Ceremonial Sitting to Mark the Retirement of Chief Justice A.M. Blow AO

Transcript of Proceedings for 29th November 2024

Blow, CJ: We’re gathered here today because of by virtue of the law in this State I will cease to hold office after the 2nd of December as Chief Justice, and as a judge of this Court. I invite Wood J to speak.

Wood, J: On behalf of the judges and the professional organisations I begin by paying respect to the traditional and original owners of this land, the Muwinina people. I acknowledge the contemporary Tasmanian Aboriginal people who are the custodians of this land, and I acknowledge their enduring culture and connection to the land and waterways upon which we all depend. I pay respect to elders, knowledge holders and leaders past and present, and extend that respect to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

We are gathered to farewell Blow CJ on the occasion of his retirement after 24 years of service as a judge of this Court, including 11 years as our chief justice. On behalf of the Court I welcome Her Excellency the Governor of Tasmania, the Honourable Barbara Baker, and Emeritus Professor Don Chalmers, Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, the Honourable Stephen Gageler, Kourakis CJ of the Supreme Court of South Australia, Grant CJ of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory, Ferguson CJ of the Victorian Supreme Court, Alstergren CJ of the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court, Bowskill CJ of the Supreme Court of Queensland, Deputy Premier of Tasmania and Attorney-General, the Honourable Guy Barnett.

Judges of other courts, their Honours Mullins, Boddice, Tree, McGuire JJ and their Honours Kudelka, Taglieri and Cuthbertson JJ. Sir Guy Green, former chief justice of this Court, and former Governor, retired judges of his Court, the Honourable Pierre Slicer, the Honourable Peter Evans, the Honourable Shan Tennant and retired Associate Judge Stephen Holt. Retired judges of other courts, the Honourable Robert Benjamin, the Honourable Michael Hannon, and the Honourable Duncan Kerr, Chief Magistrate of Tasmania, Catherine Geason and Magistrates Jackie Hartnett, Robert Webster, Katie Edwards and Leigh Mackey.

President of the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Malcolm Schyvens, Emeritus Professor Kate Warner and former governor, Professor Tim McCormack, Mrs Jocelyn Cox, pausing if I may to send our best wishes to the Honourable William Cox, former chief justice of this Court, and former governor who cannot be here today. Mrs Frances Underwood, president of the Australian Bar Association Mrs Roisin Annesley, and immediate past president Mr Peter Dunning.

Sarah Kay, Solicitor General for Tasmania, Director of Public prosecutions for Tasmania Daryl Coates, Police Commissioner Adams, Ms Kristy Bourne, acting secretary of the Department of Justice, and a welcome to all our other distinguished guests, members of the legal profession, past and present members of the court staff, and everyone who has honoured the chief justice by attending today.

I point out that there are many more than just those here in this courtroom. The proceedings are being viewed from Courts 2 and 7, and also the Launceston and Burnie Supreme Courts where they are watching by video-link. On behalf of the Court, a very warm welcome to the Chief Justice’s family, his wife Mrs Margaret Blow, and daughter Dr Katrina Ross, and granddaughter Lucy who is four and a half years old, and who is going to watch the recording some time later. Welcome, Lucy.

I have the honour as senior puisne judge of speaking on behalf of the judges and the Court. I will be followed by the Deputy Premier and Attorney-General, the Honourable Guy Barnett, president of the Law Society Ms Amelia Higgs, and president of the Tasmanian Bar, Mr Tom Cox. Their addresses will focus on details of his Honour’s professional life, his Honour’s relationship with and service to the profession and the community.

Chief Justice, I will speak from the perspective of the judges of this Court and the high esteem in which you are held as a judge and as our leader. Now, to adequately cover this topic if it could be noted my time starts now. In 1973 you graduated with a Batchelor of Arts and a Batchelor of laws from the University of Sydney. You moved to Tasmania in 1976 to work in Devonport, making many life-long friends, and in 1987 moved to Hobart to join the Tasmanian Bar, taking silk in 1995.

You have always enjoyed returning to Burnie for criminal sittings, Margaret as well, and you particularly looked forward to the circuit dinners organised by the profession. You were appointed a judge of this Court on the 13th of June 2000. You demonstrated that you have all the qualities and more of an outstanding judge, an exemplary judicial temperament, fair and equitable, combined with your intellectual rigour, a prodigious capacity for work, a mind open to other perspectives, and a stern integrity have well equipped you for life as a judge.

You have many natural gifts, including the advantage of an almost perfect memory. When a High Court or Tasmanian case is mentioned in Chambers, you reach for the law report, no citation required. You also have a sound grounding in disciplines outside the law, such as physics, chemistry and also maths. To be frank, it is somewhat disconcerting to be sitting on the appeal court with you and to notice you setting out formulas in your notes, checking the conclusions of experts on accident reconstruction or correcting counsels’ summaries of evidence on the molecular structure of drugs and the like.

You are perplexed by counsel making basic errors in percentages of the sentence and parole periods, inspiration for your joke that there are three kind of lawyers, the ones that can add and the ones that can’t. You also have an excellent tenor voice, which adds a splendid touch to the opening of the legal year church service and the otherwise feeble contribution of your fellow judges.

Judges of this Court are confronted much less often with unrepresented litigants than magistrates and judicial officers from tribunals. When it happens though it often requires management in front of a jury or before an appeal court. Chief justice, your interaction with unrepresented defendants is an example to all. You demonstrate boundless patience, revealing your deep respect for the individual. Your explanation of the trial process and the choices to be made is direct and succinct.

You respond with courtesy to the questions asked of you by accused, even to questions that others would see as impertinent. Your directions to juries are equally skillful. Directions on complex areas of the law, a paragon of clarity and brevity. Your charge to the jury infused with common sense and helpful practical examples.

As a conservative estimate, you have presided over more than 240 criminal trials, that is more than 2880 jurors. Let us not underestimate the impact upon the community who have seen fairness, impartiality and justice at work in your courtroom. Your 24 years as a judge leaves us with many leading judgments of the Full Court, the Court of Criminal Appeal and at first instance. Your contribution to the jurisprudence is evident from your judgments which are published and which speak for themselves.

An enviable position for a judge is having been appealed against and overturned by the appeal court, to then have your judgment restored by the High Court. You are in the rare class of that having happened on four occasions. In March last year you gave the keynote address at a judicial conference titled Writing Better Judgments. You said:

The ideal judgment is both thorough and brief.

You concluded with a comment:

It can be a great source of intellectual satisfaction to compose a judgment that deals with complex issues and resolves them in a comprehensible way.

This objective, to be thorough, brief and comprehensible is harder than it sounds and one where you have excelled. You also said that to your judgment writing is the most enjoyable part of the judicial role. The enjoyment you derive from judgment writing shines through. Your style is effortless, no matter the daunting complexity of the subject matter.

You bring a joy to your work, and delight to your readers, judges included. Your humour can shine a light where there has been darkness, and impenetrable gobbledygook. I’m referring of course to the Kingborough Planning Scheme 2000, and your much loved judgment in AAD Nominees Pty Ltd v Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal.

In other cases there are glimpses of your humour. In a case involving protracted litigation, your use of headings such as The Autumn of 2009, and Winter to denote the passing of time. In an application for an appeal to the Full Court to be dismissed for want of prosecution a Shakespearian reference in the heading To Dismiss or Not to Dismiss.

You were appointed chief justice on the 6th of April 2013, the 14th chief justice of this Court. At your ceremonial sittings you spoke about the office of chief justice, and in part you said:

The office of chief justice was established in England in 1268. The chief justice has always stood in relation to the other judges as the first among equals.

Your description of your role as chief justice is that you are the tallest among equals. As chief justice you have shouldered no less than an equal share of the caseload without reduction for your administrative responsibilities. Your style of leadership is egalitarian and collaborative. After listening to all perspectives, you are adept at finding the middle path, the sensible path to reach a consensus.

In the process you will have likely told an anecdote or two, often against yourself. You’re gracious in giving credit to your colleagues and you would bring what I describe as an intellectual generosity to your consideration of the judgments of your fellow judges. In your judgments as an outstanding jurist you have led by example. But it is also your values that provide an exemplar of judicial leadership.

Your adherence to legal principle, your unerring sense of duty in upholding the law, together with your sense of duty to your fellow man and to your community, a synthesis of duty, compassion and respect. Your humanity is perhaps at its most profound in your sentencing remarks. We see in it the composing of reasons, always comprehensible for the individual being sentenced, including for a teenager from the most deprived of backgrounds, and in your treatment of their circumstances, the explanation for the sentence, and in your expression of hopes for their reform.

I expect for you this is the product of instinctive synthesis, but it sets a fine example of contemporary objectives of judging, such as access to justice and trauma-informed practice. Over the past 11 years as our chief justice, you have guided us through challenging and unprecedented times. During COVID you demonstrated your qualities as a decisive leader, agile to the rapidly changing threat and the evolving medical information.

As a chief justice of a small court, you did not have the benefit of the resources and infrastructure of other larger jurisdictions, and much of the work fell to you in researching, consulting and then drafting practice directions and other publications. You protected us and the community and enabled the Court to continue its work. In your dealings with the Executive, you were successful in restoring the Court to its original compliment of seven judges, allowing us to respond to the ever growing complexity and number of criminal cases.

You have been a staunch defender of the independence of our Court. You have worked hard to preserve and improve confidence in the work of the Court. One of the ways you have done this is your active role in education of the legal profession, including students of the Tasmanian Legal Practice course, and I expect others will speak to that topic.

In 2018 you were appointed as an Officer of the Order of Australia for distinguished service to the judiciary and the law, particularly as chief justice, and recognising your contribution to legal education. You have promoted an understanding of the work of judges and the role of the Court in society through community education, sentencing workshops and lectures. A recent interview, The Chief Justice In Conversation, celebrates your 24 years as a judge, is recorded and available on our court web site.

The Court is of course a human institution, and we’re standing on the shoulders of those who went before us. You have a strong sense of tradition and pride in the history of our Court, as was evident in the bicentenary celebrations of our court in May this year. As the leader of this court, you notice the hard work and commitment of court staff, and you acknowledge and honour their contributions. You have been invariably supportive and kind, available to give practical guidance.

Your decency and kindness has been a hallmark of your leadership and a cohesive force strengthening the Court for difficult times. Your joie de vivre has infused your leadership, and at times proved to be contagious. Last Saturday, 20 of your 23 associates gathered at a Hobart public house from various corners of Australia to farewell you at a lunch, speaking volumes about their admiration and respect for you.

Now, lawyers are not often moved to singing or poetry, however you have an effect. They wrote for you a tribute in the style of the Man from Snowy River:

There was movement in the chambers, for the word had passed around, that the chief can no longer hold the years at bay.

You are a member of a number of national judicial bodies and strongly support judicial education, actively encouraging us to attend national conferences understanding the isolation felt as a judge of our small court, sitting on appeal from each other’s decisions. Speaking of conferences, the judges have basked in your reflective glory as the after-dinner speech you gave at the AJOA colloquium in 2017 has achieved legendary status.

Outside the law you have a keen interest in history and have brought many insights to papers you have presented with gems such as Anthony Trollope’s visit to Hobart in 1872. You are a strong supporter of the Arts. Before your appointment as a judge, indeed you were awarded a medal of the Order of Australia in 1996 in recognition of your service to the arts.

A few years ago, the Gilbert and Sullivan Society requested the use of the Supreme Court, indeed this courtroom, for a season of Trial By Jury, I hasten to add, during the evening. To their surprise and delight this was approved by you. To their greater delight, you made a cameo appearance. Although not a very challenging role, all things considered, it was a walk in, walk off role as a judge.

A final observation of your leadership is that you have remained yourself and not been defined by the role of chief justice, rather your character and integrity have informed the role. They say you should retire when you will be missed the most, seeing the huge crowd today, you have judged the moment well. The reality is that you have a significant birthday on Tuesday. Chief justice, we are grateful that you have left it to the last moment. It has been an honour to have worked with you and we are proud to have served with you as our chief justice.

As for the next chapter, no-one will be surprised to know that you plan to continue your life time of service to the administration of justice, with more time for travel and train journeys. We wish you and Margaret every happiness.

Blow, CJ: Thank you very much, Wood J. The next speaker is the Deputy Premier, but that’s not why he’s here. He’s here as the attorney general. Attorney?

Mr Attorney: Thank you, Chief Justice. And like Wood J, I would like to acknowledge the many esteemed guests in attendance today, certainly Her Excellency the Governor Barbara Baker, Emeritus Professor Don Chalmers, Chief Justice of Australia, the Honourable Stephen Gageler, Sir Will Alstergren CJ, the Federal Circuit and Family court, Kourakis CJ of the Supreme Court of South Australia, Michael Grant CJ of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory, Anne Ferguson CJ of the Supreme Court of Victoria, Helen Bowskill, of the Supreme Court of Queensland, and of course Chief Magistrate Catherine Geason.

To the many justices, former justices from around Australia and Tasmania. Of course, Tom Cox from the President of the Tasmanian Bar, to Amelia Higgs, vice president of the Law Society who are at the table with me today, and the many other distinguished guests and a special acknowledgment and shout out to Mrs Margaret Blow. Of course I understand wife of some 49 years, and of course Blow CJ’s daughter, Dr Katrina Ross and of course your grand daughter as well which is wonderful.

Today’s occasion is both melancholy and celebratory because it’s the retirement of Chief Justice Alan Michael Blow, Officer of the Order of Australia. So human history is usually told as a series of major events, occasionally interleaved with accounts of the lives of ordinary people. And so it tends to focus on the famous and the infamous, and at the other end the regular individuals. But what is rarely taken into account is the individual who quietly gives their strength to the society in which they live, such as they become the mainspring of the commonality.

The independent and impartial institution of the Supreme Court of Tasmania and its judges has played a pivotal role in shaping the Tasmania that we know today. As I’ve remarked before, the Court is a key element of our unbroken thread that connects us to the British legal and democratic tradition.

Those who determine and apply the law become the foundation of the lives of those who live under the law. How much more so does this apply to the ones who steer the Court through those lives, who captain the ship as it holds fast to the principles of right and wrong that are part of the freedom that of course we enjoy today.

Blow CJ has for so many years been that captain serving the people of Tasmania and this great institution in upholding and strengthening our democracy and he rule of law. After a successful career practising in Sydney, Devonport and Hobart, including being appointed one of Her Majesty’s Counsel of Tasmania, and of course there are many here today, Blow CJ was appointed as judge of the Supreme Court in the year 2000.

At the ceremonial sitting welcoming Blow CJ in this Court on the 13th of June 2000, the then Attorney-General Peter Patmore said, and I quote:

I’m sure that your Honour will prove to be a valuable addition to the Bench and that the essential requirements of legal knowledge and experience, of intellect and analytic ability, integrity and fairness and commitment will be amply met.

Well, in your time as a member of this Court has proved Mr Patmore correct many times over, Chief Justice. In 2013 you were appointed as just the 14th chief justice in this Court’s proud 200-year history which was celebrated of course earlier this year. On the occasion of the ceremonial sitting to mark the appointment of chief justice at that time, you remarked of – he remarked of himself, and I quote:

For most of my career in the law I had no idea that I might become a judge, much less chief justice. When I came to Tasmania in 1976 as a solicitor of considerable juniority with a working knowledge of a few things like general law, conveyancing and New South Wales death duty, I do not think that my destination as chief justice would have been regarded as reasonably foreseeable.

As far fetched and fanciful as it might have seemed to his Honour in 1976, for nearly a quarter of a century now Blow CJ has served the people of Tasmania in their Supreme Court with distinction. He has also, when needed, administered the State of Tasmania as the Lieutenant Governor including at an extended period following the death in office of the then governor, the Honourable Chief Justice of this Court, Peter Underwood.

While doing this he has spoken at conferences, and any other event which would permit him to speak or indeed to sing. Given keynote speeches, lectured to the law students at the University of Tasmania, conducted advocacy exercises for the Tasmanian Legal Practice course which we’ve heard earlier, and been made a life member of the Australian Judicial Officers Association.

In addition to his contribution as a member of this Court, he has demonstrated a selfless commitment to the Tasmanian legal profession and the Tasmanian justice system more broadly across his whole criteria. In 2018, Blow CJ was appointed Officer of the Order of Australia for, and I quote, “Distinguished service to the judiciary and to the law, particularly as chief justice of the Supreme Court of Tasmania, to the legal education and professional standards of the community.”

The Chief Justice’s achievements are many, and his contributions to the Tasmanian community and to this Court are undeniable, and I quote that it is not as simple as that. Blow CJ is a leader. He is someone who has integrity, courage and vision, and who inspires trust. What does integrity offer us? It offers us the security to trust. Who would trust a person who didn’t have integrity? A refusal to allow corruption or the desire for power to compromise their principles.

Where does trust take us? It takes us to a commanding respect which is possibly the most fundamental aspect of leadership. Who would willingly follow a person if they did not respect them? Blow CJ has captained the ship of this Court for many years and has not only given the people of the State of Tasmania his respect, but he has earned theirs, and we, the people of Tasmania, cannot help but be melancholy at his departure.

Indeed the prospect of Blow CJ’s departure was the reason in part for the parliament to pass the Justice Miscellaneous (Increasing Judicial Retirement Age) Act in 2021 so that we could keep him for just a few more years. That reform of course was an important advance in meeting community expectations on age equality and invaluable in supporting the Court’s ability to operate effectively and to retain valuable institutional knowledge.

As a personal reflection, although I have known Chief Justice for more than two decades, it has been a particular privilege to engage with the Chief Justice during my time as Attorney General. In the relatively short time that I have been the Attorney General there have been a number of novel challenges for this Court, including in my first week in the role, and I have greatly appreciated being able to consult with the Chief Justice when navigating those challenges.

It was also my great honour to collaborate with the Chief Justice to celebrate this Court’s bicentenary earlier this year and recognise the enduring legacy of the oldest Supreme Court in the country. In particular, it was my pleasure to host a reception in Parliament House at which Blow CJ displayed his dry wit, his sense of humour and prodigious memory in recounting the history of the Court.

I would also like to acknowledge the attendance at that event of Gageler CJ who travelled halfway around the globe to celebrate this special occasion, and hopefully his trip to join us today was much less arduous. Despite the sadness that accompanies the retirement of a titan of the Tasmanian justice system, it is a great honour to be able to address this Court and celebrate the years that we have been fortunate enough to have Blow CJ’s brilliant legal mind and extraordinary leadership at the helm of this Court.

We do not wish to see you go, chief justice, but we thank you for the time you have spent with us. On behalf of myself, the Government and the people of Tasmania, we wish you fair winds and following seas for the next chapter of your life.

Blow, CJ: Thank you, Mr Attorney. Ms Higgs?

Ms Higgs: May it please. It is my great privilege to stand here before your Honour today on behalf of the Law Society of Tasmania and its members to mark the occasion of your Honour’s retirement. I have to admit that as a practitioner who spends all of her time in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, it is a somewhat daunting task to be here in this jurisdiction today.

The feeling is not too dissimilar from the sensation of being a freshly-graduated trainee standing here not all that long ago before your Honour in this Court in one of many late afternoon appearances as part of the Graduate Diploma of Legal Practice course, or as many of us affectionally refer to it, Legal Prac.

I’m sure I fumbled my way through many a hastily drafted submission and stabbed aimlessly in the dark trying to remember, probably hopelessly, correct sections of the relevant legislation. Her Honour Wood J has already outlined for us today your Honour’s many achievements and accolades throughout your career both in practice and on the bench, but what I intend to focus on today is your Honour’s contribution to the most junior members of our profession through your dedicated mentorship and support of trainees, lawyers and early career practitioners.

Your Honour has no doubt endured countless hours of appearances from inexperienced and nervous trainees and newly admitted practitioners, and while it would be easy for your Honour to become frustrated and disengaged in such circumstances, you remain widely regarded by those who have appeared before you in the infancy of their careers for your patience, even-handedness, depth of knowledge and humour.

As we’ve heard, your Honour was first appointed as a judge of the Supreme Court of Tasmania in the year 2000. Since that time you have been actively involved with the Legal Practice course, both as an instructor, and as a director on the board of the Centre for Legal studies between 2008 and 2013. Based on the practising certificates which were issued by the Law Society of Tasmania between 1 July 2023 and 1 June 2024, we know that there are around 893 lawyers, both barristers and solicitors, currently practising in Tasmania.

Now, I couldn’t find statistics from this year, but data from 2022 tells us that at that time when we had approximately 880 practising lawyers, around 46 per cent of them had been in practice for 14 years or less. While we can’t assume that all of those 46 per cent completed their practical training in Tasmania, I think it’s safe to say that the majority did.

Now, having heard that your Honour is particularly proficient in mathematics, I’m a little nervous to say this next part, and I know that I am extrapolating a little. But I think what we can surmise from this data is that in the time that your Honour has been on the bench alone you have been responsible for the development, mentorship, training and admission for over half of the currently practising Tasmanian legal profession.

This does not include or capture the time your Honour spent mentoring and supporting other practitioners prior to your elevation to the Court. Having appeared before your Honour in several admission ceremonies, including my own, I recall that your Honour often concludes the proceedings by warning newly admitted practitioners that they may find once they commence working they don’t enjoy their area of practice they have found themselves in.

Your Honour has offered reassurance that this does not spell the end of their careers. Instead you have reminded them that as a reformed conveyancing and estate planning lawyer yourself you can attest to the fact that it’s never too late to try another area of law. Your Honour, I’ve been asked to pass on the sentiments of the president Mr Justo who is also a conveyancing and estate planning lawyer and he was wondering if it’s too late for him.

Your Honour, at a time when the Tasmanian legal profession is overwhelmed with work and is struggling, despite our best efforts to keep up with demand, it is crucial that we retain as many lawyers as we can. I have no doubt that your Honour’s encouraging words have given many junior practitioners the confidence to keep trying to stick with it and to find the area of practice which they enjoy.

Despite completing your legal education in New South Wales, your Honour has always been a tireless champion of the Tasmanian legal profession and the educational opportunities on offer here. By way of example, in 2022, your Honour, joined with several other senior members of the legal profession and legal academics to meet with the University of Tasmania to address escalating concerns around the future of the undergraduate law degree and the Tasmanian Legal Practice course.

That meeting was a turning point and resulted in the winding back of several changes which were planned by UTAS which would have had a lasting and detrimental impact on the future of the profession in Tasmania. In preparing this address, I spoke with your Honour’s former associate Clair White. She told me how she and other former associates recall with gratitude your Honour’s willingness to always answer questions about practice and procedure, and I can attest that this is a sentiment held by the wider profession as well.

With respect to less formal matters, your Honour has been an example for legal practitioners, both new and experienced, that although a career in the law is a serious one, one needn’t always be serious. Your Honour has been known to tread the boards, having appeared in a variety of theatrical performances including Master in Scamander, Under Underwood and HMAG Patmore in which you performed I am the Very Model of a Mod Attorney-General. I’m hoping there might be a reprisal performance of that later.

Ms White was able to find an excerpt of the remarks that you made when you moved her admission some years ago. You said:

I hope you will get as much pleasure out of a career in the legal profession as I have for some time now. Whether it comes from helping people or from being involved in causing justice to be administered, or in doing things that are hard and doing them well, or in being a member of a profession whose members know to enjoy themselves. Welcome to the legal profession, congratulations and best wishes for your future legal career.

It therefore seems only fitting, your Honour, that I conclude this address by drawing inspiration from your Honour’s words which you have imparted upon so many of us at the beginning of our careers. On behalf of the Law Society of Tasmania and its members, we hope your Honour finds as much pleasure in retirement as you have in your career. Your Honour has caused justice to be done. You have been an exemplar of how to do difficult things well, and you have shown all of us how to find enjoyment in this often fickle career. Congratulations and best wishes for a happy and fulfilling retirement.

Blow, CJ: Thank you very much, Ms Higgs. Mr Cox?

Mr Cox: On behalf of the Tasmanian Bar and the Australian Bar Association, it is my great privilege to congratulate your Honour on your retirement as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Tasmania and to thank you for your outstanding service to the Court and to the community at large.

I must start with a confession, and all going well we might finish with a duet. The confession is this: that many moons ago you were sitting where you are now and I was standing where I am now, and I tricked your Honour with a sleight of hand. The scene was the Winter of 1999, and the legal practice students of whom I was one, were presenting submissions to your Honour in a Supreme Court advocacy exercise. The exercise referenced the now almost forgotten negligence calculus in the famous case of Wyong Shire Council v Shirt. The preceding group had appeared before your Honour and word had filtered like wild fire that your Honour was a stickler for the correct citation of that case.

In the lead up to my appearance, the Montague group could be heard chanting, “1980 146 CLR at page 40, 1980 146 CLR at page 40.” As matters transpired I was first cab off the rank before your Honour when I hit the critical moment of reciting the negligence calculus, and referencing Wyong Shire Council. I paused just a little bit. Just enough for your Honour to take the bait:

The citation, Mr Cox?

Feigning, as a legal savant, a veritable Bobby Fisher, I gazed at the abyss without looking down, and uttered, “1980 146 CLR at page 40, your Honour.” My deceit was complete, and on your Honour congratulating me for recalling it, I have ever since felt some guilt, and so I now confess. But in all seriousness, your Honour, you have been no stickler, but rather a model example of all the attributes that attend a good advocate and judicial officer: skill and learning of the law, integrity, and above all respect for all you appeared for, and for all who appeared before you from whatever walk of life.

Your Honour has been of outstanding service to the legal profession and the broader community. To take just one recent example of the esteem with which your Honour has been held, it was with great delight and pride to the Tasmanian Bar that just last week at the ABA’s AGM you were appointed a life member of the ABA. If I might read your nomination which was drafted by Mr Peter Dunning KC who is joining us today with Roisin Annesley KC, the present member, and it reads as follows, it is a snapshot of your achievements:

The Honourable Justice Alan Michael Blow AO was appointed as a judge of the Supreme Court in 2000 and as the chief justice in 2013. Since 2013 his Honour has also been the lieutenant governor of Tasmania. The chief justice practised as a barrister in Hobart from 1987 until 2000, mainly in civil litigation.

His Honour was appointed as Queen’s Counsel in 1995. He sat part time in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, first as a senior member, and then as a deputy president. His Honour has been the president of the Law Society of Tasmania, the chairman of trustees of the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery, and a member and president of the board of the Salamanca Arts Centre, as well as a member of the Narryna Heritage Museum.

His Honour received the Medal of the Order of Australia in 1996 for services to the Arts. The chief justice has been a member of the governing council, executive committee of the Judicial Conference of Australia since 2000, and been actively involved with the Tasmanian Legal Practice course as instructor for over 10 years. The Honourable Chief Justice Alan Blow AO was appointed as an Officer of the Order for Australia for distinguished service to the judiciary and to the law, particularly as chief justice of the Supreme Court of Tasmania, and for his contribution to legal education and professional standards.

Among his Honour’s many contributions, Blow CJ was a board member for the Centre of Legal Studies at the University of Tasmania from 2008 to 2013. As the above matters record, Chief Justice Alan Blow AO is an exemplar of the finest qualities of a barrister. Alongside his distinguished career at the Bench and the Bar, and including more than a decade as head of jurisdiction of Australia’s oldest common law court.

His Honour has contributed significantly to society in many legal and non-legal voluntary endeavours.

On behalf of the ABA, we congratulate you again on that appointment.

Your Honour, I mentioned a duet at the beginning of my address, but as everybody knows, there’s always a superstar in any duet, and if the Tasmanian Bar and profession were Kenny Rogers, you would be our much beloved Dolly Parton. If Kenny was here, and you weren’t turning 75, he would have said:

We got tonight, who needs tomorrow. We go tonight, babe, your Honour, why don’t you stay.

We wish you and Margaret – and I might make a special mention to Margaret for her outstanding support to your Honour – every happiness in your retirement. If it please.

HIS HONOUR: Thank you, Mr Cox. I should also thank those present from the Australian Bar Association for life membership that was conferred the other day. First of all I would like to acknowledge the traditional owners of the land on which these buildings stand, the Muwinina people; tragically they have no known living descendants. I acknowledge the Palawa people, today’s Aboriginal community, and pay my respects to their elders, past, present and emerging.

Again, I would like to thank Wood J, the attorney-general and Mr Cox for their kind words. I am honoured by the attendance of so many people, and I would like to thank you all for taking the time and trouble to be here today. Thanks also to those watching the proceedings in Launceston and Burnie. I particularly would like to thank Her Excellency the Governor, and Prof Chalmers and the Chief Justice of Australia, the Honourable Stephen Gageler, and Kourakis, Grant, Ferguson, Alstergren and Bowskill CJ, my predecessor Sir Guy Green, and serving and retiring judges from various courts. Thank you all for your attendance today and for your collegiality and support in many and varied ways over the years.

For me today marks the end of nearly 53 years of full-time work in the law. It also started on Monday the 7th of February 1972, when I put on a brown suit and went to work in the office of a small Sydney legal practice FW Turton & Co. I worked there for two years as an undergraduate articled clerk, and then until 1976 as a solicitor.

I was well tutored there in the mysteries of conveyancing and probate practice. At first the most modern things in the office were the ball point pens, but things began to change. By 1976 the firm had acquired a photocopier, and some battery-powered calculators, and even some primitive electric dictaphones.

I owe a lot to my master solicitor Mrs Henry who employed me when many others had decided not to. In 1975 I decided to make a career move. I had got married to Margaret; we’ll be celebrating our 50th wedding anniversary next year. We were about to become parents. I wanted to get out of conveyancing and probate and get into litigious work.

The economic climate in Sydney was difficult and there were no jobs going. I applied for positions in Goulburn, Canberra, and Devonport. They were all advertised in the Sydney Morning Herald under positions vacant men and boys. We made the courageous move to Devonport in 1976. I went for an interview in Goulburn but I haven’t yet heard from them, but have been thinking of my withdrawing my application.

In Devonport I was employed by a conveyancing practitioner named Brian O’Rourke. I owe a lot to him too. The practice that he established in 1969 is now being carried on by one his sons under the name O’Rourke and Kelly. Brian and I were partners in that practice from 1978 until 1987. Although I had been admitted as a solicitor in New South Wales, it was necessary for me to be admitted again to become a legal practitioner in Tasmania.

My admission was moved by a prominent communist practitioner from Devonport named Pierre Slicer. I am very glad to see him here today. It was at the beginning of a miscellaneous civil business day in Burnie. The circuit judge was Nettlefold J. Upon Pierre moving my admission, there was a long silence, and then his Honour said:

Mr Slicer, has New South Wales been proclaimed as a place for the purposes of s11(4)?

There was another long silence. But then his Honour said:

Well, I suppose if it hadn’t been I would have heard about it. I make the order.

That was my welcome to the Tasmanian legal profession. I then went downstairs to the Family Court which was in its fourth month and appeared on some divorce applications. Shortly after I arrived in Devonport, a practitioner from Ulverstone told me that a legal practitioner in Tasmania has an equal chance of ending his career in Risdon prison or on the Supreme Court bench. At that stage it wasn’t reasonably foreseeable that either of us would contribute to those statistics, but after some years we both did in different ways.

I practiced in Devonport from 1976 until 1987. Many of my clients were legally aided. Legal aid was much more readily available those days, and legally aided cases were far more remunerative than they are now. They were different times. Drug addiction was almost unheard of, many people saw no need to lock their houses, many clients disputed police evidence about verbal admissions and unsigned records of interview. The police rarely took any interest in domestic violence.

Margaret and I moved to Hobart in 1987 and I commenced practice as a barrister in Treasury Chambers with Peter Cranswick QC, Cas Pitt, Pierre Slicer and Colin Brown. The separate bar was very small at that stage. I’ve often sung the praises of Tasmania’s fused legal profession, but I enjoyed making myself an exception to it and taking on a wide variety of litigious work.

In 1989, Roger Jennings QC, another person to whom I owe a lot, arranged for me to be appointed as a part-time senior member of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. I served on the AAT for 11 years, eventually becoming a part-time deputy president. The AAT exposed me to an interesting range of cases in various states. A number of lawyers who later became prominent judges appeared before me, including a junior barrister from Sydney named Stephen Gageler who appeared in a case about the carcinogenicity and mutagenicity of trichloroethylene. I’m sure he understood the evidence far better than I did.

I was sworn in as a judge of this Court in June 2000, a few weeks before the introduction of GST. The judge that I replaced was Mr Wright J; he couldn’t be here today, he sent me a very nice note. He made a memorable farewell speech in which he advocated the abolition of the jury system. He said that juries got their verdicts wrong in about one case in four, and that it would be better to adopt the Scandinavian system, where courts are constituted by panels of three judges, one being a lawyer and two being non lawyers.

The Tasmanian Bar Association had a new fangled thing called a web site at that time. It published a report of his Honour’s speech under a headline to the effect of Judge Resigns. Tells of Attraction to Scandinavian Model. I respectfully disagree with his Honour’s views about the jury system. I’ve certainly presided at trials where my verdict wouldn’t have been the same as the jury’s, but the overwhelming advantage of the jury system is that it tends to promote public confidence in the administration of justice.

Our system of justice wouldn’t function if the decisions of courts weren’t generally respected. It’s very easy for sensationalist commentators to criticise sentencing judges and magistrates for being elitist, soft or out of touch, whether criticism is warranted or not. It’s much harder to level similar criticisms against 12 miscellaneous members of the community who bring to bear their experiences of life and of people in deciding factual questions.

About 80 per cent of the work of this Court is in its criminal jurisdiction. It’s fair to say that for the last 24 years I’ve been earning most of my living out of violence, dishonesty, sex and drugs, so there are a few more observations that I would like to make about the criminal jurisdiction.

The judges of this Court spend a lot of their time trying and sentencing drug traffickers, and offenders who commit drug-related crimes including crimes of violence. It’s obvious that arresting and imprisoning drug traffickers isn’t solving the drug problems that are affecting Australian society. Prosecuting and imprisoning drug traffickers doesn’t stop drug trafficking, it creates vacancies for new traffickers.

Strategies to reduce drug abuse are largely beyond the reach of the courts. Conducting fair trials and imposing deterrent sentences are much easier tasks than reducing drug abuse in our society. We also see a lot of gamblers who steal substantial amounts to fund their addictions. Sometimes they do so at the expense of vulnerable individuals or charities. In my view, this is an area where much more can and should be done at a political level to help gamblers and to reduce and prevent addictive gambling.

There have been very positive developments during my career in relation to the role of women in the law. My master solicitor was a woman, but she was one of very few women who graduated in law before World War Two. When I joined the profession there were many women in legal offices working as clerks. In conveyancing and probate practices, they did the same work as solicitors, and charged the same fees for their employers as solicitors.

Many were very experienced but didn’t have the status of qualifications of solicitors. A lot has changed. There are now more female law students than males. This Court has had female judges since 2005. However, it was as recently as 1999, that the absence of female judges on this bench was ridiculed by the Surrejoinder Players in a revue during a bar convention at Cradle Mountain. That’s the revue mentioned earlier, HMAG Patmore.

According to the script, no female judges could be appointed because there were no ladies toilets in judges chambers. Social attitudes towards the roles of women and the sexual abuse of women have changed markedly during my career, but they have a lot further to go in relation to domestic violence. Victims have become more willing to report domestic violence. Police and prosecutors have become far more willing to arrest and charge alleged offenders, however the scale of the problem appears not to be diminishing.

Academic research in many places has made it very clear that heavy penalties don’t relate in less offending. There’s no point in calling for heavier penalties, although it is appropriate that some family violence offenders in this State are now receiving quite substantial sentences. Societal attitudes to the problems are changing, just as they have changed in relation to the roles of women and the sexual abuse of women, but our community has a lot further to go.

I was very pleased to have had the opportunity to participate in the training of young law graduates attending the Tasmanian Legal Practice course. Long before he became chief justice, Peter Underwood made arrangements for judges and senior practitioners to take part in advocacy training exercises at the Court on Tuesday afternoons. I became involved in those exercises before I went to the bench, and I continued my involvement throughout the last 24 years.

It’s been a great pleasure to have contributed to the practical side of the training of many talented young lawyers. When I signed my articles of clerkship nearly 53 years ago it wasn’t reasonably foreseeable that I would become a judge, or that I would spend most of my life in Tasmania. It certainly wasn’t foreseeable that 47 years later the judges of the Supreme Court of New South Wales would invite me to come to their annual conference to make an entertaining after- dinner speech, and it wasn’t reasonably foreseeable that precisely 50 years after my second day at FW Turton and Co, the High Court would be hearing an appeal in a constitutional case in which I had written the principal judgment in the Court below.

It’s been a very interesting journey, and a very pleasurable one most of the time. There are many more people whom I’d like to thank for their assistance and encouragement over the years. I’m very grateful to the three chief justices under whom I served after my appointment as a judge: the Honourable William Cox, who is not able to be with us today, the late Peter Underwood and the late Ewan Crawford.

I would like to thank all of the other judges and associate judges with whom I’ve served. Pierre Slicer once accused me of following him around, first from Devonport to the Hobart bar, and then from the bar to the bench, though I drew the line at following him to Samoa.

I would like to pay my – I’d like to pay tribute to the four registrars with whom I’ve worked since my appointment in 2000: Ian Ritchard, the late Elizabeth Knight, Jim Connolly, and Penelope Ikedife. I’ve had 23 associates since becoming a judge, all of them have provided invaluable assistance to me, none of them has ever let me down. As Wood J said, last Saturday 20 of them took me out to lunch, four of them travelled from the mainland to do that. I was greatly honoured.

I would also like to thank my secretaries, Christine Parker, Rosemary McHugh and Karen Dean for their patient and loyal service; nothing was ever too much trouble for them. A large number of attendants have looked after me in Hobart, Launceston and Burnie, I can’t list them all, but two who deserve special mention, are Alison Oakes who worked at the Court from 2001 to 2013, and Richard Grubb who has acted as my attendant and driver for much of my time as chief justice.

Finally, I would like to thank my wife Margaret and my daughter Katrina for their support, and for putting up with a husband and father who too often behaved as if we was dealing with an unmeritorious submission or a witness who’s answers weren’t responsive to the questions. Without Margaret’s encouragement I probably wouldn’t have taken the job in Devonport, and probably would never have become a judge at all.

She has been a continuing source of support, encouragement and reality checks. Once again, I thank you all for attending this afternoon. With apologies to those watching in Launceston and Burnie, I invite those of you who are in Hobart to join me for refreshments in the foyer. And the Court will now adjourn.

The Court Adjourned