Back
Politics

High Court Justice Criticizes Samuel Griffith Society's Political Goals and US-Style Judicial Influence

Generated on: Last updated: 2 sources
View source

High Court Judge Accuses Samuel Griffith Society of Ideological Agenda

Justice Robert Beech-Jones of the Australian High Court delivered a pointed critique of the Samuel Griffith Society (SGS) at the North Queensland Law Association Conference in Townsville in April 2025, accusing the organisation of pursuing political objectives under the guise of legal scholarship. The SGS has vigorously denied the claims.

The Speech: Key Criticisms

Justice Beech-Jones accused the SGS of "appropriating" the legacy of Sir Samuel Griffith—Australia's first High Court Chief Justice and a former Queensland Premier—for ideological purposes. He charged the society with transforming Griffith into a "warrior in the 21st century culture wars."

"Only a fool would think this was not the intended outcome of a sustained politicised and political process of stacking courts with supine judges."

The judge made several specific allegations:

  • Student chapters: He described the SGS's promotion of student chapters on university campuses as "ominous."
  • Mabo backlash: At its first conference in 1992, held just one month after the High Court's Mabo [No. 2] decision, the SGS published 10 papers attacking the ruling. Some defended terra nullius and labelled the decision "pitiful," "mischievous," and "stupid."
  • Hidden agenda: He argued that the research promoted by the SGS sounds "reasonable and innocuous" but is not.
  • US-style court packing: Justice Beech-Jones warned the SGS seeks to replicate the US conservative movement's strategy of stacking the Supreme Court with conservative justices. He added: "If anyone thinks this particular US style of court stacking and judicial decision-making is a good idea, then go and live there."
  • Funding concerns: He cited a 2024 article in The Australian that compared the SGS to the US Federalist Society and suggested that a "quiet billionaire" could fund its success.

The Samuel Griffith Society Responds

Allan Myers KC, President of the SGS, rejected the judge's claims outright:

"Just do your job as a judge. This assertion [of Griffith being culturally appropriated] is false and no basis for it is made in the judge's address."

Myers noted that Justice Beech-Jones had declined an invitation to speak at the SGS's conference in August, saying he does not participate in "political gatherings."

Mia Schlicht, Executive Director of the SGS, described the speech as "political" and "completely inappropriate." She argued that the SGS's commentary on court decisions is not political, adding that the society believes judges should "stick to their job of applying the law as it is written" and not "invent" constitutional meaning.

Columnist Janet Albrechtsen, writing in The Australian, dismissed the speech as a "low-rent rant." She denied the SGS is a political organisation, characterising its devotion to constitutional originalism as "a philosophy about judicial method not about politics."

Background: The Samuel Griffith Society

  • Founded: 1992
  • Membership: Approximately 500, including about 100 students
  • President: Allan Myers KC
  • Notable members: Justice Simon Steward (current High Court justice, regular speaker, and 2025 keynote speaker), former High Court justices Ian Callinan and Dyson Heydon, former Attorney General Christian Porter, and former Queensland Senator Amanda Stoker

Research on Judicial Ideology

A 2022 study by Australian National University researchers found that, broadly, right-wing governments appoint right-wing justices and left-wing governments appoint left-wing justices, and that these judges then make decisions consistent with their ideology.

Researcher Patrick Leslie noted that the study found less dissent and more collegiality in the High Court compared to the US Supreme Court.

Observations from Legal Professionals

A former federal court judge, speaking anonymously and describing themselves as left-leaning, expressed concern that the SGS is not transparent about its political aims. The former judge stated that while most judges are appointed on merit, some past attorneys general have "clearly just tap[ped] people on the shoulder," and that politics inevitably plays a role in appointments due to the High Court's constitutional powers.