I've been pondering aspects of this issue over the weekend. I noticed in the paper on the weekend that the magistrate who handled a family law matter I was involved in is having her judgements reviewed following the discovery of incidents of plagerism in a couple of her judgements. I was quite unhappy with her handling of the matter so I was fairly pleased to see that the review was ocuring except when I started on a letter regarding my concerns I was reminded that my overriding impression at the time was that she appeared to be seriously overworked in a job that must be terribly draining regardless of how big the pay packet is.

The court appeared to have a larger focus on wood panelling than on managing the workload of the magistrates. In my view errors, misjudgements and shortcuts on the magistrates part have contributed to significant harm to myself and my son but I have to ask myself is that her fault or the fault of a system that is so overloaded that she was reportedly required to use some of her accumulated leave to write up overdue judgements.

When overworked emergency room doctors make mistakes because they are required to work extremly long shifts we rightly look at the systems which lead to a shortage of doctors as well as the professional choices the doctors make to continue working past the point of competence. So to with the judicary, we should consider the context of the systems they work in and the opportunity they have to manage the requirements of their work before we lay the blame entirely at the feet of individual judges and magistrates.

R0bert

Mirko

Thank you for your article. Very interesting.

RObert

Hi there. On this occasion I have to disagree with you. Plagiarism is intellectual theft. It is cheating. It is dishonest. There is never any excuse for plagiarism. University students can get expelled from courses and programs for plagiarism.

What is even worse is that the magistrate simply "lifted" the findings of another magistrate for another case. She was not individually judging the person being charged. That is disgraceful.

She is a dishonest magistrate. She has stolen and she has cheated. She should be sacked.

Surely we should be able to expect optimal conduct from magistrates and judges. No excuses in my book.

If a doctor was run off his/her feet and lifted clinical notes from one patient's notes to another patient's notes, people would be horrified.

All professions have a Code of Conduct which has only one interpretation: follow the Code, follow the rules.

Cheers
Kay

No doubt the abstrusity of some rulings has catalysed a call for judges to be subjected to very public hearings. Not before time. The very thought of an examination of judges does exercise the mind. I see an image of men (and women) in wigs and brightly coloured gowns being dragged into the 21st century. What a cruel society we have become.

Public examination of judges is long overdue even if it means offending the legal club's omerta. Had the process been in place we may have avoided appointments like justice Lionel Murphy. Murphy was so honest, wholesome and pure that his good mate, Bob Hawke, judged us unworthy to gaze upon Murphy's file so it was sealed for 30 years or so. Page after page of that file would cause us to blush knowing that we occupy such a low station in life when compared with the deeds of his honour (cough! cough!) Mr Justice Lionel Murphy.

The bench does provide a bit of theatre to amuse the peasants. How amusing it was to see the politicians and members of the legal club acting in gob-smacked unison when judge Yeldham's and judge Shaw's exemplary behaviour made the papers. Why didn't someone tell them of Yeldham's weakness and Shaw's habit?

Kay, feel free to disagree - disagreement is a part of these threads and I have mixed views on the matter anyway.

I do get very concerned when judgment is passed in isolation from circumstances. I don't know the particular details of the plagerism, I do know in my own case she made some assumptions which seemed to contribute to a decision which hurt me dearly. A decision which kept our case open for an extended period which was used by my ex to provoke our son into some unfortunate actions, he wanted the case over and knew how to get that.

It was suggested to me at the time by a barister that the decision she made may not have been legal however I lacked the financial and emotional resources to fight it. Part of me would love to see her sacked but I have the impression that the core of the problem lies with those who overload too few judicary with what appears to be an enormous case load.

No excuse for wrong doing by a professional but we are all human.

Cheers
R0bert

R0bert, mate.

It is not my manner to engage person to person on opinion sites such as this (usually). I believe each has a right to expression and each should not be taken to task for any expression they might make - respect should be given to any person's opinion even if they're totally wrong. But mate...

Sometimes you really exasperate me!

How come you're so damned nice all the time?

Most often you are usually very correct and have a balance of views, which are highly commendable. But sometimes a man needs to be outraged. Sometimes a man needs to take a strong stand. Sometimes a man needs to speak his mind with no airs or graces or political correctness. Sometimes a man needs to grunt and make a lot of loud noises - for that is the nature of being a man. To fight for and defend important principles.

Here in this case you are the (possible) victim of wrongdoing. Here your very family and kin have been seriously affected, yet you find apology and rationalisation for the (possible) perpetrator of ill against you. Damn it. I find that infuriating.

As some might know, I am a totally opinionated pig and your reticence to castigate the (possibly) guilty here is enough to give me ulcers. Crikey, mate, stand up and fight. Fight for your right to party. Your grace and humility is greatly honourable, but your acceptance of injustice sets a standard of mediocrity that hurts us all.

God bless you R0bert, I wish I had your patience and forgiveness. Perhaps you're a better man than I. Yet, perhaps not.

Please take these comments as an observation, not as an accusation. If I was in your shoes mate, I'd be as mad as hell. But I do respect your right to do as you wish - I just don't understand it.

I wish you all the very best in life.

"Judges are given the nod by the Attorney General who are in turn rubber stamped by Parliament" Who appoints the Attorney General? Now in NSW we have had Labor Govt in power for over 10 yrs.So much for the independance of the Judiciary.

In NSW we have crime waves and violence never experienced before in our recent history.With the exception of Michael Finene there is no truth in sentencing.The primary reason for this is that there are now so many criminals that our state will go broke if they are gaoled.It can cost up to $80,000.oo pa just to keep one crim in gaol,so the left wing appointees have suited this Iemma Govt right down to the ground.

The drive by shootings and gang violence we are experiencing in Sydney is only the tip of the iceburg.Just an extra 2000 crims in gaol can cost up to $1.6 billion,so it makes sense to to have a revolving door of short sentences and good behaviour bonds.

The anti-iscrimination laws,regulation and red tape that apply to our police force also suit the Iemma Govt very nicely,since they can
effectively limit the police in arresting too many crims.When crims of ethnic origin get arrested,they can appeal to the anti-discrimination board and can not only tie the police up in red tape,but also end a policeman's career.All the crim has to say ,"Drop the charges and I'll drop my discrimination appeal."

Most crime goes unreported because of few police numbers,laws and regulation that make our force virtually impotent and a judiciary that won't give real sentences because the Govt can't afford justice.

Crime in NSW will accelerate especially when the Middle Eastern crims in the south west of Sydney realise that they have our Iemma
Govt snookered.