Contents
Foreword 4
Preface 10
Introduction 18
1788 – 1859
Origins 28
1859 – 1879
Foundation Justice Lutwyche and Chief Justice Cockle 68
1879 – 1903
Maturity Chief Justice Lilley and Chief Justice Griffith 108
1903 – 1922
Turmoil Chief Justice Cooper 126
1922 – 1955
Amalgamation Chief Justice McCawley to Chief Justice NW Macrossan 152
1955 – 1989
Regeneration Chief Justice Mansfield to Chief Justice Andrews 188
1989 – 2012
Modernization Chief Justice JM Macrossan to Chief Justice de Jersey 208
Biographies of the Judges 250
Bibliography 286
Index 290
1788– 1859
Origins
On 10 December 1859, a new British colony
was established in Queensland as a free
and self-governing community, with its
own Parliament and Supreme Court. The
Supreme Court was intended to provide the
new colony with an independent, qualified
and responsible judiciary.
Opposite page: Queensland in 1859 was
a vast area of land with a tiny population.
The map shows the principal centres and
the extent of the first colonial settlement
north of the New South Wales border.
For a frontier community of only about 25,000 colonists, this long-anticipated event
was marked with days of celebration. It was the culmination of a period of a dramatic
transformation of their society and its system of justice, from their origins only
71 years before in a single convict outpost under military control in the British colony
of New South Wales.
The boundaries of this original colony had been broadly cast to embrace the whole
eastern half of the Australian continent, but the initial settlement was a modest
undertaking. In 1788, the First Fleet of 11 vessels brought a colony of only about 730
male and female convicts and their children, and about 300 marines, officials and their
families, to a single coastal settlement at Sydney. The colony was under the command of
Governor Arthur Phillip of the Royal Navy, who was given powers of an extensive and
almost autocratic character. The First Fleet arrived without any qualified lawyers. All
judicial power was vested in the governor personally, or in military officers or civilian
officials who were answerable to him. In theory, the colony of New South Wales was a
‘settled’ colony which was subject to the applicable laws of England. In practice, in this
remote settlement which was at least six months sailing time from Britain, the decisions
of these unqualified officials were final.
The court system which was devised to suit the circumstances of this small and precarious
penal colony was based on three principal courts. The most important was the Court of
Criminal Jurisdiction, which was established by the First Charter of Justice under the New
South Wales Courts Act 1787 (Imp). This court bore little resemblance to the model of an
English criminal court. For a convict outpost under military command , a military solution
was developed. This approach centred on the role of a judge-advocate, an official who was not
required to have legal qualifications. He was to be a military or civilian official who could
serve in a dual role, as both prosecutor and presiding member of the court. The judge-advocate
29
Supreme Court of Queensland: A Concise History
was required to sit with six military officers appointed by the
governor. This court of seven was given power to determine guilt and
to pass sentence by majority of its members. Given the wide range of
offences that were subject to capital punishment at this time – and
the absence of any practical avenue for appeal – it was a role of grave
responsibility. The powers of the court were kept in check only by the
prerogative of mercy which was exercisable by the governor.
The first official to act in the key role of judge-advocate was
Captain David Collins of the Royal Marines. Within days of
landing at Sydney on 11 February 1788, Collins convened this
court for the first time, convicting and sentencing three convicts
to corporal punishment for acts of theft and assault. Within the
month, on 27 February 1788, the court passed its first capital
sentence. The convict Thomas Barrett became the first person to
be executed in New South Wales, after being convicted of the
theft of food from the settlement’s meagre supplies. This was the
first of many executions to follow.
A Court of Civil Jurisdiction was also created by the First
Charter of Justice with jurisdiction to hear a range of common law
actions, including claims to enforce rights of property, contract,
tort and debt. It was also vested with the jurisdiction of an English
ecclesiastical court to deal with probate and intestacy matters.
The court was to be constituted by the judge-advocate and two ‘fit
and proper persons’ appointed by the governor. It was empowered
to pronounce judgment on a majority basis, but all judgments
were subject to appeal, in the first instance, to the governor. In
cases involving £300 or more, a further appeal could be brought
before an appeal committee of the Privy Council in London. The
very first case which was heard by the Court of Civil Jurisdiction
was brought by two convicts, Henry and Susannah Cable against
Sinclair, the Master of one of the ships of the First Fleet. In Cable
v Sinclair [1788] NSWSupC 7, the convict couple claimed that
their cargo of goods had been lost by the default of the ship’s
master. The goods had been purchased in England from the
proceeds of a public subscription organised by Lady Cadogan, but
on arrival in Sydney, the master was unable either to return them
or satisfactorily explain their loss. Perhaps to the master’s surprise,
the convict claimants were successful, being awarded damages in
the full amount of their claim: £20.
Provision was also made for the appointment of justices of the
peace. Under the First Charter of Justice, they were authorised to
exercise powers similar to their English counterparts, including
the power to deal summarily with minor criminal charges in courts
of petty sessions. Before 1814, these courts also dealt with minor
civil matters. Initially, the justices were either officials who held
some other position in the colony (including the judge-advocate)
or were leading colonists who served on a voluntary basis. From
1811, however, a series of police magistrates were appointed to
provide a new group of officials who could take responsibility for
the administration and convening of these courts.
30
Origins
First Supreme Court of NSW
By 1814, the colony was no longer a mere penal outpost. The
population had increased to about 12,000; serving convicts were
now in the minority. Exploration of the coasts, and beyond, had
allowed pastoral, agricultural and mining operations to begin in
the districts around Sydney. These enterprises were largely
undertaken by private interests, including colonial officials,
military officers, former convicts (known as emancipists), and free
settlers who were beginning to be attracted to the colony.
Little had changed, however, of the original system of colonial
justice. For a short period (1798–1800), the colony obtained the
services of its first qualified lawyer, the attorney, Richard Dore,
who held the position of deputy judge-advocate. But when he
died in 1800, the colony was again left without a qualified lawyer.
With an annual salary of only £350 to offer, the best candidate
that Governor King could find to replace Dore was Richard
Atkins, a former military officer later described by Governor
Bligh as ‘a disgrace to human jurisprudence’, yet the court system
of New South Wales was entrusted to Atkins for much of the
period from 1800 to 1809. The absence of lawyers in the colony
also frustrated the growing number of free colonists who required
legal assistance. They had little choice but to consult a group of
‘convict attorneys’ – solicitors who had been struck off the rolls in
Britain and transported as convicts.
It was only after the outbreak of military rebellion against
Governor Bligh in January 1808 that the British authorities took
seriously the calls for reform of the colonial court system. On
22 May 1809, they dispatched to New South Wales not only a
new governor, Lachlan Macquarie, but also a barrister, Ellis Bent,
to take over the position of deputy judge-advocate from Atkins.
Bent had been educated at Peterhouse, Cambridge (1804), and
called to the Bar by Lincoln’s Inn (1805). Bent’s appointment
proved to be instrumental in the future development of the court
system. Within the colony, his personal integrity and legal acumen
brought about a profound improvement in the professionalism
and authority of the local courts. He also sought to give effect to
the principle of judicial independence by declining to be subject
to the governor’s direction. More significantly, Bent provided
clear and compelling advice to London about the need to reform
the existing court system to meet the evolving needs of the colony.
In 1814, the British government took the next step to reform
the colonial court system by replacing the original Court of Civil
Jurisdiction with a new system of civil courts under the Second
Charter of Justice. The Supreme Court of New South Wales was
established to provide a more suitable court to deal with substantial
civil matters, whether at common law or in equity. This court
was to be constituted by a bench of three, comprising a judge (to
be appointed by the Crown at a salary of £800) and two justices
appointed by the governor. All members of the court remained
subject to removal at will. In matters involving £300 or more, a
right of appeal to the governor was available. In matters involving
£3,000 or more, a further right of appeal to the Privy Council in
London could be pursued. To deal with minor civil matters, the
Second Charter of Justice established the Governor’s Court. It was
given a limited common law jurisdiction in matters up to £50. It
was also to be constituted by a bench of three, comprising the
judge-advocate and two ‘fit and proper persons’ appointed by the
governor. To provide the beginnings of a viable legal profession in
the colony, the British government also offered a retainer of £300
per annum to two English attorneys willing to commence practice
in New South Wales. William Henry Moore and Frederick
Garling took up this offer and arrived in the colony in 1815.
The first judge appointed to the Supreme Court was Jeffrey
Bent, Ellis Bent’ older brother. Justice Bent was also a Cambridge
graduate (Trinity College, 1804) and had been called to the Bar
by the Middle Temple (1806). It seemed a coup for the infant
colony to obtain a judge with these attainments. However, it soon
emerged that Bent was not temperamentally suited to the
demands of colonial society. After 18 months of bickering and
inaction between July 1814 and January 1816, he was removed
from office by the Crown. His replacement was Justice Barron
Field, but he too proved to be unsuited to the post, resigning his
position after seven turbulent years (1816–1824).
During this period, the criminal courts continued to be
dominated by the military, to the increasing disquiet of members
of the emerging free society. In 1819, the colonists’ demands for
the introduction of a right to trial by jury became one of the key
issues considered by a royal commission into the conditions of the
colony which was established by the British under Commissioner
John Bigge. He was an experienced colonial judge who had been
called to the bar by the Inner Temple (1806) and had served as
Chief Justice of Trinidad (1813–17). In three extensive reports
released in 1822 and 1823, Bigge analysed the nature of the
convict and court systems in New South Wales and suggested a
number of reforms. Bigge declined, however, to support the
immediate introduction of trial by jury.
Reform
The reforms to the court system which were ultimately adopted
by the British government were shaped not only by Bigge’s reports
but also by the ideas and experience of Francis Forbes. Forbes had
been called to the Bar by Lincoln’s Inn (1812) and had served as
Chief Justice of Newfoundland (1816–1823). During his time in
Newfoundland, he experienced at first hand the challenges of
seeking to administer justice independently in a society dominated
by an autocratic governor (Sir Charles Hamilton). In 1822, while
taking leave in London, Forbes was approached about a possible
position as Chief Justice of New South Wales and was invited to
assist the Colonial Office in drafting suitable legislation to reform
the constitution of the colony.
The result of these efforts was the New South Wales Act 1823
(Imp). This important legislation, enacted on 19 July 1823, sought
to adopt a new legislative and judicial structure which was better
suited to the emerging free society of New South Wales. It
established the colony’s first legislative body, the Legislative
Council, constituted by the Governor and a small group of citizens
appointed by the Crown. The Act also provided for a new
Supreme Court of New South Wales to replace both the Court of
Criminal Jurisdiction and the original Supreme Court. The
creation of this new court, and the appointment of Francis Forbes
as its first Chief Justice, was effected by the Third Charter of Justice
of 13 October 1823.
Under these instruments, the new Supreme Court began to
acquire some of the key features of the English judicial model.
The court’s jurisdiction was extensive, combining in a single court
the bulk of the jurisdiction of the common law, chancery and
ecclesiastical courts of England, but excluding jurisdiction over
matrimonial causes. The judges of the court were to be independent
judicial officers, with the prosecutorial role to be performed by the
attorney-general or other similar officer of the Crown. The judges
were also required to have appropriate legal qualifications and
experience as barristers of England or Ireland of not less than five
years standing.
In many respects, however, the new Supreme Court remained
shackled to the principles on which the original court system was
based. The judges were still to be appointed by the British Crown
and could be dismissed at the Crown’s pleasure. In criminal
matters, questions of fact were to be determined by a military jury
of seven, although the jurors were now subject to challenge on the
ground of direct interest or affection. In civil matters at common
law, questions of fact were to be determined by the judge sitting
with two justices as assessors; the assessors were also subject to
challenge on the ground of direct interest or affection. A right of
appeal from the court in civil matters concerning more than £500
continued to lie in the first instance to the governor and then (in
matters concerning more than £2,000) to the Privy Council.
As part of this package of reforms, the governor was also
authorised to establish new courts of limited jurisdiction. In the
court of requests, for instance, a commissioner could deal with
civil claims up to £10; the courts of quarter sessions justices,
sometimes sitting with a military or civil jury, could deal with a
range of serious criminal matters.
The role of the military in the court system was phased out
shortly afterwards. This process began with the Australian Courts
Act 1828 (Imp), which abolished the right of appeal from the
Supreme Court to the governor. By a series of further measures,
the role of military juries in criminal trials (1840) and the role of
31
Supreme Court of Queensland: A Concise History
There was also the problem of bushrangers. This crime
flourished at a time when mail-coaches and troopers were obliged
to travel on remote roads to deliver gold and other valuables
between settlements. Despite the obvious difficulties in
apprehending these offenders, two notable cases came before the
court which attracted particular public attention. They concerned
defendants at rather different ends of colonial society, James
McPherson (‘the Wild Scotchman’) and Thomas Griffin, the Gold
Commissioner for Rockhampton and a former police magistrate.
McPherson had arrived in Brisbane as a 13-year-old in 1855.
After a number of brushes with the law, he began robbing mailcoaches in central Queensland, acquiring notoriety for his polite
inquiries at gunpoint as to whether ‘there is a letter in that bag for
the Wild Scotchman’. McPherson was eventually captured in
1866, and tried on two charges of aggravated robbery before
Cockle CJ at Maryborough on 13 September 1866. McPherson,
who represented himself, was convicted and sentenced to 25 years
imprisonment. After serving nine years at St Helena Island in
Moreton Bay, however, he was released.
Griffin’s case was rather different. In November 1867, Griffin
in his capacity as Gold Commissioner had caused £4,000 in bank
notes to be entrusted to two troopers for transport from
Rockhampton to Clermont. During the journey, they were both
robbed and killed. Griffin, who was assisting with the investigation,
Below: The Supreme Court of Queensland,
North Quay, seen from across the Brisbane
River circa 1880. John Oxley Library collection.
32
Fo u n d a t i o n
came under suspicion when bank notes began to be traced to him.
The circumstantial case against Griffin was established by a
complex web of evidence over a six-day trial before Lutwyche J,
from 18 March 1868. The prosecution was conducted by Pring
QC and Lilley QC, with Griffin represented by McDevitt, Hely
and the newly admitted Samuel Griffith. Griffin was convicted
and sentenced to death. A question that had been reserved by
Justice Lutwyche, about the admissibility of evidence concerning
Griffin’s possession of stolen notes, was referred to the Full Court
but resolved adversely to him on 12 May 1868. Three weeks later,
on 1 June 1868, Griffin was executed. At the time of his execution,
Griffin’s protests of innocence gave rise to some concern in the
press that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred. Shortly
afterwards, however, these concerns were allayed. It emerged that
Griffin had attempted to bribe his gaolers with promises of the
stolen monies, with Griffin’s description of their location allowing
them to be recovered.
It was not until the mid-1870s that the need for a new building
for the Supreme and District Courts became acute. By this time,
Parliament was told, ‘it had become almost impossible to conduct
the ordinary business of the Court in the present building. The
traffic on the street created such a great noise that it was impossible
sometimes to hear either the witnesses giving their evidence or
the counsel or Judge addressing the jury.’
The position was even worse for the new District Court
judge based in Brisbane. The Police Court at Gaol Hill, which
had housed the Female Factory during the convict era, had
been converted for use by the District Court. To accommodate
the new judge, the strong cell of the watch house had to be
converted for use as judge’s chambers. This court was described
at the time as a ‘disgrace to the city … It is daily becoming
more dilapidated, and presents an extremely mean and povertystricken appearance.’
With the population and economy of Queensland steadily
growing, the need for new accommodation for the courts could no
longer be ignored. At the time of separation, the site currently
occupied by the City Hall had been reserved for the new
courthouse. The first Colonial Architect, Charles Tiffin, had
prepared ‘dignified and imposing’ plans for this site. However, this
expensive proposal was not pursued.
By 1874, a more modest proposal was favoured. The site of
the original convict hospital in George Street had become
available for redevelopment, because of the relocation of the
Brisbane Hospital to Herston (1867). The task of designing a
courthouse for this site was entrusted to Tiffin’s successor,
FDG Stanley, who designed a building with three arcaded
wings in the shape of a T, which radiated from a central tower.
This design would maximise the natural light and ventilation
available to each of the courtrooms and offices, and would use
arcades and balconies to moderate the temperature of the
principal rooms. These were important considerations in
Queensland, at a time before electricity was available for
lighting or air-conditioning. The design was well received at
the time, but could not proceed to be constructed in stone
because of the cost. With some modification, John Petrie was
awarded the contract to construct the building in rendered
brick for about £33,000.
The gabled tower contained the building’s internal focal
point – a central hall (‘the Judges’ Hall’) whose ceiling stood
17 metres above ground level, with a principal staircase that
gave access to the upper levels of the building. Corridors
radiated from the central hall to each of the three wings of the
building. On the ground floor, these corridors led to the offices
used by court officials – the registrar, sheriff and bailiffs the
offices used by the Crown – attorney-general, Crown prosecutor
and Crown solicitor – and the six sets of chambers provided for
the judges. The building’s main entrance was through the
northern corridor, past the District Court judge’s chambers and
offices of the sheriff and bailiffs. A separate public entrance led
to a narrow staircase, leading up two levels to a corridor at the
top of the building, which gave access to public galleries
overlooking each of the three courtrooms.
FDG Stanley designed a building with three arcaded
wings in the shape of a T, which radiated from a
central tower. This design maximised the natural light
and ventilation available to each of the courtrooms and
offices, and used arcades and balconies to moderate the
temperature of the principal rooms.
33
Supreme Court of Queensland: A Concise History
Regeneration
Fire at the Supreme Court
Commencing at about 3.30 am on Sunday, 1 September 1968, a
fire gutted a substantial part of the Supreme Court building. The
inferno was lit by David Brooks, a 30-year-old unemployed
alcoholic. Earlier in the evening, Brooks had fallen asleep in
a public toilet at the western end of George Street. At about
3.00 am, he was woken by a police officer and sent on his way
home along George Street. As he came to the Supreme Court, he
entered through the unlocked main gate. When he tried the front
door of the building, it was unlocked, left that way by the court’s
nightwatchman, Mr Tesch. Every two hours, Tesch would do a
circuit within the Supreme Court – then leave the court for about
45 minutes to do the rounds of the court grounds and surrounding
buildings. Unfortunately, when leaving the Supreme Court, it was
his practice to leave the front door unlocked.
While Tesch was on his external rounds, Brooks entered the
court building. Fortunately, no-one else was still there. Four law
students had been studying in the judges’ chambers earlier in the
day, but the last of them had left by 1.00 am. Brooks found his
way to the bathroom outside the chief justice’s chambers, where
he picked up a knife, walked up through the judges’ private
staircase to the upper floor of the building, and set fire to papers
in the cleaners’ room outside the Criminal Court. He then drove
the knife into the associate’s desk in the principal Civil Court,
affixing a note with his own version of a Biblical message – ‘Judge
not lest you be judged, sinner.’
Brooks left the building and set fire to the Commercial Rowing
Club’s boathouse on North Quay. After pausing to read a Bible he
had taken from the court, he caught a taxi home to his parent’s
caravan at Holland Park.
It is not clear why Brooks lit the fires. He told his sister, three
days later, that it was his brother Gilbert who had been with him
and had lit the fire. This troubled her because Gilbert had died
in a fire and been buried exactly six years before, on 1 September
1962. Shortly after he spoke to his sister, when arrested for
drunkenness, Brooks boasted to the police that he had been
responsible for the fire and that he had ‘got square on you blokes’.
His grievance was not with the court. As Brooks explained to the
police, he simply ‘wanted to do to something big and wrong and
after getting chased out of the toilet I saw the Supreme Court and
I decided it was a big enough place to burn down’.
The damage to the western wing and Judges’ Hall had been
severe. The roof and the floor of the Criminal Court had both
fallen to the ground, destroying the judges’ chambers underneath.
Water damage to the paintings and the libraries in the building
was also serious. Matters could have been worse. As Mr Justice
WB Campbell, Mr Justice JA Douglas and Mr Justice Wanstall
were inspecting the damage to the judges’ chambers the next
morning, further parts of the building crashed down in their wake.
34
Above: The arsonist’s note was fixed to the
table with a knife.
Top: The building’s roof collapsed, exposing
the rooms to the elements.
Opposite page: The caretaker did not notice
the fire until the building was well ablaze.
By 3.58 am, the fire brigade had been called
by others and four engines proceeded to
douse the fire with water. It took some
hours to extinguish it.
35
Supreme Court of Queensland: A Concise History
New Brisbane Courts
As the full impact of the changes in the court’s modern role and
practice became apparent, so too did the shortcomings of the
existing Brisbane courthouse. As with FDG Stanley’s courthouse
of 1879, the growing demands on the court, the increasing number
of judges and the development of new technology had outstripped
the capacity of the 1981 Brisbane courthouse to cope.
In June 2006, approval was given to begin the planning phase
for a new Brisbane court complex to accommodate both the
Supreme and District Courts on a site adjacent to the new
Magistrates Court complex at the western end of George Street.
In June 2007, a design competition for the new complex was won
by Architectus Guymer Bailey, with John Hockings as the design
director. The plans contemplated a 19-level building to be
constructed at a cost of approximately $600 million.
The concept was prepared with both symbolic and practical
considerations in mind. The site for the courthouse lies on an axis
created by George Street, with the executive (the Executive
Building) centrally positioned between the legislature to the east
(Parliament House) and the judiciary to the west (Supreme,
District and Magistrates courthouses).
‘Our design aspirations have been to create an
architecture which reflects the values of an open,
transparent and accessible justice system, and which
possesses a dignity and a sense of permanence which
reflects the seriousness of the institution being housed.
We also consider that the architecture should
unmistakeably echo the sentiments of equality and
should, in combination with the civic square, be clearly
legible as a place that belongs to the people, the city
and the State.’
The practical advances in its construction are substantial. One
of the central features is the creation of separation circulation
systems, designed to introduce an appropriate separation between
the judges, the jurors, persons in custody, vulnerable witnesses
and the rest of the public (including the legal profession, parties
and witnesses).
All of the judges are now accommodated in two groups of
chambers (a double floor for the Supreme Court and a double
floor for the District Court) on the upper four levels of the
building (levels 13 to 16). A separate system of lifts provides the
judges and their associates with separate access to the Supreme
Court Library (on levels 11 and 12) and the courtrooms on the
lower levels (levels 3 to 10).
Jurors are now housed in a separate area on level two. This
allows potential jurors to assemble separately from all others
involved in a trial, to receive standard briefings about the role and
duties of jurors, and then be transported by a separate system of
lifts to the various courtrooms. During short adjournments and
during their deliberations, the jurors retire to a private jury room
adjacent the court.
Persons in custody are accommodated in an extensive cell
complex in the basement of the building. This complex is designed
to facilitate confidential consultations with legal representatives.
It is also designed for persons with special needs, including
Indigenous prisoners whose anxiety may be reduced by the
presence of natural light. It is linked by a separate lift system (with
in-built separation between prisoner and prison officer) to holding
cells on each courtroom level, immediately adjacent to each of the
criminal courtrooms.
Vulnerable witnesses enter through a separate entrance and
elevator to a secure suite of rooms from which their evidence may
be given by video-link. These arrangements are designed to
minimise the additional trauma often involved in giving evidence,
by maintaining an appropriate separation from all others involved
in the case.
The individual courtooms have been designed to more than
adequately house the court for many years to come. The complex
was opened on Friday, 3 August 2012.
Left: The exterior of the Architectus Guymer
Bailey-designed court complex soars toward
the sky.
Opposite page: This is ‘smart’ architecture,
with a double-layered ventilating facade that
does so many different jobs at once, in order
to make the naturally day-lit court building
work functionally in terms of the strict
performance requirements of courtrooms:
layout and function, heat load, insulation,
lighting, acoustics, privacy, security, comfort,
safety, glare, fire safety and structure.
36
37
Supreme Court of Queensland: A Concise History
Biographies of the Judges
Alfred James Peter Lutwyche
Sir James Cockle
Sir Charles Lilley
Edmund Sheppard
George Rogers Harding
Ratcliffe Pring
Alfred James Peter Lutwyche was born on 26 February
1810 in London, England, the son of John Lutwyche,
leather trader, and his wife Jemima (née Holt). He
was educated at Charterhouse school in Surrey
(1824–28) and The Queen’s College, Oxford,
graduating Bachelor of Arts (1832), which he elected
to elevate to Master of Arts (1835). While reading
for admission to the bar in London, Lutwyche
practised as a special pleader, reported parliamentary
debates in the Morning Chronicle and wrote An
Inquiry into the Principles of Pleading the General Issue
(London, 1838).
On 8 May 1840, he was admitted as a barrister
of the Middle Temple, and then joined the Oxford
Circuit. He also worked as a law reporter for The
Times (1840-52), and published a two-volume set of
Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Court of
Common Pleas (London, 1847-54). In 1853, due to ill
health, he left for Sydney as a correspondent for the
Morning Chronicle. Lutwyche was admitted as a
barrister of the Supreme Court of New South Wales
in 1853. On 2 June 1855, he married Mary Ann Jane
Morris. There were no children. In 1856, Lutwyche
was appointed to the Legislative Council of New
South Wales, and to the office of solicitor-general
(1856, 1857–58). He was the vice president of the
Electoral Reform League in 1857, presenting a
petition containing 4000 signatures to the Legislative
Council seeking manhood suffrage and equal
electorates. In 1858, he was appointed to the rank of
Queen’s Counsel and became attorney-general for
New South Wales (1858-59).
On 21 February 1859, at the age of 48, Lutwyche
received a commission from the Governor of New
South Wales appointing him a judge of the Supreme
Court at Moreton Bay. By reason of this appointment
Lutwyche became, upon Queensland’s separation
from New South Wales on 10 December 1859, the
only judge of the Supreme Court in the Colony of
Queensland. During his tenure on the court,
Lutwyche played a prominent role in establishing the
Brisbane diocese of the Anglican Church and in the
construction of St Andrew’s Church in the Brisbane
suburb of Lutwyche. He served as a judge of the
Supreme Court of Queensland until his death, at
age of 70, on 12 June 1880.
James Cockle was born on 14 January 1819 in
Great Oakley, Essex, to James Cockle, a medical
practitioner, and his wife Elizabeth (née Moss). He
studied at Stormond House, Kensington (1825–29)
and Charterhouse school, Surrey (1829–31), before
receiving private tuition from Reverend Christian
Lenny of St John’s College, Cambridge (1832–35).
He then entered Trinity College, Cambridge,
graduating Bachelor of Arts (1842), which he later
elected to elevate to Master of Arts (1845).
Cockle was admitted as a barrister of the Middle
Temple in London, on 6 November 1846, practising
initially as a special pleader and then on the Midland
Circuit from 1848. He married Adelaide Catherine
Wilkin on 22 August 1855. They had eight
daughters – Beatrice, Maud, Fredericka, Eliza, Jane,
Harriet, Belinda and Agatha – and one son, Maurice.
During his practice at the bar, Cockle maintained an
active interest in mathematics and science, being
elected a fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society
(1854) and a member of the Cambridge
Philosophical Society (1856).
On 23 February 1863, at age 44, Cockle was
appointed the first chief justice of Queensland.
During his tenure on the court, he was elected a
fellow of the Royal Society (1865) and knighted
(1869). He also served as president of the Queensland
Philosophical Society (1863–78), senior commissioner
of the Commission on the Consolidation of Statute
Law in Queensland (1866–67), a member of the
London Mathematical Society (1870), a corresponding
member of the Manchester Literary and Philosophical
Society (1870), the people’s warden at St Andrew’s
Anglican Church, Lutwyche (1873–75), chairman of
the trustees of Brisbane Grammar School (1874–77)
and an honorary member of the Royal Society of
New South Wales (1876).
Cockle returned to England on leave in 1878
and resigned from judicial office at the age of 60, on
18 June 1879. After his retirement, Cockle served
as commissioner of the Queensland Section of the
Colonial and Indian Exhibition, London (1886),
president of the London Mathematical Society
(1886–88), and was elected a councillor of the Royal
Astronomical Society (1888–92). Cockle died in
London on 27 January 1895.
Charles Lilley was born on 27 August 1827 at
Newcastle-upon-Tyne in Northumberland, England,
to Thomas Lilley, shoemaker, and his wife Jane (née
Shipley). Having been orphaned at an early age,
Lilley was educated at St Nicholas Parish School. In
1849, he began articles of clerkship with a Newcastle
solicitor, working in his London office and studying
at University College, London. In 1851, however, he
left to serve as a private in the 1st Royal Dragoons
(1851-54). Lilley migrated to Sydney in 1856, and
moved immediately to Moreton Bay where he
undertook a further period of articles to the crown
solicitor, Robert Little. He married Sarah Jane Jeays
on 10 April 1858. They had five daughters – Annie,
Ethel, Gertrude, Sibyl and Grace – and eight sons –
Edwyn, Charles, Walter, Harold, Arthur, Alfred,
Bertram and Wilfred.
On 14 August 1858, Lilley became the first
solicitor to be admitted to practice by the Supreme
Court at Moreton Bay. In 1860, he was elected to
Queensland’s first Legislative Assembly as the
member for Fortitude Valley. Lilley continued to
serve in parliament for the next 14 years, with several
periods as attorney-general (1865-69), and as premier
(1868-1870). Having been admitted as a barrister of
the Supreme Court of Queensland on 22 November
1861, he also practiced at the bar from chambers in
Brisbane, becoming the colony’s first Queen’s
Counsel on 27 December 1865.
On 16 February 1874, Lilley was appointed an
acting judge of the Supreme Court of Queensland,
receiving a permanent appointment on 4 July 1874.
He was a member of the Civil Procedure Reform
Commission in 1875, which recommended the
adoption in Queensland of the English Judicature
Acts. After the resignation of Cockle Chief Justice,
he was appointed second chief justice of Queensland
on 24 June 1879. He was knighted in 1881. Outside
the law, Lilley was a significant figure in the history
of education in Queensland. He was a founding
trustee of Brisbane Grammar School in 1869.
During his premiership in 1870, he abolished fees
in government schools. He served as chairman of
the Royal Commission on the Working of the
Educational Institutions of the Colony (1874–75)
and as chairman of a Royal Commission on the
Establishment of a University of Queensland (1891).
After being reversed by the Full Court in the
controversial case of Queensland Investment and Land
Mortgage Company Limited v Grimley (1892) 4 QLJ
Supp 1, Lilley resigned from the court on 13 February
1893 at age 65. He died on 20 August 1897.
Edmund Sheppard was born on 1 November 1826
at Taunton, Somerset, England, son of Samuel
Sheppard (jeweller) and his wife, Harriett Deane
(née Allen). He was educated in Taunton and
London, before being admitted as a barrister of the
Inner Temple in London (1857). Upon emigrating to
Sydney, he was admitted as a barrister of the Supreme
Court of New South Wales (1858) and commenced
practice as the private bar, serving for a period as an
acting judge of the District Court. He married Mary
Grace Murray on 17 July 1860. They had five sons –
Edmund, William, Arthur, Alfred and Herbert. Mary
Grace died in 1869, and Sheppard married Adela
Letitia Georgiana Murray on 20 December 1871.
Sheppard was chosen for appointment as one of
the three inaugural judges of the District Court of
Queensland. He was admitted as a barrister of the
Supreme Court of Queensland (1865), and appointed
to serve in the Metropolitan District of the District
Court (based in Brisbane) from 1 December 1865.
In 1873, during the illness of Justice Lutwyche,
Sheppard was given a commission appointing him an
acting judge of the Supreme Court ‘until the return
of Mr Justice Lutwyche, or the appointment of his
successor’. Whilst Chief Justice Cockle held this
form of appointment to be valid in a contested
hearing on 12 March 1873, Sheppard resigned this
commission the next day.
On 17 July 1874, Sheppard was appointed to
the Supreme Court of Queensland as the inaugural
Northern Judge, based in Bowen. On 13 July 1880,
he applied to the Full Court to be recognized as the
senior puisne judge, with an entitlement to return to
Brisbane. This application was unsuccessful. By early
1882, however, continuing ill health caused Sheppard
to obtain a year’s leave of absence. He died in London,
at age 56, on 22 December 1882.
George Rogers Harding was born on 3 December
1838 at Taunton, Somerset, England, to the
Reverend George Rogers Harding and his wife,
Elizabeth (née Winter). In 1856, he commenced
studies at Magdalene College, Cambridge, but left
before taking a degree. In 1858, he commenced
reading for the bar, writing his first book A Handy
Book of Ecclesiastical Law (London, 1860).
On 30 April 1861, Harding was admitted as
a barrister of Lincoln’s Inn, London. He married
Emily Morris on 7 May 1861. Their marriage
produced 15 children, including eight surviving
daughters – Emily, Frances, Rose, Ada, Josephine,
Gwendoline, Lucy and Maud – and four surviving
sons – George, Walter, Francis and William. In
1866, George and Elizabeth Harding followed the
family of her brother-in-law, the solicitor Eyles
Browne, in emigrating to Brisbane. Harding was
admitted as a barrister of the Supreme Court of
Queensland on 31 October 1866 and began practice
in Brisbane with a specialty in equity. Harding and
Browne both served as commissioners of the Civil
Procedure Reform Commission (1875-76), which
recommended the adoption of the English Judicature
Act reforms in Queensland.
On 15 July 1879, at the age of 40, Harding
commenced his tenure as a judge of the Supreme
Court. He became senior puisne judge shortly
afterwards, on 14 July 1879, upon the death of
Lutwyche J. He served as chairman of the Supreme
Court library committee (1887–89, 1891–95), and is
credited with converting the small collection of law
books housed at the Supreme Court into a large and
important library. During his judicial career, Harding
also published six works containing annotated
versions of key Queensland statutes. After the death
of Elizabeth Harding, he married Isabella Grahame
on 23 December 1889. Harding died in office, at the
Supreme Courthouse at Brisbane, on 31 August 1895.
Ratcliffe Pring was born on 17 October 1825 at
Crediton, Devon, England, to Thomas Pring, solicitor,
and his wife Anne (née Dunne). He attended King
Edward VI Grammar School and Shrewsbury School.
He studied law, and worked for one year in his father’s
firm, for two years with a conveyancer, and two years
with a special pleader in London.
In 1849, Pring was admitted as a barrister of
the Inner Temple in London. The following year he
married Frances Pye. There were no children. He
practised at the Quarter Sessions at Exeter, until ill
health caused him to migrate to Sydney in 1853.
After some years in practice as a barrister in Sydney,
including on the circuit to Moreton Bay, Pring
was appointed the first crown prosecutor for the
Supreme Court at Moreton Bay in 1857 and moved
to Brisbane. Upon Queensland’s separation, Pring
became the colony’s first attorney-general (1859)
and the first barrister on the Supreme Court roll
(1860). Pring was elected to Queensland’s first
Legislative Assembly (1860) and went on to
represent a number of different electorates over
the course of the next 20 years, serving as attorneygeneral under a number of different administrations.
He published the first compilation of statutes in
force in the new colony (1862) and was appointed
Queen’s Counsel in 1868. For a short time, Pring
served as a judge of the District Court in the
Central District (1875–76), before resigning his
commission and returning to practice.
In June 1880, he was appointed an acting judge of
the Supreme Court of Queensland, before receiving a
full appointment on 16 November 1880 at age 55.
He died in office on 25 March 1885
226
227