7
5. HOWEVER, IF THERE IS NO OBJECTION TO THE RULE BEING BREACHED OCCASIONALLY WHEN A GENUINELY BETTER, IF OLDER, MAN IS AVAILABLE, ONE CAN WIDEN THE FIELD, AND THE QUESTION ARISES WHETHER RIGBY OR BLAIR-KERR WOULD BE BETTER THAN BRIGGS.
6. WE ALL BELIEVED BLAIR-KERR WOULD BE A BETTER CHIEF JUSTICE THAN BRIGGS, THOUGH HE LACKS THE LATTER'S VITALITY (AND IMPETUOSITY). I AM NOT SURE WHETHER HE WOULD BE ABLE TO GIVE THE JUDICIARY THE SHAKE-UP AND THE LEADERSHIP I THINK IT NEEDS - BUT ONE CANNOT PREDICT WHAT THIS PERFORMANCE MIGHT BE UNDER THE ENCOURAGEMENT OF LATE AND UNEXPECTED PROMOTION. ON THE OTHER HAND, I AM NOT ENTIRELY CONFIDENT THAT BRIGGS COULD BE RELIED ON TO DO THIS EITHER, OR AT LEAST NOT IN A SATISFACTORY WAY. ON THE OTHER HAND BLAIR-KERR
IS PROBABLY THE BETTER LAWYER AND THE MORE CAREFUL JUDGE, AND
! PRESUME THESE QUALITIES TO BE OF THE FIRST IMPORTANCE. HE WOULD ALSO BE AN EASIER AND MORE UNDERSTANDING MAN TO WORK WITH FROM THE GOVERNMENT'S POINT OF VIEW. IN VIEW OF HIS AGE A SATISFACTORY MEDICAL REPORT WOULD HAVE TO BE PRE-CONDITION OF HIS APPOINTMENT.
DO NOT KNOW WHETHER HE WOULD ACCEPT AN EXTENSION.
7. RIGBY IS A MAN OF QUALITY INTEGRITY AND MORAL COURAGE. BUT HE HAS NOT BEEN A GOOD CHIEF JUSTICE, THOUGH HE HAS BEEN A PERFECTLY COMPETENT ONE AND IS WELL LIKED SOCIALLY. HE HAS THE MISFORTUNE TO BE THE OBJECT OF A GOOD DEAL OF PUBLIC CRITICISM (MOSTLY ILL-DESERVED) FOR SOFT SENTENCING. APART FROM THE MESSAGE YOU REFER TO (SEE MIFT) I KNOW OF NO SOUND REASON TO JUSTIFY EXTENDING HIS APPOINTMENT AND SEE MANY OBJECTIONS TO DOING SO. IF THE AGE LIMIT IS TO BE LIFTED I WOULD PREFER IT TO BE IN BLAIR-KERR'S FAVOUR RATHER THAN RIGBY'S.
8. TO SUM UP:
A) IF YOU SEE NO OBJECTION TO AMENDING ARTICLE XVI A, AND HE IS WILLING TO EXTEND, I WOULD PREFER BLAIR-KERR SUBJECT TO A MEDICAL REPORT:
B) IF YOU DO SEE OBJECTION EXCEPT IN EMERGENCY CIRCUMSTANCES, I STAND BY MY RECOMMENDATION OF BRIGGS.
-2-
19.