Welcome to Eureka Street

back to site

AUSTRALIA

Remembering Barry O'Keefe

  • 29 April 2014

I first met Barry O'Keefe in the early 1970s in the course of the Sydney Law School annual mooting competition. Members of the Bar and the Bench volunteered to act as judges, as two teams of two argued for and against some esoteric proposition of law, in a make believe appellate forum. Barry was assigned as our judge. 

Although the arrangements allowed for about 20 minutes for each presentation more than two hours had passed and Barry was still not finished with the second submission. Eventually the security person arrived to put out the lights.

Barry invited us to pack up notes and books and the four of us, with the few spectators who had persevered, retired across Philip Street and squeezed into his chambers. After midnight he finished by dictating a detailed judgment. His generosity, enthusiasm, and the keen interest he took in using the occasion to help us learn the law made a deep impression on me.

Barry was among the best known barristers of his time and no doubt there will be many tributes to his prowess as advocate, judge and corruption commissioner. 

He was a man of simple and deep faith. That was the context in which I came to know him better during my 16 years at St Mary's Cathedral, usually rostered for the 6.45 am Mass, which suited a bureaucrat's daily routine. He was there most days. He did the reading on Fridays.

The integration of the spiritual life and professional career is a challenge for most people. How do you find stillness and God's presence when there are constant demands on your time and energy? Barry told me that his attendance at daily Mass was important so he could find the time to know and love God.

One of Barry's judgments, which stands as a major contribution to the ethical issues at the end of life, was the case of Northridge v Central Sydney Area Health Service. In two paragraphs he set out succinctly principles that accord with the law and sound ethical practice.

23 The law in Australia is well settled that it is lawful for, and the duty of, a hospital which or doctor who has undertaken the care of a patient who is unconscious, to carry out such treatment as is necessary and appropriate to safeguard the life, health and welfare of that patient, even though such patient is in no position to give or refuse consent
Forgot your password?
Subscribe
Join the conversation. Sign up for our free weekly newsletter  Subscribe