Question Number: 92
PDR Number: LCC-OBE22-92
Date Submitted:
Department or Body: High Court of Australia

• Does the policy on workplace conduct apply to former Justices of the High Court of Australia?

The Justices’ Policy on Workplace Conduct has applied to conduct by the Chief Justice and
Justices since its adoption by the Justices in March 2020.

• Does the High Court of Australia currently provide offices to former Justices of the High Court
of Australia?

The High Court building in Canberra has a room designated as visiting judge chambers which
can be used by former Justices on request.

• Has it provided offices to former Justices of the High Court of Australia in the recent past (the
last five years)?

Yes

• Which former Justices of the High Court of Australia have been provided offices or access to
offices? What period (start and finish date) were they provided access?

The Hon William Gummow AC. From approximately 2012 to mid 2021 in the Sydney Registry.

• Has there been a complaint of inappropriate workplace conduct against any former Justices of
the High Court of Australia in relation to their behavior in office facilities provided by the High
Court of Australia?

No

• What was the alleged conduct that was complained of?
• Was there an investigation into the alleged conduct? What were its findings?
• Was access to offices by any former Justices of the High Court of Australia revoked as a result
of a complaint? When? Why?

See above.

• Is there a register of interests for Justices of the High Court of Australia, similar to the register
for politicians? If not, why not?

The High Court Justices maintain a gifts register.

• How can people feel confident they are getting a fair trial if Justices of the High Court of
Australia are not fully transparent as to their interests?

A Justice is required to recuse herself or himself from involvement in a case if she or he has a
conflict of interest in the form of apprehended bias.

In Charisteas v Charisteas [2021] HCA 29 at [11] the Court said:

“The apprehension of bias principle is that “a judge is disqualified if a fair-minded lay observer
might reasonably apprehend that the judge might not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of
the question the judge is required to decide” Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2000]
HCA 63; (2000) 205 CLR 337 at 345 [6]]. The principle gives effect to the requirement that
justice should both be done and be seen to be done, reflecting a requirement fundamental to the
common law system of adversarial trial – that it is conducted by an independent and impartial
tribunal [Ebner [2000] HCA 63; (2000) 205 CLR 337 at 343 [3], 344-345 [6]-[7], 348 [22]-[23],
362 [79]; Concrete Pty Ltd v Parramatta Design & Developments Pty Ltd [2006] HCA 55;
(2006) 229 CLR 577 at 609-610 [110]-[111]]. Its application requires two steps: first, “it requires
the identification of what it is said might lead a judge … to decide a case other than on its legal
and factual merits”; and, second, there must be articulated a “logical connection” between that
matter and the feared departure from the judge deciding the case on its merits[Ebner [2000]
HCA 63; (2000) 205 CLR 337 at 345 [8]; see also 350 [30]].

The Guide to Judicial Conduct promulgated by the Australasian Institute of Judicial
Administration also contains extensive guidance to Justices on conflicts of interest, in particular,
chapters 2,3, 5 and 6: GUIDE TO JUDICIAL CONDUCT (aija.org.au).