Joseph Tice Gellibrand

Joseph Tice Gellibrand (1792–1837) was the first Attorney-General of Van Diemen's Land (known as Tasmania since 1856). He came into conflict with the authoritarian governor Sir George Arthur over his attempts to establish full rights of trial by jury. He later became an explorer in mainland Australia. He and a companion disappeared during one exploration and their fate has never been determined.

Joseph Tice Gellibrand was born in England, second son of William Gellibrand and Sophia Louisa, née Hynde. He studied law, was called to the bar, and on 1 August 1823 was appointed Attorney-General of Van Diemen's Land with a salary of £700 a year, with the right "to practise as a barrister under the same restrictions as are observed in this country".

Gellibrand arrived at Hobart accompanied by his father on 15 March 1824, and at the opening of the Supreme Court gave an address as leader of the bar, in which he spoke of trial by jury "as one of the greatest boons conferred by the legislature upon this colony". The full benefit of trial by jury had, however, been withheld from the colony, and Gellibrand's speech is held by some to have been the opening of a campaign for an unconditional system. Gellibrand was a believer in the liberty of the subject, and he was consequently bound to fall foul of a man with the autocratic tendencies of Governor George Arthur.

At the beginning of 1825 Robert William Lathrop Murray, editor of the Hobart Town Gazette, began criticising the colonial government in his paper. Arthur believed that Gellibrand was acting in "close union" with Murray. Eventually Gellibrand was charged with unprofessional conduct in having, as a barrister, drawn the pleas for the plaintiff in a case, and afterwards as Attorney-General, acted against him. As a consequence of the charge Alfred Stephen the Solicitor-General applied to have Gellibrand struck off the rolls. [The many complications of this case are fully discussed in chapter XVIII, vol. II of R. W. Giblin's 'Early History of Tasmania'.]

As a result, Gellibrand lost his position and began practising as a barrister. He established a high reputation in Hobart. In 1830 he acted for Roderic O'Connor in a case brought by sheriff Dudley Fereday, who was also a moneylender. Fereday accused O'Connor of libel after O'Connor had publicly attacked his business practices. Gellibrand gave "a detailed account of Fereday as the prince of usurers, lending money at 35 per cent interest". Fereday won damages of £400, but his reputation was severely damaged by Gellibrand's speeches.

...
Wikipedia