Unconvincing and perplexing: Hutchinson and Stapleton on judging

Abstract

The articles by Allan Hutchinson and Jane Stapleton which illustrate the emerging orthodoxy in Australian legal thought that judging is, essentially, politics in another form, are argued to be unconvincing. It is stated that Hutchinson's argument is confused and confusing, self-contradictory, and relies on a puzzling misreading of Charles Dickens' Bleak House while Stapleton's project is simply implausible and at odds with other work of hers which illustrates the problems with the instrumentalist role that she advocates for the Australian judiciary and the reason for scholars of international repute making such unconvincing arguments are considered.