- Headnote
- Posts
- New report into judicial independence
New report into judicial independence
The Australian Judicial Officers Association has published a report by Dr. Jessica Kerr, which it commissioned, on judicial independence in Australia, Uber class action $271m settlement approved by Justice Patricia Matthews of the Victorian Supreme Court.
Was this email forwarded to you?
Sign up for our free daily email newsletter at headnote.com.au
Daily wrap
Corrupt former MP Daryl Maguire to fight allegations he gave false evidence to ICAC | news.com.au — Australia’s leading news site
Treasury head Steven Kennedy backs ASIC, ACCC on barrister pay [AFR paywall]
The department’s secretary has personally lobbied to end a 13-year freeze on what barristers can earn for doing government work.
This executive avoided jail and sued for $4.5 million. Here’s how it went wrong [SMH paywall]
A Federal Court judge has found that John Joseph Carter was well aware of bribes and other illegal inducements, including paying for sex workers.
When is Lisa Wilkinson due back in court? | news.com.au — Australia’s leading news site
Editor’s picks
New report into judicial independence – Australian Judicial Officers Association
A report into the state of judicial independence in Australia has found “there is much to be proud of, but also much to do”. The Australian Judicial Officers Association commissioned a research paper ‘Judicial Independence in Australia’ by Dr Jessica Kerr of the University of Western Australia to raise awareness about the need for vigilance about risks to judicial independence. Dr Kerr found 12 main pressure points for judicial independence…
District Court of NSW and NSW Bar Association Protocol for Dealing with Complaints of Judicial Conduct
[31] A submission of this kind is wholly unsatisfactory. Apart from the passing reference to the trace of a third party’s DNA on the nunchucks, this “submission” was bereft of any argument at all, and that position was scarcely advanced in oral submissions. If counsel wish to contend that a jury verdict is unreasonable within the meaning of s 6(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), the Court expects that counsel will be in a position meaningfully to assist the Court and not simply submit, as was done in the present case in response to a question as to what was relied upon in support of the ground, “The Court has to make its own independent assessment of the evidence.” Counsel should not settle a Notice of Appeal including such a ground unless they themselves have given conscientious attention to whether or not such an argument can responsibly be made, and articulated arguments as to why a verdict was unreasonable in the sense of not being open to the jury.
[2] The jury’s questions to the trial judge were reasonable questions, and the judge’s answer to them gave an incomplete answer which was apt to mislead the jury into thinking that the jurors were bound to continue to deliberate until such time as they were able to produce a unanimous verdict which was, of course, not the case, given the ultimate possibility of a majority verdict being available under s 55F of the Jury Act 1977 (NSW), or the jury being discharged.
[66] His Honour expressed some concern that someone on the jury knew about majority verdicts. He indicated his intention to tell the jury that the decision was required to be unanimous and that whatever someone in the jury room might be saying about majority verdicts should be ignored.
Public lecture: A Human Rights Act for NSW (17 Oct 2024) - The Hon Michael Kirby AC CMG - YouTube
AML/CTF legislation passes: What does this mean for lawyers? - Law Society Journal
Must a Prime Minister be a Member of the Lower House of Parliament? - Anne Twomey - YouTube
Linklaters Launches GenAI Sandbox To Drive Innovation – Artificial Lawyer
Handful of countries responsible for climate crisis, top court told | Climate crisis | The Guardian
NSD858/2021 - AUSTRALASIAN CENTRE FOR CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY v SANTOS LIMITED
Justice Markovic will conduct a hearing in this matter tomorrow, 3 December 2024 at 10:15am AEDT.
To observe the hearings remotely, you can access the livestream here: youtube.com/@FederalCourtA…
#fca
— Federal Court of Australia (@fedcourtau)
4:00 AM • Dec 2, 2024
This is a much-delayed Qld appeal about whether the wrongful admission of uncharged 'bottom slapping' evidence as tendency evidence in a child sexual abuse trial requires a new trial.
The parties have raised broader issues about the general test for ordering a retrial.
— Jeremy Gans (@jeremy_gans)
4:26 AM • Dec 2, 2024
Last chance to register...
Please join us TOMORROW for the last Legal Operations Clinic for 2024, brought to you in collaboration with Graeme Grovum, Head of Legal Technology and Client Services, Allens.
You can register for free here: events.humanitix.com/legal-ops-clin…— CLI (@Legalpreneurs)
4:59 AM • Dec 2, 2024
Like our free newsletter? The best way to support us is to tell your colleagues about our newsletter!
We love feedback - [email protected]