Jump to content

Talk:Dyson Heydon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jack Upland (talk | contribs) at 01:56, 3 July 2020 (→Legal publications). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


removal

Removed unnecessary info. This fact pertains to the High Court page and can be found there. It is merely clutter on this page. AntonioBu 10:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the style you desire then please edit every Australian court article to reflect this. For example Citizen J of the x court the x highest court in the Australian hierarchy. AntonioBu 12:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Garfield Barwick Address

It's absurd that the largest section deals with a function that Heydon didn't even attend.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Current text needs to go almost in its entirety. Ozhistory (talk) 05:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NOTPAPER. The length doesn't matter. -- Callinus (talk) 07:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NOTNEWS.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit tighter now; but still needs more editing, if anyone is keen. Rangasyd (talk) 11:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should probably wait till the situation is resolved.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Or should I say "died down", one way or the other. All we need here is a few sentences, which say he was accused of bias, he didn't stand down, and then the result of any appeal, etc.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All the section needs to say is: 1. He agreed to speak at a Liberal Party function. 2. He then decided not to speak, saying he hadn't realised it was a Liberal Party function. 3. He said that he couldn't use a computer and access his emails himself, which led to much comment. [Not currently in article]. 4. The unions asked him to recuse himself for bias. 5. He said no. 6. The unions didn't appeal. [Not currently in article]. The article current devotes excessively length to this issue and goes into intricate trivial detail, but still manages to miss or mangle the main points.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have merged this section with the section on the Royal Commission page, as that is supposed to be the "main article", and left a summary here.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:56, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heydon v NRMA

Heydon v NRMA is the leading legal precedent in Australia on professional negligence, but I can't find a source which says that.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dyson Heydon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inquiry

Just an obseration it may not be accurate to describe the latest matter as a finding of the High Court. It is certainly an inquiry by an independent consultant probably commissioned by the Chief Justice in role of employer, but not from a matter decided from a proceeding before the Justices of the High Court. POakleaf (talk) 08:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: been fixed. Errantius (talk) 14:17, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What do you have in mind? Errantius (talk) 09:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Um, removing the direct quotations...--Jack Upland (talk) 09:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is unconstructive, IMHO. Errantius (talk) 11:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See MOS:QUOTE. Quotations are being overused here. All we need is a summary of what was said.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See also, for more detail, WP:QUOTEFARM. Quotations, even at length, are appropriate when the original words are very important, as I think they are here. Errantius (talk) 05:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I disagree. Some quoting here could be justified, but not to this extent. It is repetitive, verbose, and unencyclopedic. We should summarise what happened. Quoting from the Herald is ridiculous. It's like a bad student essay.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Given that WP:BLP is very important here (as is the risk of editors who are subject to Australian libel laws ending up in trouble if they summarise things incorrectly), quotes are appropriate where there's a need to be precise with what the sources say. I don't think that the level of quoting is excessive. Nick-D (talk) 08:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Nick-D. I have been acutely conscious of that. One should also bear in mind that the Sydney Morning Herald is both reporting on the High Court investigation and reporting its own investigation. I have drawn a line between report and comment by not including the criticisms of Heydon's defence argument by former sex discrimination commissioner Pru Goward. Maybe this will become such a #MeToo moment that some of its material should be moved elsewhere, but at fhe moment the story is geared to Heydon. Errantius (talk) 11:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you are scared of being sued, then just don't edit.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The point is, to avoid defamation. Errantius (talk) 23:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting doesn't avoid defamation.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, but let's both move on. Errantius (talk) 11:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, the style used is unacceptable on so many levels.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight on criticism

The article is currently dominated by the issue of the Garfield Barwick Address (which he didn't attend) and the issue of sexual harassment. I am not saying that we shouldn't give a full airing to all the criticism of Heydon, but this is excessive. The article is completely unbalanced. It describes his life up to the age of around 57 as his "Early life" (???). There are only three short paragraphs on his judicial career. There are then four paragraphs on the Royal Commission (which took less than two years). Then there are nine paragraphs on the Address he didn't attend. Now there are 11 paragraphs (and counting) on sexual harassment.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both those issues were very prominent. The solution would be to add material on his judicial career. Nick-D (talk) 08:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is a high level of trivial detail, particularly about the Address, which ended up amounting to very little.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But, a Justice of the High Court with a history of harassment is indeed "weighty", and should always be a key part of the article. As for appropriate length, there is work to be done. For example, the lead has a specific date to the day. Too specific, but the matter should still be in the lead. Good writing can provide due weight concisely.
And as Nick-D points out, part of the problem may indeed be lack of info on other aspects of his career. --Merbabu (talk) 01:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No one has said that sexual harassment wasn't important, so that is simply a straw-man. I don't see how you can suggest there is a "lack of info on other aspects of his career". He is one of the most prominent lawyers in Australia.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:48, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I meant, as I assume Nick did, there is lack of info in this article on his career. it would be good to get rid of the boiler plate template given the hits this page is getting. Makes wikipedia look silly. Why don't you get in there and trim the section down? --Merbabu (talk) 09:20, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As for strawman, no-one said you said it was unimportant. --Merbabu (talk) 09:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And that's the definition of a straw-man.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jack Upland's comment. The article as it is today is seriously unbalanced. The subject of the article is a son of a significant public servant, and was a very influential academic, textbook writer and editor, barrister, and NSW judge before he was even appointed to the High Court. There is a good article in today's SMH giving a detailed account of the subject's life, including his life prior to that appointment. It includes information that should be added to this article to make it more accurate and complete, eg that the subject attended "... seven schools overall, in Canberra, London, Rio de Janeiro and Wellington, before eventually returning to Sydney, where he boarded at the upper-crust Anglican Shore School while his father served as High Commissioner in India." Here is the link, which is behind a paywall but accessible to people who do not frequently read online SMH articles. (I do not plan to edit the article myself, because I am a lawyer and have always avoided editing articles about the law or lawyers.) Bahnfrend (talk) 13:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Culled

So, I went in and consolidated/summarised a lot of the stuff. And i removed the daily running sheet style of "On X June, this publication reported that this person said that person should do this, or that this should happen". Total cull to about 25% of what it was. It still has its own section (which is appropriate) but it's about 8% of total article length. It will inevitably be added to as the issue plays out over the following months. I don't suggest it's perfect...needs some refinement but it's a start. Sometimes it's better to just get in and have a go, rather than slapping on an ugly tag (remember, main space is for readers, not editors), and creating a talk page section so long that is an "undue weight" problem itself. --Merbabu (talk) 09:24, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Merbabu. You have performed a consolidation that was going to be needed and had only just become feasible.
As to WP:NOTNEWS, however, please bear in mind that very frequent updating was the only way to create that material. If it had not been put into the article right away, where could it have been stored? For example, today the Cth A-G is opening an inquiry into sexual harassment by Heydon while chairing the Commssion:  Smee, Ben (28 June 2020). "Dyson Heydon sexual harassment allegations to be investigated by attorney general". The Guardian. Retrieved 28 June 2020.. Should that go into the article? I guess: not yet. I mention it here so that it can be remembered.
The issue was obviously important—indeed, the biggest scandal ever to hit the High Court (and there have been few others of any note). Nevertheless, the course of events was entirely unpredictable: what more would come out about Heydon, or about inaction or even coverup by any other judge? This was also becoming a #MeToo moment about sexual harassment endemic in the legal professsion—but there was no way to immediately sift what was directly about Heydon from what was collateral to him.
This affair will surely run for some time. I am thinking of creating an update store on this page, though some may object that that is not what Talk is for. To any who may so object: please suggest where else new material for potential inclusion might be stored. Errantius (talk) 10:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merbabu, I don't understand your objection to using a tag and the talk section. That's what they are for. I think regarding investigations, if there are significant findings, these will be reported. I don't think this is the biggest scandal to hit the High Court. That would probably have been the Lionel Murphy affair. I don't think we should get this out of proportion.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike the Murphy scandal (which was indeed serious although nothing against him was sustained), there is no precedent like the Chief Justice stating that the High Court is "ashamed", and the Heydon affair broadly affects the Australian judiciary and legal profession.
Regarding a #MeToo moment, for the record here is more:
Elizabeth Lee was mentioned in the article but was culled without explanation. I think she should be there. My only concern is that the experience she had — while relevant to the topic — might not have constituted sexual harassment, in that it was an incident at a social function. I think the media is going into overdrive on this issue. For example, this article which details an inconsequential anecdote about Heydon. With regard to the general issues with the legal profession, I think that belongs in a different article.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have separated and expanded the material in the former paragraph on Heydon's "legal scholarship"—quoting from his most recent book some self-assessing material that marks a "black letter" perspective. However, I am concerned that this may not be representative of deeper thinking that may be evident elsewhere, not only in the early book on restraint of trade (going by the publisher's description) but also particularly in journal articles. Heydon's fields of legal research and my own appear to have nothing in common, so I am not able to pursue this concern myself—that is, to find what others in those fields have said about his work. I think it would be very useful to be able to indicate from sources the perspectival relationship between his publications and his judgements. Just calling him "black letter" or "conservative" as to either would seem plainly insufficient. Errantius (talk) 12:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since writing that, I have noticed that WWGB removed the quotation, with the comment "bizarre quote, why are we publishing a sales pitch for Heydon's book?" I have now restored the quotation, since, if what it says is representative of Heydon's perspective, it demonstrates that he has a perspective that is remarkably limited. To many if not most legal academics, I think, as a sales pitch this passage would be disastrous. Errantius (talk) 12:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And I have removed it again. The book preface is a primary source, written by the subject of the article, and does not meet a standard of reliability. It is up to others to determine "Heydon's perspective". WWGB (talk) 12:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you have not removed it, but have tagged it as excessively long. I think it is plainly there not for any value of his own opinion of his work but as evidence of his perspective, supporting the characterisation that precedes it—and evidence of his perspective is important for reasons I have discussed above. Maybe alternative evidence of his perspective can be found, as I have suggested above. Let's see what others think. Errantius (talk) 15:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did remove it (twice [1][2]) but you restored it each time [3][4]. I refuse to edit war with you. You should observe WP:STATUSQUO and omit the disputed content until the matter is resolved. I await the opinion of others. WWGB (talk) 01:14, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that quotation reveals anything much. More revealing is his comment about the giant rat of Sumatra.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have just removed a long quote, then realised it might be the one this section is talking about. It was more than half of the total section, and nearly all the references in that section are self-references by the subject of this page. --Scott Davis Talk 03:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was a good removal. I also don't understand the point of this statement: "These are mainly doctrinal treatises, designed principally to assist practitioners in their advice and pleadings". Yes, they are law books...So?--Jack Upland (talk) 04:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They are a specific kind of law book, intricately detailed but limited in scope—as the now deleted quotation from Heydon on Contract illustrated. The point of the comment is to note Heydon's conservatism in scholarship. Errantius (talk) 04:49, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How limited in scope?--Jack Upland (talk) 05:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As stated in that quotation. Errantius (talk) 07:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't get it. Heydon on Contract has more than 1000 pages. It is more comprehensive than Carter's Contract Law in Australia. Yes, it is practical, but so are most standard law books. So what? Is the point that they are not works of philosophy?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understood that the sentence is supported by the quote which came from the foreword to the book, which is why I left the reference after that sentence. Ideally, it would have a page number annotation to help find the source that supports that sentence. I understand the sentence says the books are of the "How to..." variety rather than discussing why or when it is appropriate to use particular techniques (like a Java language manual, not an algorithms textbook). If this is not the intent, it needs to be removed or rephrased. --Scott Davis Talk 08:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They are not about "techniques".--Jack Upland (talk) 09:35, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Quite: they are not about "techniques" but about information, as I have added. I've restored a little of the deleted long quotation and hope that the matter of classification (not evaluation) is clear enough now. I could have added an objection to his claim (not included) that Heydon on Contract can be of use to students and teachers, implying that it might be set as a textbook—but an LLB contract course these days covers most if not all of the things he says he is leaving out, and also these books retail at about double the price of a textbook. Errantius (talk) 10:36, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I studied a contract course recently, and Heydon on Contract could have been used except it is too long, too detailed, and way too expensive. I think it might be better to have a list of his publications, rather than a selective quotation.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A list will tell nothing about the deliberately limited kind of book that Heydon writes, which is the point I'm trying to make. I have studied and taught law at LLB level and above for many years and hope that your contract textbook was more reflective than Heydon's book. Errantius (talk) 12:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, it wasn't. Have you read Heydon's book??? I think Heydon can be "reflective" (jurisprudential?), for example Heydon: Selected Speeches and Papers which deal with topics such as Radhabinod Pal's participation in the Tokyo Trials. Your comment is just one person's comment buttressed by the selective quoting of Heydon on one of his books.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Women on the High Court

There was some disapproval of the appointment, however, as Heydon replaced the only female justice at the time, Mary Gaudron. The court was then all-male (for the first time since 1987) until the appointment of Susan Crennan in November 2005.

I don't think this is really about Heydon. Gaudron was the first woman on the High Court. When she retired, there was a gap of less than three years when there were no women on the court. Now there are three women on the court, including the Chief Justice. John Howard appointed four men to the court before appointing two women. There is no logical reason why Gaudron needed to be replaced by a woman, or why the appointment of Heydon represented a decisive step against female appointments. In fact, there has been a fairly steady increase in women judges on the court. None before 1987. 1 in 1987. 2 in 2007. 3 now. Sure, you can say that appointment of women came too slow, but that's really nothing to do with Heydon.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:04, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was disapproval of Heydon's appointment for that reason: that is a significant fact about Heydon; and it requires a brief comment on context. Errantius (talk) 10:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The source only says, "Justice Heydon's 2003 appointment to fill the High Court vacancy left by the only female justice, Mary Gaudron, was not without controversy. Not only did his gender see a return to an all-male court, his conservative judicial philosophy was also seen as one which opposed judicial activism." I have amended the text to reflect the source.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:12, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For consideration...

I'm thinking the sexual harassment section should go into the "Judicial career" section. That's when it happened. It was part of his judicial career, not post. Until now when I've just moved it provisionally into its own section, it's been in the "post judicial" career section. Thoughts? --Merbabu (talk) 09:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think a separate section is best. There have been allegations relating to his time with the Royal Commission and since. In any case, the issue has only arisen recently and any consequences will be in the future, not during his judicial career.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:34, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Convictions after Royal Commission

The reason that I removed this (after putting it in) is that it relates to the amount of convictions (one) in March 2016, but this is only a few months after the final report of the Royal Commission. I'm sure there are more recent accounts.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That was quite busy in just three months, perhaps significant in itself. Glad you agree it should remain. Anyone can see that additional info should be sought. Errantius (talk) 01:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that it should remain.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dyson_Heydon&oldid=965726109"