Michael Kirby (judge) - Jurisprudence

Jurisprudence

In November 2003, at the University of Exeter, Kirby delivered The Hamlyn Lectures on the subject of judicial activism. Rejecting the doctrine of strict constructionism, Kirby declared that:

"Clearly it would be wrong for a judge to set out in pursuit of a personal policy agenda and hang the law. Yet it would also be wrong, and futile, for a judge to pretend that the solutions to all of the complex problems of the law today, unresolved by incontestably clear and applicable texts, can be answered by the application of nothing more than purely verbal reasoning and strict logic to words written by judges in earlier times about the problems they then faced... contrary to myth, judges do more than simply apply law. They have a role in making it and always have."

These lectures sparked a debate in the Australian media, echoing an ongoing debate in the United States, as to whether judges have the right to interpret the law in the light of its intent and considerations of natural law or whether judges should (or can) simply follow the letter of the law, leaving questions of its intent and underlying principles to elected representatives.

He had also addressed this topic in a 1997 speech to the Bar Association of India, in which he spoke approvingly of "a kind of "judicial activism" that is often in tune with the deeply felt emotions of ordinary citizens." Nonetheless, Kirby is critical of the term "judicial activism" as applied to himself and other judges, and considers it hurtful. Kirby believes the term is "code language", applied chiefly by conservative commentators to views and to people with which they disagree.

He was often at odds with his colleagues in the Gleeson High Court. In 2004 he delivered a dissenting opinion on nearly 40% of the matters in which he participated, almost twice as many as any of his High Court colleagues; in constitutional cases, his rate of dissent was more than 50%. Legal researchers Andrew Lynch and George Williams observed that "even allowing for 2004 as a year in which Kirby J had a particularly high level of explicit disagreement with a majority of his colleagues, it is neither premature nor unfair to say that in the frequency of his dissent, his Honour has long since eclipsed any other Justice in the history of the Court... has broken away to claim a position of outsider on the Court which seems unlikely to pass with future years." Kirby has responded, stating that "on their own, statistics tell little." To understand Kirby's rate of dissent, it is necessary to examine what his disagreements have been about and consider who he has dissented from. Kirby explains "there have always been divisions, reflecting the different philosophies and perspectives of the office-holders", and that throughout the High Court's history, many dissenting opinions have ultimately been adopted as good law. Further, Kirby argues that the rate of dissent, if seen within its context, is relatively small. Cases heard before the full bench of the High Court have proceeded through a series of lower courts and special leave hearings. They are thus likely to test the boundaries of the existing law, and raise opposing, though no less valid, views of the law.