“I am privileged to be appointed,” Warren said in 2003<\/a>. “It is doubtless of significance that I am the first woman appointed to the office. I wish there had been others.”<\/p>\n During the next 14 years, Warren would transform the Supreme Court from what Justice Pamela Tate described<\/a> as an “old and crusty institution” full of “old and crusty men” into a modern and efficient organisation that was “welcoming” of women.<\/p>\n Still, she has never thought of herself as a trailblazer.\u00a0<\/p>\n “I just did the job, whatever it was \u2026 and I didn’t think a lot about gender,” Warren told ABC News in a recent interview. “Having said that, there were times when I was made aware of my gender, because of treatments and attitudes, but I didn’t go around wearing it as a badge or singing, ‘I am woman, hear me roar’ \u2014 I just did the best job I could.”<\/p>\n Gender as a burden<\/p>\n Warren’s gender may not have been a badge of honour, but it was, at times, a burden. She said she was “acutely conscious” that if she made a mistake or was “difficult” over a particular matter, then other lawyers or colleagues might chalk it up to her being female.<\/p>\n “I would certainly acknowledge that there was dissatisfaction \u2014 even hostility, in some limited quarters \u2014 because I was appointed over and above somebody else they would have preferred,” she said. “However, there were not many of those people and I found the best strategy was just to press on with the role.”<\/p>\n As chief justice, Warren made changes both significant and small. She ended the tradition of judges and barristers wearing wigs in court, arguing they were outdated (it caused<\/a> a kerfuffle<\/a>). She oversaw the installation of classical music<\/a> so people waiting nervously outside courtrooms could be soothed, as well as the remodelling of a judges’ car park into a tranquil plaza.<\/p>\n Chief Justice Marilyn Warren ended the tradition of judges and barristers wearing wigs in court, arguing they were outdated. (Supplied: Supreme Court)<\/p>\n She reckoned with how courts might embrace modern technology<\/a>, as well as the challenges and opportunities of social media (she said it had been a “radical<\/a>” step for the Supreme Court to join Facebook and Twitter).<\/p>\n Warren also pushed for an overhaul of the way Victorian courts are funded, arguing that the Department of Justice’s control of funding posed a threat to courts’ independence and weakened the judiciary (judicial services became independent of government, and courts directly accountable to parliament, with the establishment<\/a> of Court Services Victoria in 2014).<\/p>\n Along the way, she developed a deep capacity for work she did not know she had.<\/p>\n “It is a very, very large role, if it’s done well,” said Warren, who was appointed a Companion for the Order of Australia in 2005. “I also learned a lot about myself, how to find inner strength at times where I encountered confronting situations outside the courtroom. So, for example, dealing with the government, times where I had to advocate for the court for resources and funding.”<\/p>\n Praise and pride<\/p>\n One particularly exciting development during her time as chief justice, she said, was the establishment of Victoria’s Civil Procedure Act 2010<\/a>, which was “transformative in bringing to the fore obligations on lawyers to resolve cases \u2014 not to play tactical games, to mediate and endeavour to settle a case.”<\/p>\n Another was the “groundbreaking” introduction of human rights law in Victoria through the 2006 charter<\/a>. “To lead the education of the judiciary in how to interpret and apply the new charter was a significant challenge but very, very exciting,” Warren said.<\/p>\n The Supreme Court of Victoria building on William Street in Melbourne. (ABC News:Chris Le Page)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n