The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Victoria's judges are effectively unaccountable > Comments

Victoria's judges are effectively unaccountable : Comments

By Trevor Hoffman, published 25/3/2009

What process does the Attorney-General have in place to decide whether complaints of serious misconduct against a judge warrant investigation?

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All
Congratulations to Trevor Hoffman on an impassioned plea to ensure proper accountability for judges at all levels of our legal system. Our community relies on a high-level of trust for the judicial officers that sit at the apex of our independent judiciary – without this trust our respect for the “rule of law” and acceptance of legal resolutions to social or personal disagreements is under jeopardy. Cases like the one alluded to by today’s opinion writer are seldom the subject of public scrutiny and the legal restrictions put in place by most jurisdictions effectively rule out the raising of concerns about the conduct of judges or possible systematic bias regarding certain matters due to a judge’s personal views on the issues. This is a brave article by a learned writer. It would be great to hear reflections from others with legal or personal experience of issues where a lack of judicial review may exist in other Australian courts including those with federal jurisdiction.
Posted by Akiva, Wednesday, 25 March 2009 11:05:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why just pick on Victorian Judges? At this point in time while Judges, in all nine States in Australia exhibit a state of paranoid schizophrenia when confronted with a request for jury trial, Victorian Judges are not unique at all. They are just as bad as the ones that infest the courts of every Australian State including the Commonwealth; no better and no worse.

To be a Judge a person had to have a special prejudice, a feeling of superiority exceeding a normal persons and an absolute addiction to power. It is refreshing to have a legal academic write such a critique of Victorian Judges. A Judge is a cursed person. He calls down the curse of the satanic forces, when he assumes the role of Almighty God and calls together a Court like a Machiavellian potentate. He cannot be literate, and must not be able to distinguish the difference between a capital letter and a small letter, He must not be prepared to accept there is any higher authority than himself.

An Australian Judge has to be schizophrenic. Yes I have watched the parade of hypocrites at the start of law week, go into a church, and mumble their allegiance to Almighty God, and watched them walk out and get instant Alzheimers. The money is not bad but to sell your soul for thirty pieces of silver the money would have to be good.

Rob Hulls as a boy in Mt Isa appealed to a Magistrates higher self and his client, Murrandoo Yanner, an aborigine was acquitted by a Magistrate on the grounds that the Commonwealth Statute, was a higher authority. The Queensland Court of Appeal ordered a conviction, and in one of the better judgments of the exclusive brethren in Canberra, the High Court found for Hull’s client.

It is a pity he does not remember. He appears to be an advocate these days of Victorian Sovereignty: Victoria as Almighty God the highest God in Australia. The High Court won’t exercise its highest authority and send back every trial without a jury for retrial. It should.
Posted by Peter the Believer, Wednesday, 25 March 2009 7:20:40 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I dont know about anyone else but I found this article most disturbing. Here is a highly qualified lawyer saying judges in Victoria can easily manipulate evidence and get away with it. Surely it cant be that simple for judges to deceive the courts that hear appeals. Surely there are safeguards to stop this happening. What does the legal profession have to say? Is the system as open to abuse as Mr Hofman would have us believe
Posted by jaco, Thursday, 26 March 2009 4:04:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Professor of Common Law at Oxford, A V Dicey An English Jurist often misquoted as professing the Supremacy of Parliament was to become one of the most respected English legal writers, ever; especially, in respect to constitutional law. Dicey was very much concerned "to the modern threat to freedom in the incursions that were being made into The Rule of Law. Dicey concluded that "the twin pillars upon which our system rests," to quote Professor Keeton A Jurisprudential writer whose writings explore the entire spectrum of jurisprudence (The Passing of Parliament), "are the sovereignty That power in a State to which none other is superior of Parliament and the supremacy Sovereign dominion, authority and preeminence of the common law, administered in the ordinary courts independent of the executive over everyone within the realm, whether public official or private citizen." Dicey's Law of the Constitution (1885)

The Judges of Victoria would do well to reconsider their position. As posted in the Einfeld discussion, they could be sued in Queensland or New South Wales, or Tasmania, civilly for penalties, because S 15C Acts Interpretation Act 1901 ( Cth) gives all these State courts unlimited jurisdiction, when the respondent lives anywhere in the Commonwealth.

It is time Paul Keatings legislation allowing the courts of the States to compete with each other for cases and revenue enacted in 1995 amending the Trade Practices Act 1974 was applied to any uppity individual who thinks he or she is above the law
Posted by Peter the Believer, Thursday, 26 March 2009 5:20:38 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If Victoria was a separate country as its Judges seem to think, it would be understandable, but it is not supposed to be such a country. If the High Court was an effective body, which it is not, having had the same law applied to it as the Federal Court of Australia has had in 1979, by the Fraser Government, effectively abolishing its criminal jurisdiction, then these Judges of Victoria would be accountable.

When Mal enacted S 77A Judiciary Act 1903 in 1979, he repealed the Australian Constitution.

It says: S 77A ; In every suit in the High Court unless the Court otherwise orders, the trial shall be by a Justice without a jury. This denies the freedom to choose. So far the Rudd government has refused to repeal it; Deconstructed it means that the High Court cannot comply with S 80 Constitution, and exercise criminal jurisdiction. That it does not comply with S 79 Constitution has not yet been accepted by lawyers.

The High Court Rules 2004 make no provision for the exercise of criminal jurisdiction by the High Court. It is in effect not a Ch III court. These rules also insult the Queen and Parliament because despite s 33 High Court of Australia Act 1979 the Queens name no longer appears on process issued out of its Registries.

One would think that allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second as required by S 11 of the Act, would require Her name on all process. They have a big flash new Registry in Sydney, and a big flash new courtroom. Perhaps its time we got seven new High Court judges who are prepared to fix the mistakes made in 2004, disallow the castration of the High Court enacted in 1979, and disallow all laws that affect it made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth as unconstitutional since 1903.

S 77 (i) Constitution is a blanket prohibition on the Parliament of the Commonwealth; a prohibition so far allowed to go through to the keeper. While it continues, we have no rule of law in Victoria or anywhere else
Posted by Peter the Believer, Friday, 27 March 2009 7:39:11 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This article left me unconvinced. The hypothetical example was of a judge ignoring crucial evidence, thereby awarding the case to the wrong party. When that happens an appeal court will intervene.

Appeal Courts look at the whole of the evidence given at trial. The examination on appeal is not limited to the written judgment.
Posted by Ken Mackenzie, Saturday, 28 March 2009 11:28:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy