Good on her for cutting down her time, yet giving the same conclusion.

Preceedent means they adopt a similar outcome, therefore if the 'end' is the same, she should adpot the most efficient means of doing so.

Why should she waste hours of her valuable time putting it into her own words when the precedent is there, great.

You are all too hard, she did not cheat she used the verdict of another judge as it had the same outcome.

It is the 21st century folks, her demands have never been higher, get her a PA to write it out for her to keep you happy.

If i gave someone (for example) 5 years jail, who cares what it said it is the outcome that is important.

Get off your high horses and realise, you all do it every day, she did not do the wrong thing she just did not have the time to rewrite it. Judges pinch off eachother everyday, this is life in the Legal System.

As one, without any formal legal training, who has appeared before Magistrates and other Judges in various courts and Tribunals I have developed the utmost respect for those, chosen to undertake a most difficult task.

Not all decisions went my way but I was made well aware of why that was the case.

Now while here most seem to argue from a general perception and take in all sorts of outside factors, at the end of the day it is what occurs in the processes within the courtroom that determines the effectiveness of the Judge, Magistrate etc and their decisions. I have in my seven trips to court yet to encounter stupid or unreasonable behaviour or result.

My opinion formed from my relatively limited and inexperienced position is the present imperfect system of appointment works well enough.

realist, I saw some more regarding the particular allegations over lunch and part of the concern is that adequate thought may not have been put into the decision. Clearly the truth or otherwise is not going to be decided in the "Courier Mail" or on this thread.

In my own case I had a barrister in court for a couple of days and he gave informal advice that the decision she made may not have been valid - I won't try and explain the details here. I'm not to concerned about the plagerism issue, I am concerned about the level of overwork which suggested that shortcuts may have been taken in area's other than just making up her own wording.

Her decision got us out of the courts without actually making a judgement and eventually lead to the issue being resolved by "consent", the kind of consent where one party has no viable options left. I'm left wondering how much the size of the magistrates workload played in the decision, maybe if she was a bit less tired and a bit less overloaded she might have asked a few more questions and dealt with it differently. I'm not confident that it is just an issue of efficiency.

Maximus, whilst I am clearly unhappy with the way the magistrate handled the matter I suspect that a significant proportion of that was a result of an excessive workload. In regard to Family Law being a female created system I'm fairly certain that Alistair Nicholson is male and he was the central figure in that system for a long time and fought very hard to make it what it is. I'd prefer to save considered anger for those who deliberately manipulate the system. Nicholson, my ex, her solicitor and others who have a clear choice between right and wrong and choose wrong. I suspect that the magistrate in question has been trying to get a very difficult job done under trying conditions.

R0bert

RObert,

As I said before, you are probably a better man than I. Respect. But it is my nature to be the warrior.

Mirko has it right about looking to America to solve the problem of judicial appointments being political. But he hasn’t looked far enough. It is rare for popular columnists or current affairs TV programs in the United States to make much mileage out of bizarre or out of touch judicial rulings (for state courts at least). The reason for this is that the judicial officers truly reflect the beliefs and values of the people because of the simple fact that in most states it is the actual people who directly put, by elections, those officers on the bench.
The most fundamental aspect of democracy is that those who have power over us are those, who we the people, appoint. Any judge who does to go off on an ideological tangent to mainstream values will find him or herself removed from office at the next election.

A practice that I’m sure would be eagerly welcomed by the public, albeit not the politicians or judiciary, here in Australia. Admittedly a more practical method would be, rather than have the judges themselves running for office, to elect individuals to judicial boards which would then have the power to arbitrarily appoint and remove judges and magistrates. Any board members who are part of the majority who appoint, or refuse to remove, shonky defenders of our judicial system will find themselves facing an angry electorate at the next election.

Maximus, my nature is not very warrior focussed. Some by orientation and some by choice. The views I've expressed on this matter are ones which I can hold away from the heat of the moment. They have not always been as generous.

Mostly in hindsight I would have liked some way to have an informal "post implementation review" (as project managers put it) with the magistrate to let her know how her decision played out in practice, something that seems to be lacking from this process.

There seems to be no way for her (and other magistrates/judges etc) to know how what they have done has worked out unless we happen to end up back before the same magistrate again and manage to convey that stuff through the haze of legal process. The feedback cycle which should help improve performance seems to be very weak.

I'd like some way of showing her some of the deceptions that were used by my ex so that she could consider those tactics in future cases, I'd like some way of telling her the impact of having to attend RA programs in the middle of a working day on the outskirts of Brisbane when you have been using up good will at work fairly intensly already and want to keep annual leave to care for your child. I'd like to make sure she understands the impacts of repeated court appearances with legal representation where she did not have time to address the issue on that day had on my finances.

As I pointed out on another thread I'm hoping to get away on holidays tomorrow so I may not be contributing more to this thread.

Thanks to all for an interesting discussion.

R0bert