The Evolution of the Role of the Attorney-General
AbstractThe article addresses the topical question of whether the Attorney-General should defend the High Court from criticism. The history of the office of the Attorney-General in the United Kingdom and Australia is traced, and the inherent tension between the legal duties and the political responsibilities of the office is highlighted. The author contrasts the role of the UK Attorney-General with that of the Australian Attorney-General, particularly in terms of the greater political character of the Australian office. The recent increased criticism of the Australian High Court is compared with the relative historical immunity of the Court. The author concludes that, by virtue of convention, the Attorney-General is obliged to defend the High Court. The Attorney-General is best placed to perform this role, ensuring that judges can continue to practice judicial independence in the face of political attack. |