agreement. Second, even if a judge can be categorised, they will often fall into
two or even more categories.
285
But despite the lack of agreed categories,
particular judges may display detectable leanings.
286
To illustrate attempts to categorise
judicial style, Justice Benjamin Cardozo
proposed the following classifications:
287
(1)
Magisterial and imperative.
288
(2)
Laconic or sententious.
289
(3)
Refined or artificial, “smelling of the lamp, verging at time upon
precocity or euphemism”.
290
(4)
Demonstrative or persuasive.
291
(5)
Conversational or homely.
292
(6)
Tonsorial and agglutinative; “so called from the shears and the past pot
which are its implements and emblem”.
293
A second classification distinguishes between those who tend to absolute
expression compared to those who are more qualified. Those who tend to
absolutism see things in black and white, while the qualifiers recognise that
“things are usually more complex” than absolutists would admit.
294
Lord Justice Templeman, for his part, classified judges into three categories:
295
(1)
Philosophers. An English example is Lord Hailsham. An Australian
example is Justice Windeyer (attributed to “his profound knowledge of, and
interest in, legal history”.)
296
___________________
285
Kirby (1990) p 696
286
Kirby (1990) p 696
287
Cardozo (1925), 1986 reprint, p 10
288
Gibbs (1993) p 498 puts Sir Samuel Griffiths in this category.
289
Gibbs (1993) p 498 puts Sir George Rich in this category.
290
Gibbs (1993) p 498 puts Sir Isaac Isaacs in this category.
291
Gibbs (1993) p 498 puts many judges, including Sir Owen Dixon,
Sir Wilfred Fullagar and Sir Frank Kitto in this category.
292
Gibbs (1993) p 498 could not put any High Court judge in this
category. Lord Justice Denning, a judge of the House of Lords and Court
of Appeal in the United Kingdom would fall within it.
293
Gibbs (1993) p 498 could not put any High Court judge in this
category.
294
Kirby (1990) p 705
295
Kirby (1990) pp 696-697
296
Kirby (1990) p 696
 |
 |
 |