Our Forgotten Jurist — The Hon. Sir George Street CH GCVO QC

BY Hearsay

656 Views

We should start at the very beginning of his judicial career. One could be forgiven for thinking that some of the members of the Supreme Court might have been a little put out by Street’s appointment. To receive a knighthood before being appointed was quite unusual. And to decline, for some time, to hear any cases in which there were any facts in dispute meant that Street did not have the same work load as the other members of the Court. These two factors probably led to the regrettable situation in which all other members of the Court refused to sit on any Full Court in which Street was to be a member. Chief Justice H D Macrossan eventually declined to assign Street to any appeal work and, it appears, Street confined himself, at least for some years, to only hearing the more notorious divorce cases and motions for probate.

It would be quite wrong, though, for any adverse conclusion to be drawn about his legal ability. Thanks to the unremitting efforts of researchers in England, the staff of the Ashmolean Museum and the senior archivist of the British Library, a previously unknown collection of correspondence has been compiled in which the considerable skills and insights of Street – both as a young man and later – are displayed to advantage. Perhaps Sir George didn’t bother to keep copies of his own correspondence.

We are fortunate, then, that Miss Ngaio Plimsoll, formerly Principal Keeper of Records in the Lord Chancellor’s Department, was able to direct us to a series of bundles in which his letters to various judges of English courts have been collected. The correspondence is extensive and stretches from a time before Sir George began practising at the Bar. They fall into two broad categories: those relating to a specific legal issue and those which deal with the years (previously unknown to us) which Street spent in England.

From the first category we need only examine the following selection to observe the succinct, and distinct, way in which he expressed himself on difficult issues:

Another letter:

Street also seems to have spent some time at Cambridge while he was in England, as this letter evidences:

One of the greatest curiosities of the career of the Honourable Mr Justice Street is that, notwithstanding having been a member of the Supreme Court for three decades, none of his judgments appear to have been reported. Enquiries of the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting proved fruitless, as all of the Council records for this period were lost in the 1974 flood.

Some assistance was obtained, though, from friends of the late George Seaman (later His Honour Judge Seaman of the District Courts). He was the editor of the Queensland Reports during most of the 1950s. On the condition of anonymity, these people provided a series of letters which seem to have passed between Street and Seaman. The correspondence is incomplete but the following, at least, appears clear.

Shortly after his appointment Sir George heard a testator’s family maintenance action. The estate was very large and the testator had overlooked any provision for his unmarried daughter. The daughter had cared for her father during his long and final illness.

There was nothing out of the ordinary about the trial and Sir George reserved to consider the matter. When, some weeks later, the parties were informed that judgment was to be delivered they were told that the decision would be given in the Judge’s chambers. At this point the narrative becomes confused.

The representatives of the daughter claimed that Sir George had made an Order awarding ten percent of the estate to himself. The executors thought that he had ordered ten percent to the daughter with the balance to Sir George. Whatever occurred there were no written reasons – at least none were made available. It appears that Sir George took the view that copyright in his reasons vested in him and that he was not going to allow anyone to use them without paying a licence fee. Seaman observed in a letter to Street that the fee he sought was greater than the annual income of the Incorporated Council.

Further investigations are being undertaken to determine if any copies of Sir George’s decisions can be found.

Members will be aware that Sir George returned, as an Acting Judge, to the Supreme Court bench for a few months last year. We understand that he is willing to share his thoughts about his welcome, if short lived, return in a future edition of Hearsay. Ed.

Discuss this article on the Hearsay Forum