The joke of our legal system

Bundah

May I respectfully refer you to the ACT’s Judicial Commissions Act 1994 (the Act).

Section 14 of the Act states that a person may complain to the Attorney-General about a matter that relates or may relate to the behaviour or physical or mental capacity (emphasis added) of a judicial officer.

According to the Act’s Dictionary, a judicial officer includes a judge of the ACT Supreme Court.

Section 16 of the Act allows the Attorney General, if satisfied that a prima facie case exists, to request the Government appoint a Judicial Commission to examine the complaint.

The subsequent process, including how a judicial appointment may be terminated, is set out in in the remaining sections of the Act.

According to Crispin Hull, the ACT Bar Association has already made a complaint to the Attorney-General about one judge. The ball is now firmly in Simon Corbell’s court (no pun intended) as to whether he opts to engage the statutory options open to him under the Act.

@ Wilco

Replacing judicial officers is nigh on impossible.Section 72 of the Australian Constitution provides the following
“The Justices of the High Court and of the courts created by the parliament —

(i) Shall be appointed by the Governor General in Council;
(ii) Shall not be removed except by the Governor General in Council, on an address from both houses of the parliament in the same session, praying for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity;
(iii) Shall receive such remuneration as the parliament may fix but the remuneration shall not diminished during their continuance in office.”

Justice Vasta, a Supreme Court judge in Queensland, was removed in June 1989 by the Governor, on an address from the Legislative Assembly.The only other judge that came close was Justice Lionel Murphy in 1986.

So that option is pretty much closed,so just how exactly,do you propose that someone who may very well be performing to their maximum ability is going to be able to lift their game?

bundah said :

@ Breda and Wilco

An intelligent person possessing wisdom is able to look at the ‘whole picture’ and make a judgement as to what is the most appropriate course of action to take in order to resolve an unacceptable situation.Whatever one may think of Tezza Higgins,and i’ve certainly been critical of his judgements and sentencing,he is undoubtedly capable of understanding the shortcomings in the judicial system and how to rectify them.Higgins has called for the appointment of an additional judge for years which has been ignored by Corbell.The people of Canberra deserve much better than what we currently have, which is clearly a farce.I have,at least,recommended an option which i believe is needed and should be implemented asap.

Perhaps you should read the following speech by our Chief Justice to our newly appointed practitioners,who knows it might even open your mind.

http://images.canberratimes.com.au/file/2012/12/14/3891713/Admissions%2520Speech%252014DEC12%2520edited.pdf?rand=1355485428776

Bundah

At least we agree that the present system is a farce and that the people of Canberra deserve better.

The CJ ably articulates the nature of the problem. I have no doubt that appointing two additional (and competent) judges would result in some improvement, even if it will cost, according to the CJ, $4m per annum.

However, with great respect, that is not the point at issue. What’s been ably articulated by Crispin Hull and others is the fact that there are current members of the ACT judiciary who are clearly underperforming. Either getting them to lift their game or replacing them with people who can do the job will go a long way towards rectifying the problems highlighted by both Crispin and the CJ, with NO additional cost to the public purse.

@ Breda and Wilco

An intelligent person possessing wisdom is able to look at the ‘whole picture’ and make a judgement as to what is the most appropriate course of action to take in order to resolve an unacceptable situation.Whatever one may think of Tezza Higgins,and i’ve certainly been critical of his judgements and sentencing,he is undoubtedly capable of understanding the shortcomings in the judicial system and how to rectify them.Higgins has called for the appointment of an additional judge for years which has been ignored by Corbell.The people of Canberra deserve much better than what we currently have, which is clearly a farce.I have,at least,recommended an option which i believe is needed and should be implemented asap.

Perhaps you should read the following speech by our Chief Justice to our newly appointed practitioners,who knows it might even open your mind.

http://images.canberratimes.com.au/file/2012/12/14/3891713/Admissions%2520Speech%252014DEC12%2520edited.pdf?rand=1355485428776

breda said :

bundah, you said that a review would take forever, so hire more judges and bugger the expense.

This is the attitude that has plunged Europe into massive debt. Don’t fix anything, just throw more borrowed money at the problem and hire more people.

There are many other ways to address these problems. Justice Rogers fixed up the NSW Supreme Court’s interminable waiting lists for commercial matters by a combination of administrative streamlining and calling the bluffs of plaintiffs who wanted extensions. He also monitored the judges, with regular phone calls to require explanations about outstanding judgements.

Of course it can be done. But, it would involve annoying some very entrenched and comfy interests.

I respectfully agree. Demonstrated/proven ability to make difficult efficiency, management and personnel decisions at a time of fiscal restraint should be an essential criterion on the Chief Justice Selection Criteria. The Section Panel Chair should be an interstate judicial officer who, like Leroy Brown, is “meaner than a junkyard dog” (in the management sense). And the Panel’s recommendation should on no account be disturbed by play bureaucrats, political advisers and others of that ilk.

bundah, you said that a review would take forever, so hire more judges and bugger the expense.

This is the attitude that has plunged Europe into massive debt. Don’t fix anything, just throw more borrowed money at the problem and hire more people.

There are many other ways to address these problems. Justice Rogers fixed up the NSW Supreme Court’s interminable waiting lists for commercial matters by a combination of administrative streamlining and calling the bluffs of plaintiffs who wanted extensions. He also monitored the judges, with regular phone calls to require explanations about outstanding judgements.

Of course it can be done. But, it would involve annoying some very entrenched and comfy interests.

Wilco said :

bundah

Appointing two additional judges at $402K each per annum (which is in excess of $1m per year with oncost) would be an outrageous waste of taxpayers’ funds.

Crispin’s article contains some helpful statistics. It wouldn’t take much effort to make some comparisons with inter-state jurisdictions, review the performance of those who currently grace the Bench in Knowles Place (and elsewhere), and deal with those who can’t cut the mustard. The ACT taxpayer (and voter) deserves nothing less!

Disagree,what’s outrageous is how incredibly tardy and woeful the judicial system has become.Waste within the public purse is a fact of life and isn’t about to miraculously disappear overnight if ever.So i have no issue with paying additional tax if that’s what’s required to fix the problem.

Wilco said :

bundah

Appointing two additional judges at $402K each per annum (which is in excess of $1m per year with oncost) would be an outrageous waste of taxpayers’ funds.

Crispin’s article contains some helpful statistics. It wouldn’t take much effort to make some comparisons with inter-state jurisdictions, review the performance of those who currently grace the Bench in Knowles Place (and elsewhere), and deal with those who can’t cut the mustard. The ACT taxpayer (and voter) deserves nothing less!

How much do they piss away on other things (like the belconnen community centre that nobody seems to use for example)? It seems like having a functioning justice system is a pretty fundamental thing for a Government.

bundah

Appointing two additional judges at $402K each per annum (which is in excess of $1m per year with oncost) would be an outrageous waste of taxpayers’ funds.

Crispin’s article contains some helpful statistics. It wouldn’t take much effort to make some comparisons with inter-state jurisdictions, review the performance of those who currently grace the Bench in Knowles Place (and elsewhere), and deal with those who can’t cut the mustard. The ACT taxpayer (and voter) deserves nothing less!

Wilco said :

bundah said :

The simple reality is that the judiciary have underperformed for years and we can crap on about it ad infinitum however until the guvmint(who need to be reminded that their job it is to represent the citizens) take steps to appoint two additional judges our unacceptable judicial state of affairs will remain BROKE FFS.Blaming the judges,some of whom have been woeful,won’t fix anything.What’s more one cannot get rid off them unless they’re snorting coke at their bench in full view of the public.

It’s time to stop procrastinating Simple Simon and act now!

Not quite true bundah. Throwing even more taxpayers’ money at the problem fails to address the root cause. S5 of the Judicial Commissions Act 1994 (ACT) gives the Attorney some options in dealing with the underperformers. But that path will require some intestinal fortitude on the part of our elected representatives.

It just might be possible that those concerned (and it’s not only in the Supreme Court) feel so guilty about taking public monies in such circumstances that they’d do the decent thing and fall on their swords – or is that an airborne porcine squadron that I glimpse passing by my window?

In order to address the root cause one would have to undertake a comprehensive review to get to the bottom of the problem and christ knows how long that would take let alone implement change.In the meantime it’s simple arithmetic more judicial officers means more cases can be dealt with,bugger the expense!

bundah said :

The simple reality is that the judiciary have underperformed for years and we can crap on about it ad infinitum however until the guvmint(who need to be reminded that their job it is to represent the citizens) take steps to appoint two additional judges our unacceptable judicial state of affairs will remain BROKE FFS.Blaming the judges,some of whom have been woeful,won’t fix anything.What’s more one cannot get rid off them unless they’re snorting coke at their bench in full view of the public.

It’s time to stop procrastinating Simple Simon and act now!

Not quite true bundah. Throwing even more taxpayers’ money at the problem fails to address the root cause. S5 of the Judicial Commissions Act 1994 (ACT) gives the Attorney some options in dealing with the underperformers. But that path will require some intestinal fortitude on the part of our elected representatives.

It just might be possible that those concerned (and it’s not only in the Supreme Court) feel so guilty about taking public monies in such circumstances that they’d do the decent thing and fall on their swords – or is that an airborne porcine squadron that I glimpse passing by my window?

People back off. Do you realize how hard it is to get anything done after a two hour lunch at the Canberra Club. Also the almost do similar work year to a uni student, seem to be on sabbatical or holiday more than court

The simple reality is that the judiciary have underperformed for years and we can crap on about it ad infinitum however until the guvmint(who need to be reminded that their job it is to represent the citizens) take steps to appoint two additional judges our unacceptable judicial state of affairs will remain BROKE FFS.Blaming the judges,some of whom have been woeful,won’t fix anything.What’s more one cannot get rid off them unless they’re snorting coke at their bench in full view of the public.

It’s time to stop procrastinating Simple Simon and act now!

Totally agree. I know of at least one very able local lawyer who was recommended for judical appointment only to be rejected after the post selection committee politico – bureaucratic review. In the ACT, politics, personalities and the application of the Buggin’s Turn Rule count for more than an ability to actually do the job, it seems.

breda said :

… would have a much more practical approach and be far too productive.

Fixed that for you.

A telling statistic from Hull’s article:

” This year (now almost over) the court has delivered 178 judgments, 42 of which came from non-resident judges. That leaves 136 judgments from the four residents and the Master – roughly 27 each or about one a fortnight.

That is not a big load, especially when you look at the nature of most of the judgments. Thirty-seven were appeals from the Magistrates Court which can (and mostly are) disposed of fairly quickly.”

I’d be interested in statistics from other jurisdictions, but have to say that on the face of it, one written judgement a fortnight is not unreasonable. It’s not as if the courts sit from 9 to 5. You have to wonder how these people ever got their assignments done when at university.

Without naming names, I have known two of these judges for decades, and admit that they would not have been my choice for the job. They are bright and conscientious, but I agree with Hull that people with lots of experience at churning out opinions promptly (such as many senior barristers) would have a much more practical approach and be far more productive.

I can’t for the life of me understand why judges are not required by legislation to deliver a judgement on a completed case within a certain time frame (say 28 days).

2 years and still no judgement delivered !! A complete joke.

bundah said :

One has to wonder how long it will take Corbell to realise that his fatuous attitude is plainly WRONG and appoint an additional two Supreme Court judges to resolve this fiasco FFS!

I think his reluctance partly stems from the suspicion that the problem is as much with the personnel as it is with structure. An extra judge may just encourage certain judges to go about their cases in an even more languid matter because hey there’s an extra judge now so no need to rush. If you had different judges you might not need an extra judge.

We are beyond laughing about Canberra’s legal fraternity. The situation has gotten tragic. The unprecedented event of the Bar formally complaining about Justice Refshauge demonstrates that.

People are waiting 12 months for their case to be heard and another 6-12 months for judges to make a decision (or 4 years for that poor soul). Some of these people are desperate and went to the courts to find justice. Almost all commercial work is being filed in the Federal Court because they hear and decide cases within 12 months. One questions how ACT judges can take years to decide cases about car crashes and everyday criminal matters.

Hull’s article suggests what most believe is the answer: the good lawyers in Canberra aren’t being appointed (or aren’t accepting appointment) to the bench. His reference to the recent decision of the Court of Appeal (comprising interstate judges) overturning our Justice Penfold is a good example. She took two years to decide a personal injury case, and even then didn’t calculate damages, and was overturned. There was much controversy over her appointment in 2007 given she was a career public servant who never actually practiced law. Now she is frontrunner to be the next Chief Justice.

I know we are not meant to say anything ill about judges, but they have a responsibility to the community and Canberrans are being severely let down.

One has to wonder how long it will take Corbell to realise that his fatuous attitude is plainly WRONG and appoint an additional two Supreme Court judges to resolve this fiasco FFS!

There is absolutely no chance people with a disability would get justice, especially against a government agency, in a legal system like this. A dysfunctional legal system damages any prospects for disability service reforms. What use is a legal system that can’t help the people who most need it?

Crispin is on point in this piece, especially with his remarks about some of the judges suffering from what might be called Magna Carta-ism – the urge to write the definitive judgment covering every bit of the law on an area going back to the Magna Carta; and the Government’s failure to make good appointments in recent times.

If Simon Corbell is anything like fair dinkum, to quote Crispin’s words, he “needs to find good lawyers’ lawyers – people who have had at least a decade and a half at the Bar writing opinions and advocating in the courts in a variety of matters and who have the respect of their peers. All other considerations (including gender and political affiliations) should be put aside”.