Should Judges Join In? A Normative Study of Joint Judgments in Selected Australian Intermediate Appellate Courts

Should Judges Join In? A Normative Study of Joint Judgments in Selected Australian Intermediate Appellate Courts

In the light of both the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia Susan Kiefel’s extra-judicial comments on the ‘institutional responsibility’ of appellate courts to decide cases by joint judgment where possible, and literature that indicates an increase in the expression of reasons through joint judgment in the High Court of Australia since the beginning of former Chief Justice Robert French’s tenure, there has been much debate on the desirability of joint judgments. In this article, I present empirical information on selected New South Wales and federal intermediate appellate court judgment writing practices from 2009 to 2019. I do so to address former President of the New South Wales Court of Appeal Margaret Beazley’s ‘dalliance on a curiosity’1 concerning both joint judgment trends and whether Australian intermediate appellate courts should, given the example set by certain Justices of the High Court, preference joined reasons to separate individual concurrences. 

Anthony John Dunn, James

The University of Queensland Law Journal; Vol. 40 No. 3 (2021): The University of Queensland Law Journal; 555-592

1839-289X

0083-4041

The University of Queensland School of Law

2022-02-01

Copyright (c) 2022 The University of Queensland Law Journal

application/pdf

eng

info:eu-repo/semantics/article

info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

Peer-reviewed Article