Language – ‘Mien’

The Macquarie Dictionary defines ‘mien’ as ‘air, bearing, or aspect, as showing character, feeling, etc’. Its etymology is from the French, ‘mine’ meaning ‘aspect’.

According to Google AI:

“Mien” is a literary term for a person’s look, bearing, or facial expression that suggests their mood or character. It is pronounced like the word “mean”. For example, a person might have an “aristocratic mien” or a “jovial mien”.

Google AI gives further information:

As a noun

• Definition: A person’s appearance, especially the expression on their face, that indicates their personality, mood, or attitude.
• Synonyms: Look, bearing, demeanor, presence, manner, and carriage.
• Usage: It is often used in a formal or literary context.
  • “His aristocratic mien and expensive clothes singled him out.”
  • “A mien of supreme self-satisfaction.”

In CDJ v VAJ (1998) 197 CLR 172, Kirby J said at [196] (emphasis added):

Although the proper impact of this evidence, in a trial lasting several days, might appear insubstantial, it could well have added to an understandable sense of grievance on the part of the wife who had no effective way to test or answer it in the way the trial unfolded and the evidence was admitted. Perhaps it explains her mien in court, which appears greatly to have influenced the primary judge despite the great care needed in the assessment of credibility, personality and fitness to parent children by reference to such impressions. Putting it no higher, such impressions may be affected by the gender of the observer, cultural considerations and the circles in which the observer has mixed and from which he or she has constructed opinions about the behaviour and mien that is appropriate and inappropriate to an occasion.

In the Federal Court, commenting on the credit of witnesses, Collier J in Investa Properties Pty Ltd v Nankervis (No 7) [2015] FCA 10 observed at [351]:

Second, I consider that both Mr McEvoy and Mr Cox were credible witnesses. In the face of extensive cross-examination, the mien of both witnesses in Court was direct, knowledgeable and responsive. Both witnesses were clearly very experienced valuers. I do not consider that, in any way, either witness could be said to be advocating a particular case.

In a more colourful context, Justice Dalton described an accused’s ‘normal mien’ in the following passage in R v Bossley [2012] QSC 292 at [13] (emphasis added):

DSC Caulfield said in his evidence that he suspected that Mr Bossley had possession of a Schedule 1 drug – in particular he thought he might have a stimulant like amphetamine – t1-17. He said that he suspected from Mr Bossley’s excited, talkative behaviour that he had taken some sort of stimulant, and that he might have possession of more stimulant, or that he might be carrying some stimulant in order to supply it. As outlined above, he relied upon the carrying of a bum-bag and his observation as to Mr Bossley’s meeting some “younger females” as grounds for his reasonably suspecting within the meaning of s 29 of the PPRA. Mr Bossley had not taken any drug that morning, I accept, on his evidence. What DSC Caulfield observed was Mr Bossley’s normal mien, in circumstances where he was excited to go to a music festival and pleased to see his younger sister. I cannot see that there is anything unusual about somebody attending a music festival carrying a bum-bag. I do not accept that Mr Bossley met more than one younger woman – his sister – on all the evidence before me. In effect then, DSC Caulfield saw a lean, lively young man, excited to be with his friends and family, and carrying a bum-bag, on his way to a music festival.