David Jackson QC

On The Couch with Jacko ... Failure to sing God Save the King ... Winning cases that should be won ... The role of money ... Military inclinations ... Changing role of the High Court ... Wither the bar? ... And more 

Jackson: champers in the fridgeDavid Jackson ("Jacko" to some) is an eminent advocate who frequently appears in High Court constitutional cases of the utmost importance. 

He did a two year stint as a judge of the Federal Court before returning to the bar. Originally from Queensland he has made his home and practice in Sydney with chambers in an eyrie at the top of the Deutsche Bank building in Phillip Street.  

In 2004 he conducted a Special Commission of Inquiry into the underfunded asbestos compensation scheme established by the James Hardie Group. 

His honours, garlands, achievements, publications, memberships, inquiries, and cases would take us all day to unpack. Mostly they can be found here. 

David Jackson was 34 when he took silk, not quite as young as Lord Eldon, another Queenslander, who it is understood was 14 when he became a Queen's Counsel. 

Jackson once described the High Court as akin to appearing before an "upmarket jury that can talk back, and can change the law". 

Now, very graciously, he is appearing on Justinian's Couch and comes face to face with some searing personal and professional questions.  

Describe yourself in three words.

Sweet, warm-hearted, lovely. (The need for brevity requires me to understate the position.)

What are you currently reading?

Richard Fidler's Ghost Empire, a history of Constantinople.

What is your favourite film?

I like the old war films such as "The Longest Day" and "A Bridge too Far".

Who has been the most influential person in your life? 

My wife, of course. She is an archaeologist and Dyson Heydon has said she married me because of her interest in old relics.

What makes you frightened? 

Sharks and crocodiles.

Who do you most admire professionally? 

I spent 1963 and 1964 as Sir Harry Gibbs' Associate. He was then on the Supreme Court of Queensland. The Supreme Court Judges did everything: there was no Federal Court, no Family Court and no Federal Circuit Court, no State Court of Appeal.  He was very good at all aspects of the role and I learnt a great deal from him.

What is your favourite piece of music?

As a small boy in Ipswich, all our class were required to audition for the school choir. The test was to sing the first line of God save the King. I had only reached "save" when I was excluded from further consideration. I seem to recall the term "tone deaf". So music is not my strength, but I do like Sinatra and some of his ilk.

What sort of case is best to your liking?

Cases which have discrete points and which do not involve reading volume after volume of trial affidavits and transcripts.

What has been your most challenging case?

I have had the privilege of appearing in numerous important cases and the most challenging is too hard to select. Every case should be challenging - you want to win the ones you should win, and not lose the one you shouldn't. 

Why did you leave the Federal Court bench?

Money. It was a privilege to be asked to move to Sydney to join the Federal Court, but Sydney was much more expensive than Brisbane in many respects. We had three daughters all of school age and that is not cheap. The housing market in Sydney was rising, but the market for selling in Brisbane was flat.

If you had not chosen the bar, what other job would you like?

It was very keen to join the Army. I applied for Duntroon and was told I would be admitted but for wearing glasses.

Do you think the bar as we know it will survive?

I think that there will remain associations of practitioners who specialise in advocacy and in advising. I suspect, however, that there are too many barristers. I have noticed too that some of the camaraderie of the Bar seems to have gone.

What do you think of the current High Court?

I have no problem with its composition. I regard all its members as having been in the range who might have been appointed. Of course there will be controversial decisions from time to time, but that is one of the functions of the court.

In what way is it different from previous High Courts?

I first appeared there in the second half of the sixties. I note three differences.

One reflects the changes making all appeals to it by special leave.  It has strengthened the court's position, but also that of the intermediate appellate courts which are now the final courts in most cases.  

The second reflects the Australianisation of the court's jurisprudence. Abolition of appeals to the Privy Council, the growing body of Australian decisions, and the loss of influence of United Kingdom decisions have all played their parts.

The third reflects the fact that the material before the court is no longer the record of proceedings below plus a notice of appeal and notices of contention and/or cross-appeal. The provisions for special leave and the requirements for written submissions have meant that oral arguments are shorter, and more focussed. The reasons for judgment have also improved with paragraphing, footnoting etc.  

What is on your bedside table?

An alarm clock.

What is in your refrigerator?

Some champagne and white wine and some sparkling mineral water. And food.

What words or phrases do you overuse?

"I mean". This is, I mean, a difficult question.

What is your greatest weakness?

An inability to select which of my weaknesses is the greatest.

What would you change about Australia?

We appear to have entered a period of vigorous intolerance of other views. I would like to see this change.

What would your epitaph say?

"We shall never see the like, thank goodness." 

What comes to mind when you shut your eyes and think of the word "law"?

On the ponderous side, how fortunate we are to live in a nation governed by the rule of law, even if it has its imperfections. On the personal side, how fortunate I have been to participate in it at a high level, and for so long.