for their work.
But who will advance their cause? Most creative artists struggle to make a living. Some well-meaning people go to auctions and buy second-hand art by dead people. That may generate a profit for the original collector and for the auction house, but it does nothing for the artist, and nothing for the Arts.
Some people buy works by the current “big name”, or they think they can pick the next “big name”. Big mistake.
Buying art with a view to making a profit is not about supporting the Arts, it’s about supporting the people who will inherit your estate. Apart from being the wrong motivation, it is probably doomed to fail.
The point is that you should never buy a work of art in order to make a profit: you buy it because you like it.
You want to pick a winner? You will fail.
In 1874, two significant exhibitions were staged in Paris. One was the annual Salon, at which the leading artist was Franz Xavier Winterhalter. He is not widely remembered today, except for a full-length portrait of
the young Queen Victoria, painted in about 1842. It’s a good portrait, in the style of its time. But otherwise, if you mention the name, most people won’t remember him. In the same year the second Salon des Refusés was held.
A rather snippy commentator called Edmond Le Roy went to the Refusés and wrote an unflattering review. He gave the artists a derogatory name. He called them “Impressionists” as a sneer. He drew it from a painting in the show: Impression, Sunrise, by Monet.
Of course, the smart money of the day was rushing off to the Salon and buying Winterhalter, and joined the chorus of abuse of the Impressionists.
Presumably their descendants did not thank them for their choice.
Support the artists whose work you like. Consider the case of JS Bach. He died in 1750. By the early 19th century, his reputation had sunk: he was regarded as a hack. Felix Mendelssohn (1809–1847) recognised Bach as a gifted composer. Mendelssohn tried to revive interest in Bach. He arranged a performance of the St Matthew Passion in 1829.
Mendelssohn wrote just two piano trios. The final movement of his second piano trio has two extended quotations from a Bach cantata. He was in large part responsible for the revival of Bach’s reputation.
Sic transit gloria mundi.
Not all art is collectible. Composers can only make a living if their work is played and people go along and listen to it. Commission music if you get the chance: it’s not hard. If you aren’t up for the price of a commission, join together with some friends and commission a piece jointly. It is astonishingly satisfying, whether or not you like the music which is composed.
These days there are some very talented women composing music in Australia. Mary Finsterer, Kat McGuffie and Moya Henderson are easy examples. But how often is their music heard? It is notorious that artistic directors of many groups and music festivals tend (unconsciously,
of course) to choose music composed by dead white males or (more rarely) living white males. Women who are composing great music find it much harder to get a look in.
The more people support the work of people whose work they like, the better will be the lives of creative artists. If collectors go to shows and buy the work they like, they will enrich the environment in which artists work, and that will enhance the possibility that artists who are genuinely great will have an improved chance of survival: it only takes a moment’s thought to understand that the more money there is in the Arts sector, the less likely it is that artists will starve, or need second jobs. If music lovers go to hear the music of contemporary composers and commission work by composers whose music they like, the environment in which creative artists live will be … friendlier, less hostile.
There is a wonderful story by Frederic Raphael, called Benchmark. It’s about a guy whose father was a barrister and who grew up with the unstated expectation that he would also be a barrister. In his early teens he starts writing poetry. He keeps writing poetry after all his friends have stopped doing it. He does well at school and gets into a law course at university. He keeps writing poetry. He meets the girl he ultimately marries, and she gently persuades him to forget about poetry and concentrate on law. He does that, does well at law school and becomes a barrister. He does well, he takes silk and is eventually appointed to the Bench. Upon his appointment, he has to spend a weekend in his chambers to sort out the accumulated paperwork of a lifetime at the Bar. The story finishes with this paragraph:
He had quite forgotten about his adolescent poetry and was astonished to come across a batch of it at the bottom of a cupboard. He smiled— golly!—at the sight of it and took it out and started to read, for a laugh. He expected clinching evidence of the folly of youthful pretensions. His
“The simple fact is the Arts leave a mark”
whole happy life had been founded on the assumption that he had been right to abdicate before his wife’s gentle, unmistakable judgment. He sat on the floor of his chambers, boyishly grey, and prepared to be embarrassed by those unburnt embers. Instead, the poems passed sentence on his life. At last, he closed his eyes to escape their indictment, but the unblinking eye in the centre of his forehead gazed and blazed with unique and undeniable vision. He cowered on the floor of the dusty cave and saw that the years of his life had escaped, like Odysseus’s men under the panicky sheep of the blind, deluded Polyphemus. “Who are you, who are you?” he cried. And the voice of the man who had blinded himself replied, “No-one. No-one”.
The best way to support the Arts is to buy the work that artists are producing now. Whatever the basis on which you choose what to buy, remember this: buy work because you like it, not because you think you can sell it for a profit. When finally it is sold, you will have had the boundless enjoyment of Art you liked well enough to buy and you will have learned that endless pleasure does not necessarily earn you a profit.
Quite apart from my concern about the Arts, this essay depends in large measure on the idea that the human race will shortly become extinct. About that proposition, I have little doubt. The phenomenon which will likely produce that result is called climate change. The mechanism of climate change is what is known as the greenhouse effect: various molecules in the atmosphere (typically carbonbased molecules) prevent infrared heat from escaping the earth. This is the greenhouse effect. Given that we live on a planet on which the average global temperature is just short of the human capacity to survive, science supports the existence of the greenhouse effect.
It is depressing to see that what began as a scientific fact has become a political football. Most people do not know that the greenhouse effect was first written about in 1856: almost 170 years ago. The person whose paper dealt with the subject in 1856 was Eunice Foote: she was an American scientist who had the disadvantage not only of being female but also of being a feminist. Her work was picked up by Irish-English scientist John Tyndall In 1859 and the work of both of them was dealt with by a Swedish scientist called Svante Arrhenius, who wrote a detailed account in 1893 of the connection between various levels of carbon-based molecules in the atmosphere on the one hand and average global temperature on the other hand. His figures have never been questioned.
If the Arts we are concerned with are painting or sculpture, then the solution suggested above is relatively straightforward. If the Arts we are concerned with are poetry or music or forms of art which cannot readily be found for sale in a gallery then supporting the Arts is a little more difficult. One solution is to commission the musician or poet (as the case may be) although this is more difficult. But just imagine being recorded in history as the person who commissioned Chaucer to write The Canterbury Tales! Whatever approach appeals to most (and to your pocket), the fact remains that if you are in any way concerned about the future of the human race you should be concerned about supporting the Arts as they will very likely be the way in which our society is judged in the distant future.
LANGUAGE MATTERS
What’s the purpose?
PETER GRAY
Our parliaments have laid down the rule for interpreting their statutes. Here’s what they have said:
In interpreting a provision of an Act, the interpretation that would best achieve the purpose or object of the Act (whether or not that purpose or object is expressly stated in the Act) is to be preferred to each other interpretation.1
In the interpretation of a provision of an Act or subordinate instrument—
(a) a construction that would promote the purpose or object underlying the Act or subordinate instrument (whether or not that purpose or object is expressly stated in the Act or subordinate instrument) shall be preferred to a construction that would not promote that purpose or object;2
There are significant features of these expressions. Most importantly, each is in mandatory terms: this is clear from is to be preferred and shall be preferred. The legislators want to make it clear that no other approach to interpretation is legitimate. Literalism is out. We must adopt a purposive interpretation. Further, each expression speaks of interpreting a provision of legislation, but the relevant purpose is not the purpose of that provision. It is the purpose or object of the Act. The assumption is that each Act will have a single purpose that is readily discernible.
The search for the purpose or object of the Act sounds simple but is often anything but. Many Acts, particularly older ones, do not have any express objects. The interpreter must seek to divine the purpose of the Act. In each case, the legislature has permitted the interpreter to consult materials extraneous to the Act, to discern the purpose. There are lists of the kinds of documents that are supposed to help: examples are Hansard records of parliamentary debates (especially the second reading speech of the minister sponsoring the bill); reports of commissions or committees that were before the parliament when the bill was debated; and explanatory memoranda. Long experience shows that none of these documents provides a definitive guide to a single purpose.
Another problem is that the purpose can be discerned at various levels. For instance, the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) contains no expression of its purpose. It could be said comfortably that it exists to ensure consistency in
interpretation across all Commonwealth legislation, or to make the process of interpretation easier in a number of respects. Identification of a purpose in these terms is unlikely to assist in interpreting any particular provision. Any attempt to formulate a more specific purpose could lead to accusations that judges are reversing the process: that is, they are choosing the purpose that will justify the interpretation they want to give to the provision they are interpreting.
When the legislature does express a purpose in an Act, it usually does so by listing a number of objects. Often, some of those objects will be inconsistent with others. Mostly, they will be vague, aspirational statements. The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) provides an example. It does have one overarching object:
The object of this Act is to provide a balanced framework for cooperative and productive workplace relations that promotes national economic prosperity and social inclusion for all Australians by: […]
This is a very vague statement. It is an attempt to express something with which no-one could possibly disagree. It does not help anyone trying to interpret a particular provision. In addition, seven paragraphs follow the colon at the end of the singular object. Most of those paragraphs themselves contain lists. In reality, there are multiple objects.
When there are multiple objects, which of them could be said to be the purpose, when interpreting a provision of an Act? What often happens is that each side picks from the list of objects the one that supports the interpretation that benefits that side’s case. This is unhelpful.
To give meaning to the rule requiring purposive interpretation, it is necessary to give that rule a purposive interpretation. The relevant purpose must be that purpose to which the provision being interpreted contributes. Even this simple step does not solve all problems, however. What if the provision being interpreted has been inserted in the parent Act by an amending Act? Is the Act whose purpose must be ascertained the amending Act, or the parent Act as amended?3
Yet another problem is that many Acts contain directly conflicting purposes. An Act can impose an obligation and exempt classes of people, or people in certain circumstances, from that obligation. An Act can provide a benefit but contain specified exclusions; it can create an offence but
provide specified defences. In all these types of Acts, often the question for the interpreter is where the appropriate balance lies. To promote the primary purpose excessively might result in shrinking the exceptions too much; to promote the exceptions excessively might result in diminishing the primary purpose too much.4
All these issues lead me to ask, should statutory interpretation be this difficult? Judges are not the only ones who have to interpret statutes. Lawyers need to advise clients. Regulators need to know the meaning of the provisions they enforce. Police have to decide whether to charge people. Should everyone be required to run the risk of misidentifying the purpose, or choosing the wrong purpose, and arriving at a wrong answer about the meaning of a provision? I have come to believe that what parliaments have mandated is often just too difficult. Judges resort to literalism, rather than having to go through the whole process of considering what the purpose of the Act might be.
In this context, look at what three eminent judges of the High Court of Australia have said about statutory interpretation:
The starting point for the ascertainment of the meaning of a statutory provision is the text of the statute whilst, at the same time, regard is had to its context and purpose. Context should be regarded at this first stage and not at some later stage and it should be regarded in its widest sense. This is not to deny the importance of the natural and ordinary meaning of a word, namely how it is ordinarily understood in discourse, to the process of construction. Considerations of context and purpose simply recognise that, understood in its statutory, historical or other context, some other meaning of a word may be suggested, and so too, if its ordinary meaning is not consistent with the statutory purpose, that meaning must be rejected.5
“When there are multiple objects, which of them could be said to be the purpose”
This is a radical departure from the uncompromising, mandatory purposive-interpretation rules of our parliaments. Their Honours relegate purpose to something sitting alongside context, to which regard is had, and with which the interpretation adopted must be consistent. This is a long way from choosing the interpretation that would best achieve, or would promote, the purpose of the Act. Stressing the importance of the natural and ordinary meaning of a word is giving a nod to literalism.
Why are such eminent judges prepared to depart from the express will of the legislators in this way? Perhaps the answer lies in the problems associated with the singular focus on purposive interpretation, which I have outlined above. Perhaps it is time to repeal the provisions requiring that singular focus, and to explore approaches better focussed on the real nature of the task of interpreting statutes.
Linguists might be able to provide valuable input into the choice of a new approach. Eminent forensic linguist Professor John Gibbons identifies four kinds of meaning that users of language recognise instinctively:
» Conceptual meaning (also called ideational or referential meaning) looks at the concepts or ideas that an expression is capable of conveying; a good dictionary can be helpful with this kind of meaning.
» Textual meaning looks at the extent to which the meaning of an expression is expanded or contracted by the expression being part of the text in which it is found; this kind of meaning is probably best understood as contextual meaning.
» Functional meaning is about the role that the expression performs; does it give a benefit,
impose an obligation, create an offence, deprive someone of a benefit, exclude someone from an obligation, or excuse someone’s conduct in specified circumstances, etc?
» Interpersonal meaning, also called social meaning, looks at the effect of an expression on an existing relationship between the utterer of the expression and the receiver of it, or on establishing a relationship where none has existed previously.
A process that involves looking at these kinds of meaning would not be far from the approach of Kiefel CJ, Gordon and Nettle JJ in SZTAL Adding in social meaning would be relevant to statutory interpretation: politicians do try to appease, or to pander to, their constituents. A justice system that disrespects the command of the legislature about how to interpret legislation is unsatisfactory. I believe that the fault lies in parliaments having chosen the singular focus on purpose, not of the provision but of the Act, and having assumed the existence of a readily discernible single purpose. Setting a task that is too hard, causing judges to resort to literalism, will produce bad results in many cases. The legislators need to rethink their approach. If they are to tell us how we should go about interpreting their work, they should adopt an approach that is more like the process we go through in interpreting language in our ordinary lives.
1 Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) s 15AA.
2 Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 (Vic) s 35(a).
3 For an example of the difficulty caused by this question, see Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Reeve [2012] FCAFC 21.
4 Reeve was just this kind of case.
5 SZTAL v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] HCA 34, [14], Kiefel CJ, Gordon and Nettle JJ.
GAMING
Grand Theft Hamlet Breaking the boundaries between film, gaming, and theatre
ANNABELLE BALLARD
In Sega Enterprises Ltd & Anor v Galaxy Electronics Pty Ltd (1996) 69 FCR 268, Justice Burchett found that copyright may subsist in video games as both cinematograph films and literary works. His Honour then prophesied that: “moving pictures were once achieved only frame by frame, but now or in the future the motion may pour across the video screen in pixels.”
However, neither Justice Burchett, nor the Full Federal Court (on appeal)1 foresaw that video games would become so sophisticated that players might produce derivative works using them.
One of the defining features of contemporary video games that distinguishes them from other media, such as film and television, is that they demand players be active participants in the work rather than passive spectators. Consequently, user-generated content (UGC)—meaning content made by players that is not native to the video game program is increasingly recognised by players and developers as enhancing video game works, potentially making or breaking their commercial success.2
In the Anglo-American legal context, there is consensus among academia (and some judicial recognition) that copyright may subsist UGC as a derivative work,3 subject to the operation of the relevant End Use License Agreement.4 Contrastingly, since Sega Enterprises, the Australian courts have only considered the legal status of UGC in the context of circumvention devices.5 In both jurisdictions, the law lags far behind comprehending current commercial practice and the many ways players are innovating using video games. Most recently, Grand Theft Hamlet, a feature-length film produced entirely within the cut-throat world of Grand Theft Auto Online (GTA Online) was released in December 2024. The film premiered for the first time in Australia at ACMI on 20 February 2025 and has attracted international critical acclaim since its release. This has included winning two BIFA British Independent Film Awards, the documentary feature jury award at the SXSW Film & TV Festival, the audience award at the Vancouver International Film Festival, and the
Frontier Competition grand prize at the DMZ International Documentary Film Festival.
Grand Theft Hamlet is part experimental theatre production, and part existential reflection upon the isolation we all sought to overcome during the COVID -19 pandemic. The film follows Sam and Mark, two jobless theatre actors uncertain about their futures, as they find inspiration and social connection in staging Shakespeare’s Hamlet in the most unlikely of places Los Santos, San Andreas.
For those readers who have not yet been initiated into the Vagos, Los Santos is the turbulent bayside city setting of GTA V and GTA Online. It’s kind of like Los Angeles except that it’s populated by organised crime gangs intent on gratuitous destruction. The contrast between the lyricism and pathos of Hamlet with the chaos of Los Santos (and all its inhabitants) produces unexpected, dreamlike yet profound results.
While Sam and Mark’s efforts towards staging Hamlet are repeatedly thwarted often by being gunned down by other players or ambushed by police helicopters mid-soliloquy they never give up. Instead, they film recruitment video calling on all those “who’ve always wanted to strut [their] Shakesperean shit on a virtual stage” to come and audition. This turns out to be an invitation a ragtag group of unlikely thespians can’t refuse.
Contrary to Mark’s observation “Well, there’s probably a Venn diagram of, you know, people who play GTA and people who like Shakespeare and the crossover is very small. It’d be nice if they weren’t two posh blokes”—the diversity of Grand Theft Hamlet’s cast is striking. Nora, a retail shop assistant whose experience with Shakespeare is limited to studying Hamlet in Year 9, is the first to join the cast. Each of the other cast members are also from different walks of life. For example, Jerry, a former apprentice Tudor roaster at Hampton Court Palace; Jen, the voice of Pharah in Overwatch; and ParTeb, a lime green
alien from Tunisia who auditions by reciting the Quran by heart. Over the course of the film, each of these players finds common ground in trying to achieve the impossible and ultimately stage the only production of Hamlet known to feature a blimp, laser-beams, and armed alien escort. This exemplifies the capacity of video game technology to help players overcome isolation (and their differences) during times of crisis. At times, the mismatch between the players’ dialogue and the movements of their avatars is jarring. However, this does not diminish the emotional impact of the film. The fact Mark’s confessions of loneliness and physical isolation as a single adult with no living family members appear to emerge from dumb lips highlights his vulnerability. Nora’s revelations are similarly poignant while rehearsing for Hamlet she is undergoing gender transition without family support, and participating in the production via GTA Online enables her to engage with Shakespeare’s work as her authentic self. Although Grand Theft Hamlet has been a critical success, and I strongly recommend watching it, I doubt it would have seen the light of day without some degree of altruism on the part of GTA Online’s developers. The credits of the film close “the environment and sets for the performance were generated within Grand Theft Auto Online”, accompanied by the stern warning “all Rockstar Games’ rights to these environments are reserved”.
Film Rating: 8/10 Grand Theft Hamlet is now available to stream on MUBI.
1 Galaxy Electronics Pty Ltd v Sega Enterprises Ltd and Anor (1997) 75 FCR 8, 18 per Wilcox J (Lockhart J agreeing).
2 See: Jen Larsen “How user-generated content is shaping the world of gaming and media” venturebeat.com/games/how-usergenerated-content-is-shaping-the-futureof-gaming-and-media. See also the CEO of EA interactive recently told investors that Dragon Age: The Vielguard was not as commercially successful as anticipated because it lacked “shared-world features” and “deeper engagement”: Paul Tassi, “EA Says ‘Dragon Age: The Veilguard’ Failed Because Of No ‘Shared-World’ Features”, Forbes (5 February 2025) forbes.com/sites/ paultassi/2025/02/05/ea-says-dragon-agethe-veilguard-failed-because-of-no-sharedworld-features.
3 See in relation to films produced using (or within) video games: Christina J. Hays, “Changing the Rules of the Game: How Video Game Publishers are Embracing User-Generated Derivative Works” (2008) 21 Harvard Journal of Law & Technology 567, 568. See for example that in 2018, the District Court of California recognised that copyright subsisted in DOTA, despite it being derivative work created using the Warcraft III game program: Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. v Lilith Games (Shanghai) (No. 3) U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1807, 1815 (ND Cal, 2018).
4 Stephen Hetcherm “User-Generated Content and the Future of Copyright: Part One—Investiture of Ownership” (2008) 10 Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law 863, 877–880.
5 See: Stevens v Kabushiki Kaisha Sony Computer Entertainment [2005] HCA 58; 224 CLR 193.
BOOK REVIEW
In A Heartbeat: True Stories and Insights from Experts, Survivors, and Frontline Heroes
by Rachel Jane Cassidy
DARYL DEALEHR
In A Heartbeat offers knowledge too valuable to keep to oneself. It is a book that sparks a potentially lifesaving conversation through its retold stories and collective wisdom.
As barristers, we are often overwhelmed by the demands of our profession. Yet we are precisely the people who should be discussing and championing the insights in this book with our families, friends, and peers. It serves as a critical reminder of the importance of heart health, providing information that can truly make a difference in our lives and the lives of others.
Cassidy goes beyond statistics and medical facts to deliver a deeply
Modern
Statutory Interpretation: Framework, Principles and Practice
By Jeffrey Barnes, Jacinta Dharmananda and Eamonn Moran
personal and eye-opening journey. Her experience with a sudden heart attack challenges the misconception that heart disease is an issue only for those with obvious risk factors. Her story provides a foundation for readers to learn how to recognise, prevent, and respond to these often-overlooked health threats.
The book isn’t solely about Cassidy’s experience; it also features real-life stories from notable figures such as Paul Mercurio, original Yellow Wiggle Greg Page, and Indigenous performer Warrawatja Bell. Each account highlights that no two heart attacks are the same, and drives home the importance of recognising the signs and risk factors of heart disease.
KM HAYNE
In the early 1980s, Guido Calabresi (then a professor at Yale, later a judge of the US Second Circuit Court of Appeals) published A Common Law for the Age of Statutes. His central thesis was that the United States was “choking on statutes” and that the common law should have a much more prominent role in the legal system, with courts having the authority to determine whether a statute is obsolete or should be reviewed. These ideas did not take root, but he was right to say that the Age of Statutes had arrived.
In Australia, the Age of Statutes can be seen as beginning in the 1970s
Cassidy’s narrative is both informative and relatable, making it perfect for sharing with family and colleagues. With her background in the notfor-profit sector and as a former Australian of the Year finalist, Cassidy advocates for a better understanding of heart health. Her well-researched insights enrich her storytelling, making complex medical information accessible and engaging. The book includes a valuable resource section that directs readers to organisations for further support, making it a very practical resource.
In A Heartbeat serves as a call to action, reminding us to prioritise our heart health. As original yellow Wiggle and cardiac arrest survivor Greg Page aptly described, it is “A must-read for anyone with a heart.”
This book empowers readers to understand and protect their heart health—an urgent message for members of the Victorian Bar caught up in their demanding careers.
In A Heartbeat: True Stories and Insights from Experts, Survivors, and Frontline Heroes
Rachel Jane Cassidy
Big Sky Publishing, 2025, 304 pages
and the pace of what Calabresi called the “statutorification” of the law has increased ever since. Now there would be little work an Australian lawyer does that is not directly affected by state or federal statute. Statutory interpretation therefore lies at the heart of the lawyer’s craft.
The latest contribution to the growing literature about statutory interpretation is by Jeffrey Barnes of La Trobe University Law School, Jacinta Dharmanada of the University of Western Australia Law School, and Eamonn Moran, former Chief Parliamentary Counsel in Victoria and formerly a Law Draftsman in the Department of Justice, Hong Kong (now an Inspector at the Victorian
Inspectorate). All are highly skilled and experienced practitioners of statutory interpretation who have thought about that task for many years.
The authors say that the main aim of their work is to “give those who engage in statutory interpretation an original, clear, coherent and research-based account of contemporary Australian statutory interpretation law”. This they do. And they do it in a way that barristers, judges and others concerned with statutory interpretation will find helpful, accessible and, above all, practically and theoretically useful.
The work refers to many cases. So it should. But it is much more than a digest of cases organised according to the particular issues with which they deal. It reminds the reader of the overall principles and process of statutory interpretation that underpin the resolution of whatever immediate and practical issue leads the reader to open it.
The book is organised in parts. Parts IV to VIII may be where a barrister or judge faced with a statutory interpretation issue will turn first for guidance. But Parts I to III should not be ignored. They set out some background matters, describe the
POETRY REVIEW
framework for statutory interpretation and identify the broader skills and knowledge that bear upon the task. All repay close reading. In particular, every lawyer would do well to read and re-read Part II (the Framework of Statutory Interpretation) so that we may remind ourselves that statutory interpretation wrestles with notions of legislative intent, but is a text-based task in which text, context and purpose all play their part. And the last chapter in Part II, called “Practical Techniques” reminds us all of how we may improve our skills.
Each chapter in the book begins with an “Overview” setting out the central propositions which are advanced in the chapter. And those propositions are then developed by extended reference to particular cases illustrating and supporting the proposition. No less importantly, where the authors think that the proposition established by the cases may have difficulties or limitations, they do not hesitate to identify and explain why they are of that view.
Because we live in an Age of Statutes and, therefore, spend so much of our professional lives interpreting statutes, there is always more to learn about
All That Remains
by John Tesarsch
Iread John Tesarsch’s latest book over a weekend. It was difficult to stop once I had started.
All That Remains is Tesarsch’s debut poetry collection, focused on the vulnerability of the human condition through a series of reflections and observations on life’s
moments. The collection of 43 poems is divided into four parts: The Other End of the Telescope, Endeavor, Afterwards and Coda. Many of the poems draw on the personal experiences of Tesarsch, a member of our Bar.
“The Search for the Perfect Metaphor”, a poem about the search
that task. This book is an immediately valuable and easily accessible source of guidance and authority which will help the user solve particular problems. But because of the way in which it approaches the task it has much to teach us all about a skill which all Australian lawyers must continue to refine and develop.
It is an important and valuable addition to the barrister’s bookshelves.
Modern Statutory Interpretation: Framework, Principles and Practice
By Jeffrey Barnes, Jacinta Dharmananda and Eamonn Moran
Cambridge University Press, 2023, 816 pages
for an invisible thread to loop random ideas together, is a personal favourite (and a personal struggle) of mine. It is a celebration of the power in language, and a familiar reminder of the labour (and triumph) of finding the invisible thread. The poem begins:
While others play the stockmarket or build their property portfolios, I sit at my desk, staring out the window, searching for an invisible thread to loop together random ideas.
Given this magazine’s readership, it would be remiss of me not to mention “Disenfranchised”, which if my suspicions are correct, is the world’s first-ever poem on exclusion clauses.
IVY SMOJVER
Another standout is “A Guide to Local Planning Laws”, an age-old story of an architect and builder conspiring to maximise the potential of a block of land.
Tesarsch’s collection stirs up a sense of solidarity. There are moments of despair and moments of joy, and all the mundane moments in between. Tesarsch presents us with the realities of the pandemic, of being adrift, of aging, melancholy, unexpected illness, as well as hopefulness and childhood nostalgia. And woven through it all is a thread of vulnerability, binding these moments together, in a great metaphor for life.
Here is a stanza from “Constitutional”, that led to the namesake of the collection:
My wanderings lead me to an abandoned park hemmed in on all sides by suburbia.
There, I take off my cap, lower my mask to inhale the subantarctic breeze and give thanks for all that remains, while admiring the solitary oak still yet to shed its leaves.
I cannot help thinking that the repeated use of small case is to keep the reader focused on the little details—to focus us on our own insignificance—at the same time it makes us realise what truly matters in life.
Tesarsch is the author of four acclaimed novels: The Philanthropist, The Last Will and Testament of Henry Hoffman, Dinner with the Dissidents (shortlisted for the Colin Roderick Award) and, most recently, When Jokers Were Kings
All That Remains was released on 1 October last year. There is a copy on Level 23 of West. I will return it soon, I promise.
All That Remains by John Tesarsch Puncher and Wattman
RESTAURANT REVIEW
Carnation Canteen
Walking into Carnation Canteen on a sunny autumn afternoon is like arriving at a friend’s house for a dinner party. You are immediately made to feel at home (for one VBN editor it indeed used to be his home) with welcoming smile from chef and owner, Audrey Shaw.
Carnation is a subtle but elegant space. It was previously home to a Greek corner stall called Les’s Mini World, but had fallen into disrepair when Audrey and Alexander purchased the property in 2023. Following a significant renovation (much of it undertaken by Audrey, Alexander and Alexander’s father Franco) the restaurant
opened in late May 2024. The main dining room utilises the old charm of the building, including the polished concrete floor and semi-exposed brickwork. The central attraction, however, is the stunning pink marble bar where you can saddle up and watch Audrey plate up each dish from the small kitchen off to the side.
Upon arriving at Carnation, we were shown to a table in the courtyard while our table was being readied. Being a regular customer, a drink was quickly dispatched from the bar (a tart gin based cocktail aptly named ‘The Last Word’) while menus were scoured over by your trusted editors. The menu at Carnation changes weekly and is predominately a seasonally based offering with
TIM JEFFRIE
some staples, including the steak and snapper cooked over the hibachi grill.
We started with some Blazquez Paleta Iberico de Bellota (that’s ham for culinary novices) with toasted hazelnuts and dates accompanied by some local Loafer bread and washed down with a crisp 2023 Bruno Lafon ‘Les Fleurs’. A stunning way to start the meal.
Upon moving inside to our table, we commenced with a series of seafood starters, including oysters (which the author does not eat and thus cannot provide any meaningful opinion), scallop crudo with a green chilli vinaigrette which was simply presented but packed with flavour and chargrilled prawns.
Prior to the heavier courses and with my cholesterol reading in mind, we ordered some salads and beef carpaccio. The chickpea salad with mixed bitter leaves, heritage apples and pecans was a standout with a perfect mix of the sourness from the leaves with the sweetness from the apples. What you notice immediately about the food at Carnation is how its presented, this isn’t a restaurant that is unnecessary focused on a manufactured look—the meals come simply presented with a focus on the produce itself being the attraction.
Having finished our first bottle of wine, we moved onto the heavier stuff. The recently minted King’s Counsel and lunch guest, Luke Merrick, decided to order a heavier 2017 Luigi Baudana Barolo which paired brilliantly with what was to come. We had two outstanding meat dishes: the Salsica Al Finocchio, which were pork sausages made by friend of the restaurant and award-winning butcher Donati’s, and the scotch fillet. The sausages were beautifully plump and flavoursome, braised with fennel and grapes which form the sauce, while the fillet was cooked to perfection and accompanied with potatoes and butter beans.
We finished off the lunch with some simple desserts, a rhubarb sour cherries dish with mascarpone along with a chocolate hazelnut torte. Both were delicious, neither were strictly necessary, but were heartily enjoyed with some digestives and coffee.
While I may be biased, Carnation Canteen is a special place. It will remind you of small, yet memorable, restaurants in places like Paris or New York. It is a place where the food is unpretentious yet delicious and where the staff are warm and extremely knowledgably. It is a real gem in the heart of Fitzroy.
Lunch was paid for by the editors—Tim Jeffrie, Angelo Germano and Alexander Di Stefano (Jessica Elliott being unavailable). While Alexander is the spouse of the restaurant owner, his sole contribution was to ensure the article’s accuracy. They were joined by former VBN editor Luke Merrick KC.
Law Library Victoria
is the place to go for trusted resources and expert support.
•Research guides across a wide range of topics.
• Expert support from experienced librarians.
• Save frequently used resources with My List.
• Stay up-to-date on new legislation and cases with the Bulletin alert.
Access the resources you need from your desktop, including:
• The Laws of Australia
•Native Title in Australia
•Defamation Law in Australia
•Encyclopaedic Australian Legal Dictionary
• Lawyer's Practice Manual
•Hutley’s Australians Wills and Precedents
•And many more.
Need more?
The Richard Griffith Library, Level 1, Owen Dixon Chambers, is exclusively available to barristers 24/7. Enjoy access to extensive digital and print collections, plus expert support from our librarians is available onsite three days per week.
Register for a free account and explore our extensive collection today.
