Ceremonial Sitting in The Supreme Court of Tasmania To Mark The Occasion of The 200th Anniversary of The Supreme Court – 10 May 2024

Transcript of Proceedings

Blow, CJ: I’ll begin by inviting Dewayne Everettsmith to present the Welcome to Country. Dewayne is the cultural education officer within the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre, and he’s an accomplished musician and composer.

Welcome To Country – Mr Everettsmith: Nayri nina-tu. Thank you very much for coming along and providing a Welcome to Story, or as we like to call it, a Statement of Country, to celebrate Western law here in lutruwita Tasmania. I’m a proud palawa. My name is Dewayne Everettsmith, I’m a proud palawa, proud Tasmanian Aboriginal man, and my existence as a proud Tasmanian Aboriginal man continued until 1995, where it was maintained that Truganini was the last Tasmanian Aboriginal person, and there were no Aboriginal people left. I was eight years old when I was finally acknowledged as a Tasmanian Aboriginal person. Yet my education system taught me there was none – none of us left.

And so my creation as a palawa man begins with panupiri the sun, and withi the moon, and moinee, the great southern star, who reached down and took soil from this Country here in lutruwita Tasmania and took it back up to wurangkili, sky country, where he combined our body with our spirit. And he sent us star-hopping all the way down in the stars until we made it back to this beautiful island, lutruwita Tasmania. And we believe, as palawa people, that we’ve been here for always. That we come from the land, we live as part of the land, and when we die we go back to the land.

So Country, which includes sky, land, and waterways, is everything to us. It’s our education system, it’s our health system, it’s our church, it’s our temple, it’s our justice and legal system. I’m descendent of Mannalargenna and Tanganutura who are both traditional people from the north-east nation of lutruwita Tasmania. And in 1810, as part of the kidnapping of Aboriginal women and girls who were taken to lungtalanana Clark Island and trowunna Cape Barron Island, my great-grandmother Isobel Beaton and my great-grandfather George Everett were both born and raised on trowunna Cape Baron Island, as well as my grandfather Benjamin Everett.

And it was in the 1940s, 50s, where the then Tasmanian government had an assimilation policy to force Aboriginal people off Cape Baron Island into mainstream Tasmania; into suburbs like Invermay, Penguin, and West Moonah. And there are stories where the Aboriginal parents would walk their children down this particular track on Cape Baron Island, and on this particular day they walk their children to a particular part of this track, they wave goodbye to their children, “We’ll see you after school here.” And only the parents to return to pick up their children where the government have come in, forcibly removed those children, and put them in homes on mainland Tasmania. And that was in the 1950s, post-World War I, World War II.

And quite often, what we hear from the system is, “Get over it. It happened a long time ago.” But yet, that’s what we were facing in the 1950s. I fast-forward that to 1970, a beautiful ten years, because that’s when my mother was born. In 1963 she was born, but in 1970 she returned to lutruwita Tasmania with her father, my grandfather Benjamin Everett, and my great – and my grandmother Stella Hood, who was a Gunaikurnai woman from Victoria.

And they returned to pataway Burnie, and they were living homeless in a tent in pataway Burnie. And it was at this time the Tasmanian government then forcibly removed my mother and my aunties off my grandfather and put them in a home in Launceston. So, my mother is a member of the Stolen Generation. And my grandfather fought the government for many years to have his children returned to his custody, and he won that battle eventually, and the children returned to him, and he brought the family here, to nipaluna Hobart.

And that’s where my living stories begin. I was born at the royal nipaluna hospital, and I first – spent the first six weeks of my life in that hospital because my mother was a drug addict. She was addicted to speed because of her many years of trauma and trauma within her story. And so she collected me eventually after six weeks when I went back to Bridgewater and I lived with her until I was about 3, 4 years of age. And then she handed me over, she gave me up as – willingly. And she gave me to a beautiful family, the Smith family. Fanny Cochrane Smith’s family.

So I was brought up strong in culture. I was very lucky. Many children at that time, let alone today, did – don’t get adopted into other Aboriginal families, and I was one of the lucky ones. And so I was brought up strong in culture. And my mother gave me to my grandmother, Bev Smith, who married an Aboriginal man, Stan Smith, who is the great-grandchild of Fanny Cochrane Smith. And she’s a proud non-Aboriginal woman, and my mother handed me over with a Purity bag. Those who remember Purity – yeah, yeah, not Woolworths. It’s Purity. Yeah, yeah.

She handed me over with a Purity bag and said, “Here, I want you to have him.” And from that moment on, Bev Smith, who’s my grandmother, who’s technically my mother, took me home and raised me to be the person I am today. She introduced me to education, she introduced me to love, unconditional love, but it also – she also introduced me to music. That became my version of a psychologist. Free, because I don’t have to pay for it.

And so the importance of that story is because my grandmother became the great cultural ally of our family within the Smith family. Because my grandfather, he was a bit of a larrikin. Anybody familiar with the top, middle, and bottom stories of Cygnet? Of pub – the pubs down there? Yep? Well, my grandfather was at the centre of those stories. And so he was a bit of a larrikin. And so my nan raised eight children, including my auntie Belinda, who was disabled and who needed 24 hour care. And I became her ninth child.

And if it wasn’t for my grandmother and the allyship that she took in standing and being our advocate for our culture and identity as Aboriginal people, we wouldn’t be here, who we are today. And so this – I want to share with you another quick story about – we call hi200thm Uncle Cracker. He’s my uncle, Michael Everett, and he was a phenomenal football player, but he had experienced many levels of trauma.

And Franklin Square was a place where our people would hang out right up until the early thousands, was the only place they could go to hang together as a community. They would drink, get arrested, and locked up. And my Uncle Cracker was part of those stories. And so he had children, my cousins, who then went on to fall into the system of incarceration. My Uncle Cracker had a life of incarceration. That’s all he knew. So when he came out of that, he ended his life, because incarceration was all he knew. And my cousins have fallen into that pattern of behaviour.

And so, it was in 1803 the first massacre of Aboriginal people occurred in Tasmania at piyura kitina Risdon Cove. And Risdon Prison overlooks that massacre. In fact, Risdon Prison is not only built on a heritage site, it’s built on the continuation of where that massacre occurred. And so not only are we the most incarcerated people in the world, here in lutruwita Tasmania we’re locked up on a massacre site that overlooks another massacre site. And so that is cultural safety not in action. That’s cultural safety not considering our needs as Aboriginal people.

And so this is where you become our cultural ally. This is where you can understand these stories, learn these stories, and that’s what truly bridges the gap of understanding when moving forward meaningfully and as a collective. So, in my language, I’ve just gathered us for ceremony to exchange knowledge, and the gift of knowledge with each other. And to finish this off, I’d like you to sing – sing you a song in my language called milaythina nika mana-mapali. And I would like you to join me for the chorus, if that’s all right. Nah, I’m just joking. I just wanted to make you nervous. That – that was – that was for me. Nayri nina-tu. Thank you.

Blow, CJ: Thank you very much, Dewayne. I follow Dewayne by acknowledging the traditional owners of the land on which the Hobart buildings of the Supreme Court stand, the muwinina people. Tragically, the muwinina people have no known living descendants. I acknowledge the palawa people, today’s Tasmanian Aboriginal community and pay my respects to their elders, past, present and emerging. And thank you very much, Dewayne, again for your Welcome to Country.

I’d like to welcome all the visitors who have come here this morning. There are too many distinguished visitors for me to acknowledge all of them, individually, but I particularly welcome four visiting Chief Justices, Grant CJ, from the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory; Ferguson CJ from the Supreme Court of Victoria; Bell CJ, from the Supreme Court of New South Wales; and Mortimer CJ, from the Federal Court of Australia. I’m very pleased that you’ve all made the journey to Hobart for this significant occasion. I also welcome two of my predecessors, the tenth Chief Justice of Tasmania, Sir Guy Green and the 11th, the Honourable William Cox.

Her Excellency, the Governor and Gageler CJ, the Chief Justice of Australia are both unable to be with us this morning, and both have sent their apologies. Today marks the 200th anniversary of the first sitting of the Supreme Court of Van Diemen’s Land on the 10th of May 1824. On that day it appears that the proceedings commenced with the first Registrar of the Court, William Sorell, reading aloud the Charter of Justice of the 13th of October 1823 by which the court was established. My predecessor, John Pedder CJ, admitted four gentlemen as practitioners of the court; the Registrar, the Solicitor General and the Attorney General swore the appropriate oaths; and that was the extent of the proceedings. The Hobart Town Gazette reported that:

The deep interest excited by the opening of a court of judicature with competent power in criminal as well as civil causes, was evinced by the court being crowded upon this occasion with the most respectable inhabitants of Van Diemen’s Land.

It’s gratifying to see so many respectable inhabitants here this morning. Hobart Town had been established 20 years previously. By 1824 it had a white population of about 12000. About 6000 of those were convicts serving sentences. A new court building was erected at the corner of Macquarie and Murray Streets, across Murray Street from the original Hobart Gaol. That building was used by the court until 1860. It’s still standing, forming part of the Treasury buildings, but there’s nothing there now to indicate that it was once a freestanding courthouse.

It ceased to be used after the criminal courts were established at the Hobart Penitentiary site in Campbell Street and new civil courtrooms were established at the other end of the Franklin Square complex, adjacent to the park. In 1824, Van Diemen’s Land was still part of the colony of New South Wales. Although the new Court had full civil and criminal jurisdiction, the New South Wales Act 1823 required criminal cases to be tried by a judge with a jury of commissioned officer of his majesty’s Sea or Land Forces. The establishment of the Tasmanian Parliament was still 32 years away. Even when it was established in 1856, no women had the right to vote, nor did many men.

Over the last 200 years, Van Diemen’s Land has made the transition from being a remote part of a penal colony in the empire of a distant motherland to being a state in an independent nation with a democratic federal system of government and an independent judiciary. Throughout those 200 years there’s been widespread respect for the rule of law, without which our society wouldn’t function. The court is greatly indebted to my colleague, Stephen Estcourt J, who has written its history. His book, From Convicts to Computers: Two Hundred Years of the Tasmanian Supreme Court is being published today. It will be launched after the court adjourns and refreshments have been served.

The court has a proud history, although, it must be said that some of the changes over the last 200 years could have been effected earlier. Juries of civilians didn’t replace juries of military officers until 1840. Legislation allowing women to practise law was enacted in 1904, but it wasn’t until 1935 that the first female legal practitioner was admitted. Women were permitted to volunteer for jury duty from 1939, but it wasn’t until 1959 that the first female juror was empanelled. The first female judge, Shan Tennent J, who’s here today, wasn’t appointed until 2005. Purely by chance, the first sitting of our Court took place seven days before the first sitting of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. It will be celebrating its bicentenary next Friday, the 17th of May.

Although Gageler CJ has been unable to attend today, he has posted the following message on the High Court’s website in relation to the two courts:

Letters Patent pursuant to the New South Wales Act 1823 explained their establishment to have been for the “better administration of justice” and “more effective government” in the colony then known as New South Wales. Their establishment furnished the stable legal foundation for the ensuing creation and development of institutions of representative and responsible government in New South Wales and Tasmania. Their foundational roles were expanded when each took its place as one of the six state Supreme Courts within the indissoluble system of national government agreed to by the Australian people and established by the Australian Constitution.

Their nationally expanded roles endure. They have facilitated the realisation of Alfred Deakin’s prediction in 1902 that “the natural development of the Australian judicial system” would make the unity of our courts “more pronounced, and the gradation more perfect.” The Australian judiciary, as a whole, joins with the Supreme Court of Tasmania and the Supreme Court of New South Wales in celebrating this significant milestone in our shared national journey.

Over two centuries, this Court has grown and developed in parallel with the growth and development of the Australian judiciary, the Tasmanian population and modern Tasmanian society. We’ve made the transition from quill and parchments and javelin men to computers, audiovisual links, and security screening devices. There have been legal and political controversies along the way, but respect for the rule of law and Tasmania’s independent judiciary has been reasonably constant throughout the journey.

The ways in which this court functions today could hardly have been foreseen 50 years ago, let alone 200 years ago. It seems likely that the pace of change will continue to accelerate as the court continues on its journey into its third century. I think we can be confident that the court will meet the challenges. I now invite the Attorney-General for Tasmania, the Honourable Guy Barnett MP, to address the Court.

Mr Barnett: May it please the Court. Today we gather at this ceremonial sitting to both look back into history, and look forward to the future. 200 years ago, on this very day, the oldest Supreme Court in Australia, the Supreme Court of Tasmania, commenced its work as one of the three anchors of constitutional government in this state. This important institution has played a pivotal role in shaping the Tasmania that we know today. It is decisions made there that have impacted how we live our everyday lives for the better.

While most aspects of life in Tasmania have changed markedly over the last 200 years, the important role the Supreme Court plays as Tasmania’s highest court remains unaltered. This is a testament to our stable and thriving democracy. The Supreme Court is, of course, an essential and core element in upholding and strengthening that democracy and the rule of law.

Created by an act of the Sovereign under the Third Charter of Justice in 1824, the court is a key element of an unbroken thread that connects us to the British legal and democratic tradition, and the Judeo-Christian ethic of which it – on which it rests. Chapter 40 of the Magna Carta, the founding document of the Rule of Law and part of the so-called invisible cargo of the first fleet states:

To no-one will we sell; to no-one will we refuse or delay right or justice.

That ancient principle is an essential legal and constitutional inheritance from the British Empire and forms the foundation of the court and its role as an independent and impartial tribunal. This court anchors our ship of state. It lets its – lets is rest upon 200 years of constant existence that has given us confidence in our stability, but it also lets us respond to the new situations that are and will constantly be emerging as the years progress. By the very definition, courts embrace both constancy and change. Rules and laws that cannot adjust to change – changes in our society trap us in a past that denies change.

But change on its own without a connection to the past can only promote a sense on inconsistency, of fickleness and uncertainty in changing times. There must be change, but there must also be stability. Stability is brought about by a continuous thread that runs through our history and our lives and that thread is this court. For 200 years it has kept us on an even keel, and it has slowly changed us. As new cases are decided, they create change in our lives, some in small ways and others more significantly. By preserving the rule of law, this court creates a safe harbour and in doing so, allows society to progress in a measured manner.

It’s easy to imaging a court as just another organisation, divorced from the reality of the lives of ordinary Tasmanians, referred to occasionally in the media at the time as:

A set of snapshots, only occasionally touching the attention of those who live here.

But to do that is a mistake to the superficial for the meaningful. This court is the quiet defender of all Tasmanians against unwarranted interference with their rights and its fierce independence protects us all. As Aristotle said:

It is injustice that the ordering of society is centred.

There can be no more important purpose for the Court than bringing about justice, because in justice there is peace and there is no greater gift that can be given to us. It is an unhappy truth that although we all have a sense of justice, too often our definition of injustice is:

I didn’t get what I wanted.

That is not the justice of a Court. Justice is impartiality, fairness, reasonableness. It is independent, patient, honest and objective. Those are the high ideals to which our courts aspire. Without justice we could say, as did the poet, William Butler Yeats:

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.

This is the point at which justice of our Supreme Court of Tasmania stands. It is the still centre of the storm and the rock upon which our society is founded. For 200 years now, it has been woven into the web of our society and today we celebrate its birth as we celebrate its protection of our birthright, our justice, our rights, and our advance into the future. May it please the Court.

Blow, CJ: Thank you, Mr Attorney. Next, I invite the president of the Australian Bar Association, Mr Phillip Dunning KC, to address the Court.

Mr Dunning KC: Blow CJ, Justices of the Supreme Court, former Chief Justices of South – of Tasmania and Justices – former Justices of the Supreme Court of Tasmania, Chief Justices of – many of the Australian jurisdictions, it is my privilege and my pleasure in equal measure to rise on behalf of Australia’s more than six thousand barristers to offer their appreciation and congratulations to the Supreme Court of Tasmania on this most historic day. Historic is of course a much overused word but not on this occasion.

We come together today to recognise a remarkable institution that has a remarkable legacy and it is very fortunate the Bar gets to address today because in a practical sense this is really where it all began for the Australian Bar together with the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The creation of a judicature and the move from military justice has had far reaching impacts in Australia and beyond. It is the creation of a superior court of record here and in New South Wales that became instrumental in the protection of the individual, marked out that most important judicial function of standing between the State and the citizen, promoted an economic prosperity which we all enjoy and became the building blocks of our liberal democracy.

As Blow CJ acknowledged earlier, the Supreme Court of Tasmania predated the parliament in this state and the parliament in the other colonies and later in the federation and the states. Yet, the creation of the Supreme Court in Tasmania and the Supreme Court in New South Wales was one of the essential integers for that occurring. The Supreme Court is not only an institutional requirement of our modern life it is one of its institutional safeguards. The vital role of an independent judicature served by judicial officers of integrity and competence cannot be overstated. The contribution that the Supreme Court of Tasmania has made for the last 200 years is appropriately celebrated today.

And indeed the role that this court ultimately paved the way for federation in 1901 and the creation of the High Court in 1903 by the standards it set and the developments it made are properly to be recognised on a day like today. It’s also proper to recognise on a day like today the court, as have all other aspects of our democracy, not been perfect. It is right that we recognise that the interaction between our legal system and our First Nations People has been imperfect and Dewayne spoke eloquently and poignantly to that today. Yet, in its failings is its ultimate strength.

The fact that courts have been able to address and redress wrongs of the past, to recognise the need for that to be a matter that is continuing, demonstrates the important place that courts play in bringing peace to our relationship with our First Nations People. Blow CJ, Justices of the Court, today is a justifiable – a day of justifiable pride for all Tasmanians. Your contribution to the creation of the Australian liberal democracy today, as it was 200 years ago has been as profound as it has been emphatic. I wish the court the very best for the next 200 years and offer the warmth and congratulations of the Bar nationally. May it please the Court.

Blow, CJ: Thank you, Mr Dunning. Next I invite the President of the Law Society of Tasmania, Ms Julia Higgins to speak.

Ms Higgins: Thank you, your Honour. I also want to acknowledge the traditional owners of the land on which we are meeting today. I acknowledge Aboriginal people here who are present, Elders past and present. On behalf of the Law Society of Tasmania I congratulate the Supreme Court on this wonderful milestone. The Law Society is immensely proud to be able to say we have the oldest Supreme Court in Australia here in Tasmania. Over the years, the Law Society have been very fortunate to enjoy a close and cordial relationship with the supreme court.

The Rules establishing the Law Society’s predecessor, the Van Diemens Land Law Society dated 29 October 1845 included the following objects: to promote fair and honourable practice among members of the profession; to attend to applications for admission and to impose improper applications; to offer from time to time such suggestions respecting the practice in any of the courts and expecting alterations of the same as may appear useful. It seems that over the intervening 179 years that those important aspects of the relationship between the court and the Law Society have continued.

The Law Society wants to acknowledge the present members of the judiciary of this court and past members who have assisted in providing education to our – to members of our profession through when they were students at the university, students at the Legal Practice Course and of course as practising practitioners. Today we acknowledge the existence of 200 years of what is an important institution for Tasmania and celebrate one of the key foundations of the rule of law. The very existence of a free society depends upon an independent judiciary operating through an independent court system that is respected by the Executive, the Legislature and the public.

The 200 year anniversary of the first sittings as noted means that this court has achieved many memorable milestones and events. I seek to highlight some of that information. As your Honour has pointed out, on 10 May 1924, the Supreme Court held its first sittings and it admitted to practice four practitioners, Joseph Tice Gellibrand is noted as number one on the Roll followed by George Cartwright, Hugh Ross and Frederick Doors. That same year, six more practitioners were admitted. Between 1824 and 1831 the Supreme Court admitted an additional twenty one practitioners.

As of yesterday, a review of the Supreme Court Roll indicates that over the last 200 years there have been 5584 practitioners admitted to practice. As your Honour has already pointed out, in the eighteen hundreds there was a practice enforced at the time which would not even comprehend female lawyers and there was certainly no precedent of women becoming lawyers in any of the Australian states. Tasmania of course, was the second state to embrace this in 1904. But, as your Honour has pointed out, it was not until 1935 and February that the first female, Ms Nancy Helen McPhee was admitted to practice in this court. In 1969 the first female associate was appointed to Burbury CJ.

And then that of course was followed by the second female associate, Professor Kate Warner. As your Honour has pointed out, the first female appointed to the bench was Tennant J. That followed, following in 2009 by Tasmania’s first magistrate, her Honour Wood J and then of course in 2021 Jago J. This court has provided over the years a platform for many Tasmanian female lawyers to achieve excellence in legal practice and advanced opportunities for the Tasmanian profession including women. Sir John Pedder was the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court serving for some 30 years, 1824 to 1854. Since that time, there have been 13 Chief Justices presiding over this court. We note of course your Honour has been in that role since 8 April 2013.

The Law Society wants to acknowledge each and every Chief Justice of this court and particularly those who are here today for the contribution that they have made. And also acknowledge the significant responsibility that comes with that role. There of course have been 42 judges of this court over the last 200 years. And once again, the Law Society wants to acknowledge and thank each of this judges, current judges and past judges for their contribution in that role. The office of Master of Van Diemens Land included an initial appointment of Joseph Horne in 19 – sorry, in 1824, the title of Master of course changed to Associate Judge in 2008.

There have been five Masters/Associate Judges in this court with the most recent appointment on 28 April last week for his Honour. Since 1824, there have been 18 Registrars of the Supreme Court. All those I have mentioned are pivotal in relation to the role of this court in securing a peaceful and free society governed by the rule of law. The Law Society acknowledges the significant workload of this court which has been constant over the years. The first operation of the court back in 1824 was very busy with over 344 summons issued, 360 actions commenced, 25 tried and 62 judgments made on warrants of attorney.

Capital punishment was still very much alive and the gallows were inside the gaol which faced on to Murray Street, opposite the Supreme Court and coincidently the current site of the Law Society. It was in full view of the street outside and crowds often gathered to watch. It is reported that at least 203 criminals were ordered to be hung by this court between 1826 and 1842. The last hanging ordered by this court was 1946. Over the years, the Supreme Court has maintained a heavy caseload and in the reports for 2022 to 2023 there were 612 lodgement first instant criminal matters. 320 in Hobart, 140 in Launceston and 152 in Burnie. 652 civil matters were lodged that year.

The Supreme Court of course has not been restricted to sitting in Hobart. It has sat regularly in Launceston since about 1850. The court has occupied its present site in Cameron Street since 1929 although the Launceston Registry was not opened until 1940. Sittings of the Supreme Court on the North West Coast commenced in the nineteenth Century. We certainly acknowledge that justice in Tasmania would be unattainable without the creation of this court in 1924. 200 years later, society has become more complex, which my friends have addressed, and there are new challenges arising.

The constancy of the role of this court is important enduring theme of our democracy. Over the past 200 years, this court has heard countless cases from deeply stressful events to deeply curious which has impacted lives across generations. The Law Society, its predecessor organisations and the Tasmanian profession is proud to have shared this significant event with you today and journey. The Society looks forward to facing the challenges of the future with the court as we work together. Congratulations. May it please.

Blow, CJ: Thank you, Ms Higgins. Next I call on the President of the Tasmanian Bar, Mr Cox.

Mr Cox: If it please the Court. Well, on behalf of the Tasmanian Bar, it’s my very great pleasure to wish you happy birthday. Being the last speaker it’s probably best that I’m brief but I wanted to perhaps give a glimpse into the life of one of our earliest practitioners and what a day in court might look like 200 years ago and how it was reported in the media. Hugh Ross, who my friend just mentioned, was a lawyer, reached Hobart town in the regalia in December 1822 and admitted to the Lieutenant Governor’s Court on 1 April 1823.

A year later, 200 years ago to the day, he was admitted with three other practitioners to this honourable Court. Now, Ross became Acting Solicitor General and Acting Crown Solicitor by the early 1930s. He was paid five hundred quid a year but by 1840 he’d found himself on rough financial times. His family was increasing, his salary had fallen by a hundred pounds and was woefully in arrears and his residence in Hobart, that sold for a hundred pounds under its value. Being in such a pickle and having the privilege of suing for and recovering Crown debts, Ross thought he might borrow some money from the Crown.

He took leave and absented himself from the colony upon which warrants issued immediately for his arrest. He made Singapore, Latvia which is now Jakarta, more presently known as Jakarta and by May 1941 landed in Western Australia where he was arrested and extradited back to Hobart in custody. It was to much regret to the colonists here who sympathised with Ross’s difficulties and those of his wife and family. He was committed for trial on 9 March 1842 charged with embezzling two thousand and twenty one pounds belonging to the Crown.

Now, it’s with much help from Deb Bowring, manager of the Tasmanian Law Library, that I can report from the Colonial Times of that week that the trial was started and concluded on the Wednesday before another infamous legal character of the times, Mr Justice Algernon Montague, and here are some relevant extracts:

Mr Hugh Ross was placed at the bar and arraigned when he pleaded not guilty. He was defended by Mr MacDowell. Mr Ross took occasional notes and appeared to pay very great attention to the proceedings throughout.

Then followed the evidence and the closings:

Mr MacDowell then addressed the jury for the prisoner and solicited their careful attention to the observation he should feel it his duty to make. On the evidence, he entreated them, as far as they were able to look at the case simply as it rested upon the evidence, and to put away all surmises, charitable or otherwise, which they may have heard or imbibed in respecting the prisoner at the bar.

He asked this not as a favour, but he demanded it as a matter of right to the accused, and left persuaded that he had demanded it not in vain.

The Attorney-General in reply:

Begged them to rely upon the testimony of the witnesses and not upon statements they had heard from Mr MacDowell. Why, he would ask, had his learned friend sat down without producing any proof that the money had been paid to the second clerk, of whom they had heard much evidence, or indeed in the office at all?

Would a man of business habits like Mr Ross pay money into the hands of an unauthorised clerk without taking a receipt? There was an absurdity in the very idea.

After the closings, it was reported his Honour summed up with minuteness and impartiality, recapitulating the evidence and remarking upon it in the usual manner, expounding the law also in his customary plain way:

The jury retired, and after an absence of about half an hour returned to the court and found the prisoner not guilty, which verdict was received with loud signs of approbation.

Hurrah. Mr Ross was then discharged and, bowing, left the court. Now, Ross was mighty lucky, I suggest. But he, once free, sailed for Sydney and on to New Zealand, where he set up as a lawyer and practised in Wellington in the 1840s and 1850s. But interestingly, in 1844, after a legal dispute, he mortally wounded a fellow lawyer in a duel. He retired in 1855 and died at a ripe old age of 73 in 1869. There have been many colourful characters of this court, and I hope that continues. That was just a snapshot. And on behalf of the Tasmanian Bar again, the warmest congratulations on your anniversary. If it please.

Blow, CJ: Thank you, Mr Cox. The judge who tried that case had financial difficulties, too, and often heard cases involving plaintiffs to whom he owed money. Times have changed. I’d like to thank all our speakers. I’d like to thank all the judges and court staff who have worked very hard to help us to celebrate this bicentenary today, particularly Karen Dean, Jo White, and Tracey Long from judges’ chambers, and our research officer Elise Histed, Deb Bowring from the library downstairs, our registrar Penny Ikedife, and particularly Estcourt J.

I’ll invite you all, once the Court has adjourned, to refreshments in the foyer. And I also invite you to have a look at items that are on display here today. There are a few in the foyer and there are a lot more downstairs in the Andrew Inglis Clark Law Library. Photographs, robes, wigs, and documents, all sorts of interesting things. The Court will now adjourn.