Guilty verdict finally overturned

CABINET seemed to sit on its hands as the investigation of High Court judge Lionel Murphy flowing from publication of allegations popularly known as The Age tapes got a life of its own during 1984 and 1985.

By InvestSMART · 1 Jan 2013

By InvestSMART ·
1 Jan 2013

Comments

The issue threatened to develop into a political football match with cabinet trying to delicately pick its way through the debris and the Senate, where the government lacked a majority, setting up its own inquiry.

Education minister Susan Ryan recalled: " I think the really sad discussions in cabinet were those concerning Lionel Murphy and The Age tapes saga. Murphy was very highly regarded by all of us in cabinet and, I think, throughout the Labor Party generally. He had been a great reforming attorney-general and was a man of immense intellect, empathy, bravery and so forth."

In February 1984 The Age published material from tape recordings of telephone calls allegedly made without the authority of the NSW police. Most of the alleged criminal activities fell into the NSW jurisdiction.

However, they also indicated that a Commonwealth judge, later identified as Mr Murphy - who was attorney-general in the Whitlam government - may have acted improperly in attempting to influence court proceedings in relation to his friend, Sydney solicitor Morgan Ryan.

Two years of inquiries, legal opinions and proceedings followed.

Attorney-general Gareth Evans asked the director of public prosecutions, Ian Temby, QC, to investigate for possible federal offences. Mr Temby reported on July 20, 1984, that the voices on the tape could not be authenticated, nor could it be proved that the tapes recorded actual phone conversations, and there was no major offence under federal law.

Mr Evans and Mr Temby, however, recommended their report be released but the Australian Federal Police opposed the release of their input and cabinet eventually agreed. Meanwhile, the Senate heard evidence in camera and its report, in August 1984, was divided on party lines. On the casting vote of the chairman, it found that Mr Murphy's behaviour did not warrant his removal as a judge.

The Senate resumed its hearings on September 6 and, following evidence from NSW chief magistrate Clarrie Briese and two judges about the Ryan case, senators found that on the balance of probability Mr Murphy had attempted to influence the course of justice.

On December 14, 1984, cabinet noted the DPP had decided to charge Murphy with attempting to pervert the course of justice. Murphy was convicted in July 1985 and sentenced to 18 months in jail. He was acquitted 11 months later.

"We were very distraught to have to be a part of the events that led ultimately to his prosecutions, findings of wrongdoing against him, subsequently overturned," Ms Ryan said.

"It went on and on and on and during that time Lionel became very ill with cancer and even though he was ultimately acquitted he died."

Go to Google News, then click "Follow" button to add us.

Share this article and show your support

Frequently Asked Questions about this Article…

What were “The Age tapes” and why did they matter?

The Age tapes were published recordings from February 1984 that allegedly captured telephone calls made without NSW police authority. They mattered because they contained allegations of criminal activity in NSW and suggested a Commonwealth judge (later identified as Lionel Murphy) might have tried to influence court proceedings, sparking lengthy legal and political inquiries.

Who was Lionel Murphy and what accusations did he face?

Lionel Murphy was a High Court judge and former attorney-general in the Whitlam government. The tapes and subsequent inquiries alleged he may have acted improperly to influence the course of justice in relation to Sydney solicitor Morgan Ryan, leading to criminal charges and a high-profile legal saga.

What official investigations followed publication of The Age tapes?

Following the publications there were multiple inquiries: Attorney‑General Gareth Evans asked DPP Ian Temby QC to investigate possible federal offences; the Australian Federal Police opposed releasing some input; and the Senate held in‑camera hearings that produced divided findings along party lines.

What did the director of public prosecutions (Ian Temby) conclude about the tapes?

Ian Temby reported on 20 July 1984 that the voices on the tapes could not be authenticated, it could not be proved the tapes recorded actual phone conversations, and there was no major offence under federal law. He and Gareth Evans recommended releasing their report, though the AFP initially opposed that release.

What did the Senate inquiry find about Lionel Murphy?

The Senate’s August 1984 report — divided on party lines and decided on the chairman’s casting vote — found Murphy’s behaviour did not warrant removal as a judge. When hearings resumed in September, senators heard further evidence and found that on the balance of probability Murphy had attempted to influence the course of justice.

What was the legal outcome for Lionel Murphy?

The DPP ultimately charged Murphy with attempting to pervert the course of justice (cabinet noted this on 14 December 1984). He was convicted in July 1985 and sentenced to 18 months’ jail, but he was acquitted 11 months later. During the prolonged proceedings he became seriously ill with cancer and later died.

How did government ministers and cabinet respond to the Murphy saga?

Cabinet was described as having ‘sat on its hands’ while the issue developed, trying to navigate politically sensitive territory. Education Minister Susan Ryan recalled the cabinet’s distress, noting Murphy was highly regarded and that the events leading to his prosecution and overturned findings were very sad for those involved.

What lessons does the Murphy and The Age tapes episode offer about political inquiries and public trust?

The episode shows how high‑profile allegations can trigger prolonged legal and political processes, divided parliamentary findings, and reputational damage even when findings are later overturned. For everyday observers it highlights the potential for extended uncertainty and strain on public institutions when legal and political questions overlap.