TAG: Chapter III
The Government as Litigant
The Productivity Commission is currently tasked with reviewing Australia’s civil justice system, focusing on constraining costs and promoting access to justice and equality before the law. Part of this larger review is a review of the government’s obligation to act as a model litigant. Dr Gabrielle Appleby has recently considered reforms to the obligation in […]
Comments Off on The Government as Litigant
Reforming Military Justice
On 21 June 2012, the Attorney-General introduced two Bills to Parliament, the Military Court of Australia Bill 2012 and the Military Court of Australia (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2012. (The Bills can be accessed here). The Bills are the culmination of a series of attempts by the Commonwealth to create a new institution […]
Comments Off on Reforming Military Justice
Pensions, Federal Magistrates, and Judicial Independence
Unlike other federal judges, who are entitled a fixed, non-contributory pension, Federal Magistrates belong to a superannuation scheme. Adelaide Law School PhD Candidate Anna Olijnyk looks at the recent case of Baker v The Commonwealth, in which the Full Federal Court considered whether Federal Magistrates’ post-retirement income arrangements violated Chapter III of the Constitution. The […]
Comments Off on Pensions, Federal Magistrates, and Judicial Independence
Can Chapter III cope with Mega-Litigation?
Chapter III of the Constitution is not usually noted for its ability to adapt to the changing demands of modern society. How, then, does Chapter III deal with the increasingly common phenomenon of ‘mega-litigation’? This post by PhD candidate Anna Olijnyk is based on a paper presented at the 2012 Gilbert + Tobin Postgraduate Workshop. […]
Comments Off on Can Chapter III cope with Mega-Litigation?
Why extend the Judicial Complaints Process to Non-judicial Officers?
In this blog post, Gabrielle Appleby comments on the recent calls by President of Fair Work Australia, Justice Iain Ross, to bring the tribunal under the new complaints handling processes proposed for federal courts. Last week, Fair Work Australia (FWA) President, Justice Iain Ross of the Federal Court, was calling for FWA to be covered […]
Comments Off on Why extend the Judicial Complaints Process to Non-judicial Officers?
Trip to Canberra: Courts Legislation Amendment (Judicial Complaints) Bill 2012 and Judicial Misbehaviour and Incapacity (Parliamentary Commissions) Bill 2012
Last week, John Williams and Suzanne Le Mire appeared before the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee to give evidence in support of the Adelaide Law School’s submission on the Courts Legislation Amendment (Judicial Complaints) Bill 2012 and Judicial Misbehaviour and Incapacity (Parliamentary Commissions) Bill 2012. Suzanne explains the submission, and what happened at the […]
Scholars support Commonwealth’s attempts to bring accountability and transparency to judicial conduct
Last week, Gabrielle Appleby, Dr Suzanne Le Mire, Professor Geoffrey Lindell, Anna Olijnyk, Alexander Reilly, Dr Matthew Stubbs, Adam Webster and Professor John Williams made a submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee that supported, in principle, two Bills introduced into the Parliament by the Attorney-General that introduce measures for handling complaints against […]
South Australia and New South Wales React to High Court Rulings on Bikies
In 2010 and 2011, the High Court dealt the governments of South Australia and New South Wales severe blows against their wars on organised crime when their respective ‘Bikie Bills’ were found, in part or in whole, unconstitutional. Gabrielle Appleby traces the history of the State Bikie Bills to their current iterations which were introduced […]