Interview with Chief Judge Wager Chief Judge Julie Wager
Prior to your Honour’s judicial appointment what was your experience of the District Court? Wager CJ: As a young lawyer in the criminal law section of Legal Aid of Western Australia, I had the opportunity to appear regularly in the District Court. These appearances became almost daily once I commenced practice as a sole practitioner and prior to my appointment as a Magistrate in 2000. Although some of my very early appearances before one or two of the judges were character building, I was fortunate enough to appear as counsel before fantastic Judges of this Court who I admired so much. I was often counsel before his Honour Paul Healy who presided over impeccably run and very fair jury trials. He had a keen interest in the law and ensured that points that arose were dealt with appropriately and efficiently. Paul Healy was a judge who took his judicial oath very seriously indeed. I am so glad the District Court Library is named the Paul Healy Library in his honour. I also appeared regularly before their Honours Kevin Hammond and Antoinette Kennedy both before and after each was appointed Chief Judge. Kevin Hammond’s presence when presiding in court was magnificent. His sentencing remarks were eloquent but pragmatic and his message clearly hit the mark with the offender. He never belittled the offender nor chastised them about their personal
circumstances or backgrounds of misfortune. Instead, his Honour used the opportunity to make it very clear that the offender’s conduct was bad and that was the reason why the offender was being punished. His Honour then went on to encourage the offender. Kevin Hammond was an early fan of therapeutic justice. This was hardly surprising because his Honour’s sentencing remarks were naturally solution-focussed. Even where his Honour imposed a sentence that was on the high side the offender would receive it well because the offender would be given hope and dignity. Her Honour Antoinette Kennedy sentenced with empathy, mercy and common sense. This was a significant achievement given her many years on the bench. Even at the end of an overwhelmingly long sentencing list her Honour ensured that each offender was treated fairly and with respect. It is fair to say I learnt a huge amount from all of the District Court judges before whom I appeared.
From a Jurisprudential perspective what have been some interesting cases heard in the Court? Wager CJ: The Court’s jurisdiction in both criminal and civil is so broad and the issues to be determined so diverse that any list of jurisprudentially interesting cases would be frighteningly long. The District Court has been the starting
point for many judgments that are so well-known it is easy to forget that they were originally first instance cases. One example is Longman v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 79. This was a matter that was heard at first instance in the District Court. The High Court decision dealing with the warning judges are required to give when there has been a significant delay between the alleged sexual offending and the offender being brought before the court is now trite law. Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321 argued by retired Judge Gillian Braddock dealing with suspended terms of imprisonment is another case referred to on a daily basis. Washer v The State of Western Australia (2007) 234 CLR 492 and Mule v The Queen (2005) 221 ALR 85 are also simply referred to by name with little thought about their origins. Judge Levy was instructing counsel in the latter case. In civil, Rosenburg and Percival (2001) 205 CLR 434 and Czatyrko v Edith Cowan University (2005) 214 ALR 349 and Kuhl v Zurich Financial Services Australia Ltd [2011] HCA 11 are a few of the important decisions that were heard at first instance in the District Court. Recently Lawrence v Province Leader of Oceania Province of the Congregation of the Christian Brothers [2020] WADC 27, a decision of his Honour Judge Herron, clarified a number of issues raised in historical sexual abuse causes of action following amendments to the Limitation Act 2005 (WA). The Court has dealt with so many important civil 19
