Jump to content

Talk:Susan Kiefel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Date of Birth

[edit]

We need to find out when she was born so we can figure out when she can retire. The two sources I have found conflict. One says 1950 and the other says 1954. Doktor Waterhouse 13:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the media sources say she is 53, which would mean that she was born in 1953 (if she is turning 54 this year but hasn't had her birthday) or 1954 (if she has had her birthday and turned 53 this year already). 1950 is definitely wrong. JRG 23:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Employer?

[edit]

The information box around her picture, noting that she is an 'employee' of the court doesn't seem to be entirely appropriate. Two reasons, first because none of the other HC Justices have such a box, and second because she is not an "employee" to the court. It's an appointment. Technically I would assume she is an employee of the government, or maybe the Australian people... but that's a moot point, its the terminology I think is wrong.

Perhaps instead we could develop an info box similar to what they use for United State Supreme Court Justices' (example). It would suit the position, rather then proclaiming she is an employee of the Federal Court. I'm not particularly knowledgeable about wiki formatting, but I imagine somebody could develop a box with relative ease. Thoughts? GreenGopher 04:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I used the standard "Person" infobox. I guess the the editors of the other articles just haven't got around to adding one yet. Adding PERSONDATA and an Infobox is essential to getting a good quality rating. A generic infobox for Australian judges sounds like a good idea. Dbromage [Talk] 05:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tried adapting the President infobox (used for Chief Justices of the High Court) but after 5 appointments it's way too long and overlaps the High Court template. Here's the relevant data if anybody else wants to use it.
| office1     = Judge of the Supreme Court of Queensland
| term_start1 = May 1993
| term_end1   = 1994
| office2     = Judge of the Supreme Court of Norfolk Island
| term_start2 = 1994
| term_end2   = 2007
| office3     = Judge of the Federal Court of Australia
| term_start3 = 1994
| term_end3   = August 2007
| office4     = Commissioner of the Australian Law Reform Commission
| term_start4 = 2003
| term_end4   = August 2007
| office5     = Puisne Justice of the High Court of Australia
| term_start5 = 4 September 2007
| term_end5   =
Dbromage [Talk] 06:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that looks much better (the current version), although still awkward. Problem is there isn't much precedent to go by - in the US, for example, Justices are scrutinised publicly, including their families and past jobs. It's not like that in Australia, hence the difficulty in finding anything about her, or knowing what to include. In my view, its fine the Federal Court info isn't there, because she's finished all her judgements and won't be sitting on that court again GreenGopher 15:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I made a couple of brief changes, although I'm not sure who the offical nominator is. I think it's technically the AG makes a recommendation to the governer general after getting approval from the PM, but I can't rememeber for sure, and it's a bit late now. I think the 'howard government' sufficiently covers it, because it's the party which nomiantes which is important to note.
Does anybody know whether there is a 'retirement' tag we can place in the infobox (once we figure out when she was born/has to retire)? GreenGopher 15:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No need to go that far yet. She won't be retiring until 2024! Reading between the lines of Jack Waterford's article in the Canberra Times, he's strongly hinting she will (eventually) become the first female Chief Justice. Dbromage [Talk] 13:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt she will become the next CJ - Gleeson only retires next year, it would be too soon - but I would agree that assuming they get a relatively old judge to replace him, then she will be next in line after that. And in all fairness, it is probably about time... GreenGopher 02:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prescient! Wikiain (talk) 22:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews item

[edit]

A news item Kiefel appointed to High Court of Australia is being developed at Wikinews and is intended for publication on the day of Kiefel's swearing in. Any contributions are welcome to get it to the standard required to be featured as a headline on the main page. Dbromage [Talk] 07:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Career Timeline

[edit]

I added a Career Timeline, which is very impressive, to show the dates of appointments in a year by year order. It should give a overview of how she reached her nomination to the High Court after leaving school in year ten. There are a few other appoinments i havent found the date to so havent listed them of yet. Boylo 04:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that really necessary? In most cases it's just doubling up information we already have; and to achieve good article or featured article status, which may be achievable in the long term, paragraphs need to be in prose, not in point form. The article was being well-developed already. I suggest that if there's info in there that hasn't been added already, to add it into the existing paragraphs, and to delete the point form timeline. JRG 04:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Timeline removed and information added to existing paragraphs, per suggestion above. Boylo 06:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am wondering if some of the recent added info is necessary. It almost seems as if we have gone into too much depth. For example, discussing her scholarship at kangaroo point, or noting how she was a member of the rowing crew. Admittedly we currently have very little to go on, but that will (hopefully) alter as she starts making public appearances/judgements in the coming months. GreenGopher 07:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That sort of information is valid if sourced. It could be split off into a "Personal life" section. Dbromage [Talk] 13:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does the structure look now? I hope it's set our more clearly. It also includes a few additional appointments mentioned in Wolfson College News. The introduction needs to be a bit longer. Dbromage [Talk] 14:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks much better. I personally think the intro looks good as it is, but I understand that under wiki standards it should be longer. My argument is that the intro should eventually briefly outline her judicial, and perhaps political views, neither of which we have much info on at the moment, thus we shouldn't expand it for the sake of it. I'm also wondering if the 'personal life' section should be just be intergrated into the rest of the article, given there is only a sentence there (contradictory to what I said yesterday)? GreenGopher 02:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody with a better knowledge of case law than I may care to sear for and list some notable cases over which she has presided. Dbromage [Talk] 04:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Susan Kiefel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

George Pell decision

[edit]

I added a section referring to George Pell. I believe that it relevant information regarding the career of Susan Keifel. The case found wide discussion in the community, and sets important precedent for victims of historical sexual abuse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:8680:C10:F527:82D5:C465:6599 (talk) 06:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am rarely comfortable with including joint rulings or actions like this (such as a decision of cabinet or executive government being ascribed to the prime minister or another MP, or in this case a decision of the full bench of the High Court being ascribed to Justice Kiefel) in the personal biography of an individual – granted very slightly less so for a leader or senior role such as PM (or Chief Justice), but uncomfortable nonetheless. Yes, there is significant public interest in the case, but highlighting Kiefel's role alone in what was a unanimous joint decision of the full bench of the court seems seriously unbalanced and seems to be designed to provoke or encourage animus, rather than representing a career landmark. --Canley (talk) 06:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Might I suggest you include the information in High Court of Australia#Kiefel court? This would ascribe the judgement to the entity of the court rather than an individual in a biography, which I think would be far more appropriate. Also, this should be referenced with sources which show the gravity of the decision and potential precedence, rather than just linking to the court ruling, otherwise the assertion of its importance is just your opinion. --Canley (talk) 06:39, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Similar information is included in the Biography of Peter Kidd - "In 2018–2019, he presided over the trial and sentencing of Cardinal George Pell". Perhaps this should also be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:8680:C10:F527:82D5:C465:6599 (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Was I not clear? Mentioning notable cases presided over by a single judge is probably fine, but where its a panel of judges or the High Court full bench, not so much. With the Pell case, the Court of Appeal judgement maybe, as one judge dissented the majority decision and could be worth mentioning in their bio article. --Canley (talk) 01:51, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Canley. There isn't a lot we can say about the careers of trial judges apart from which notable trials they've presided over. As the trial judge, it's probably the most high-profile trial Kidd has ever presided over. I think there's a strong argument for putting it in Justice Weinberg's article as well, given that it's certainly his most famous dissent, though less strongly for the other Court of Appeal judges. It is very far from the most significant case any of the High Court judges have ever heard, however, and at this stage (at least until people grapple with whether and to what extent they've blown a hole in the capacity to prosecute historical child sex abuse) doesn't seem to be being seen as terribly significant beyond Pell. Like Paul Hogan's tax cases, it's just yet another criminal appeal in which a famous person happens to be involved, which is small fry for the High Court - and as it's a unanimous judgment, there's nothing that can really be said about any individual contributions to it (it would be different if it had been, say, a 4-3 split). The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Susan_Kiefel&oldid=1207973237"