Professor Jenny Hocking.Credit:Joe Benke
A raft of players eventually lined up to oppose Brennan's argument in court:the archives,the governor-general's office,the federal government and Buckingham Palace. On Hocking's side were Brennan,Gough's son,Antony Whitlam,QC,and thenBret Walker,SC,the barrister who won George Pell's appeal and is running the inquiry into theRuby Princess debacle. All gave their time for free,as did law firm Corrs Chambers Westgarth.
Bongiorno says that while he thought the letters being kept secret was"preposterous",many historians thought Hocking's case was a"rank outside chance",given her opponents."It says a lot for her courage and dogged persistence that she has been able to succeed,"he adds.
The costs were still significant. If Hocking lost,she was up for $30,000 of the archives'legal costs from the Federal Court,which had ruled against her,plus another $60,000 for the High Court. But Hocking did not lose. Six judges of the High Court ruled in her favour.
Why do the letters matter?
Short of Queen Elizabeth sitting down for a tell-all interview,the letters held the last major pieces of missing information about the dismissal,the greatest convulsion in modern Australian democracy,andone that could happen again.
Loading
Their meaning is up for interpretation. In Hocking's view,they show a governor-general leaning on the Queen's private secretary for advice much more than he should have,getting reassurance on the steps he has taken before the dismissal,scholarly texts on his power to dismiss a government and suggestions he do so only for the right reasons,all with no warning to the prime minister. Others have taken a different view,focusing on the Queen's lack of explicit knowledge or approval of the dismissal and her secretary's words of caution. With a book,The Palace Letters,and a documentary on the way,Hocking will no doubt have more to say.
Get our Morning&Evening Edition newsletters