DOCSLIB.ORG

View Annual Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
View Annual Report Annual Report Judicial Commission of NSW 2012–13 Judicial Commission of NSW / Annual Report 2012–13 The Judicial Commission of NSW is an independent statutory corporation formed in 1986 This annual report summarises the Contents Judicial Commission’s activities and performance for 2012–13 against 2012–13 highlights ..................................1 our main objectives, strategies and Our profile.........................................2 targets. We also report on our financial Our history ........................................3 results for the year and outline our The year in brief: key focus areas.......................4 strategic focus for 2013–14. The year ahead.....................................5 Performance results for 2012–13 .......................6 This is our 26th annual report. Last year’s annual report gained a Gold President’s foreword ................................8 Award in the 2013 Australasian Chief Executive’s message...........................10 Reporting Awards. Members of the Judicial Commission ..................12 Our executive team ................................15 This and earlier annual reports are Continuing judicial education program ...................16 available on our website at Research and sentencing program ....................26 www.judcom.nsw.gov.au Examining complaints ..............................34 Engaging with our partners ..........................42 Our people .......................................48 Our governance policies and processes ................54 The Honourable Gregory Smith SC MP Attorney General and Minister for Justice Our finances ......................................62 Governor Macquarie Tower Sydney NSW 2000 Appendices ......................................86 Dear Attorney Glossary ........................................106 The Judicial Commission of NSW has pleasure in Index...........................................107 presenting to you the report of its activities for the year ended 30 June 2013. Looking at the last five years .............inside back cover This report is submitted in accordance with section 49 of the Judicial Officers Act 1986 and section 12 of the Annual Reports (Departments) Act 1985. It is required to be laid before both Houses of Parliament. Yours sincerely The Honourable T Bathurst E J Schmatt PSM Chief Justice of NSW Chief Executive President Judicial Commission of NSW Level 5, 301 George Street Sydney NSW 2000 Australia GPO Box 3634, Sydney NSW 2001 Telephone: 9299 4421 International +61 2 9299 4421 Facsimile: 02 9290 3194 Office hours: 8.30 am – 5.00 pm Email: [email protected] ii 2012–13 highlights Continuing judicial education program Engaging with our partners • 92% average satisfaction rate with our • participants gave the Community Awareness of education program exceeded our target the Judiciary Program a 90% satisfaction rating • 38 education sessions provided, 3 more than • 23% increase in public use of our online our target (last year: 34) resources • 25 publications produced for judicial officers’ • Lawcodes audit showed that we are meeting professional reference (last year: 21) best practice See page 16 See page 42 Research and sentencing program Our people • use of the Judicial Information Research System • staff rated working at the Judicial Commission (JIRS) at an all-time high with 15% growth at 100% satisfaction, up 4% • 21% growth in the use of sentencing and • Judicial Commission was one of the highest criminal law reference material on website rated agencies in the NSW Public Service • launched an iPad™ app and adapted JIRS for Commission’s People Matter Employee Survey mobile devices • staff turnover rate of 2.5% at a five-year low • 12 enhancements made to JIRS See page 48 • published 2 Sentencing Trends & Issues papers and a research monograph, and 8 updates to the Criminal Trial Courts Bench Book and Sentencing Bench Book Our governance, policies and processes See page 26 • 10 Commission meetings held, 4 Audit and Risk Management Committee meetings held, and 2 internal audit reviews conducted Examining complaints • no worker’s compensation claims or work health and safety prosecutions • 85 complaints examined (last year: 90) • 14% reduction in our energy use over the last • 71 complaints lodged (last year: 110 complaints) 5 years • 5-month completion rate achieved for the See page 54 preliminary examination of most complaints • 98% of complaints examined within 10 months See page 34 Our finances • $22,000 surplus • 100% of our creditors paid on time • sales of our own services at $631,000 were higher than last year’s sales of $554,000 See page 62 back to Contents 1 Judicial Commission of NSW / Annual Report 2012–13 Our profile Who we are Our values The Judicial Commission of NSW is an independent Connecting — we value our partners and work statutory corporation established under the Judicial Officers cooperatively with them. Act 1986. We report to the Parliament of NSW. Professionalism — we are recognised for our integrity, our independence, and the high quality services we deliver. What we do The Judicial Commission provides a continuing education Enhancement — we continually improve the way we do and training program for the judicial officers of NSW. We business. publish information about the criminal law and sentencing to assist the courts to achieve consistency in imposing Sustainability — we will consider the way our operations, sentences. The Commission also examines complaints products and services impact on people, the environment about judicial officers’ ability or behaviour. We share our and the economy. knowledge and experience with the global network of judiciaries and judicial education providers. Our partners We provide services to the judicial officers and people of Our governance NSW, the courts, the legal profession, other justice sector An independent Commission of 10 members guides our agencies, law libraries and law students. We share our strategic direction and examines all complaints. The Chief experience with other Australasian and overseas judicial Executive, supported by three directors, manages our daily education providers. operations. See p 15 for their profiles and achievements. Our structure Our vision The Commission has three service groups — education, The people of NSW will have confidence in the exceptional research and sentencing, and complaints. See our ability and performance of judicial officers. organisational structure below. Our mission Our resources To promote the highest standards of judicial behaviour and 34.2 full-time equivalent staff at the Judicial Commission at decision making. 30 June 2013. $5.321 million revenue from the NSW government; $631,000 in self-generated revenue. Figure 1. Our organisational structure Judicial Commission of NSW (10 members) Chief Executive Complaints Audit and Risk Management Ernest Schmatt PSM Committee Education Director, Director, Information Director Research and Sentencing Management Ruth Windeler Hugh Donnelly and Corporate Services Murali Sagi PSM • Judicial Education • Criminal Law and • Finance and • Conferences and Sentencing Research Administration Communication • Judicial Information • Information Management • Publishing Research System (JIRS) and Technology • Computer training • Strategic Planning • Lawcodes • Library 2 back to Contents Our history 1985 2001 Controversies involving judicial officers in Australia are Lord Justice Robin Auld, senior presiding judge for England reported in the media. and Wales described JIRS as a “world leader in this field”. 1986 2006 NSW Government announced plans to establish a Judicial Equality Before the Law Bench Book launched in June and Commission in response to a perceived crisis in public Sentencing Bench Book in September. confidence in the judiciary. Judicial Officers Act 1986 commenced in December 1986. The Commission combines 2007 a complaints function with educational and sentencing functions. Judicial Officers Act amended to provide for lay representation on a Conduct Division. 1987 Commission celebrated 20 years of successful operations. Judicial Officers Act amended to establish the Commission There were 278 judicial officers in NSW. as an independent statutory authority. Operations commence in October. There were about 220 judicial 2010 officers in NSW. Local Courts Bench Book published on the Commission’s website. All Commission bench books are now publicly 1988 accessible. First issue of the monthly Judicial Officers’ Bulletin published. 2011 Two magistrates separately addressed Parliament after a 1990 Conduct Division reported to the Governor in each case. The Commission embraced technology when Chief Justice Parliament voted not to remove the magistrates from judicial Gleeson launched the Sentencing Information System (SIS), office. a database to help judicial officers improve consistency in approach to sentencing. 2012–13 NSW Government issued all magistrates with iPads™. The 1996 Commission developed the JIRS app for Apple® iPad™ SIS became part of the Judicial Information Research users and a mobile version of JIRS. There were 350 judicial System (JIRS). officers in NSW. 1998 For the first time, a judge addressed Parliament after a Conduct Division reported to the Governor. Parliament voted not to remove the judge. Judicial Officers Act amended to increase lay membership of Commission from two to four. Criminal Trial Courts Bench Book published online on JIRS. There were 251 judicial officers in NSW. back to Contents 3 Judicial Commission of NSW
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Local Court of New South Wales Annual Review 2019
    Local Court of New South Wales Annual Review 2019 Contents Foreword by Chief Magistrate of New South Wales 2 1. An overview of the Local Court 5 Jurisdictions and Divisions 6 The Magistrates 8 Chief Magistrate’s Executive Office 14 The work of the Local Court registries 15 2. Court operations during 2019 16 Criminal jurisdiction 17 Civil jurisdiction 20 Coronial jurisdiction 21 3. Diversionary programs and other aspects of the Court’s work 25 Diversionary programs 26 Technology in the Local Court 30 4. Judicial education and community involvement 32 Judicial education and professional development 33 Legal education in the community and participation in external bodies 36 Appendices 39 The Court’s time standards 40 The Court’s committees 41 2019 Court by Court statistics 42 1 Foreword by Chief Magistrate of New South Wales At the conclusion of the foreword to the 2018 The Local Court is no longer a relatively small Annual Review I expressed the view that ingredient of our justice system confined to dealing the Local Court had reached the limit of its with relatively minor matters. This is still part of its capacity to sustain its performance against its makeup however the Court is regularly engaged in Time Standards without an increase in judicial the finalisation of a steadily increasing category of resources. The year 2019 saw no increase more and more serious criminal offences. in the number of magistrates despite advice It is not uncommon for a magistrate to find from the Court to government that to maintain themselves dealing with dishonesty or money a sensible balance between expectations and laundering offences involving sums of money in outcomes, without unduly prejudicing the the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
    [Show full text]
  • Victims of the System Papers & Presenters
    FOURTEENTH BIENNIAL CONFERENCE JUNE 2013 VICTIMS OF THE SYSTEM PAPERS & PRESENTERS John Elferink MLA, NT Attorney-General & Minister for Justice Aged 46, John Elferink was born in the Netherlands, moving to Darwin as a young child. He joined the NT Police as a 17 year-old cadet, rising to the rank of Sergeant, and was working as an Alice Springs based policeman at the time of his surprise victory in the outback seat of MacDonnell at the 1997 election. Mr Elferink was re-elected in 2001, and held the seat until 2005. In 2008 he was elected to the seat of Port Darwin. While in the police force he undertook a Bachelor of Arts by correspondence. While a parliamentarian, he did likewise to obtain a Bachelor of Laws, and was admitted to practice in 2009. His vision for his electorate is crime to be a rarity rather than constant. Trevor Riley CJ (NT Supreme Court) – “Victims of the System: a view from the Bench” The theme of the conference is Victims of the System. The sessions identify a variety of people who may presently be regarded as victims of the system. This paper will look at the relationship between the Judiciary and the other arms of government and comment upon the prospect that, rather than solving perceived problems, recent and proposed legislative schemes may create further victims. Trevor Riley was appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory in 2010, having been a Justice of the Court since 1999. Chief Justice Riley had practiced at the Northern Territory Bar since 1985, and was appointed Queen's Counsel in 1989.
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Impartiality
    CONSULTATION PAPER AND BACKGROUND PAPERS JUDICIAL IMPARTIALITY APRIL 2021 The Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) was established on 1 January 1975 and operates in accordance with the Australian Law Reform Commission Act 1996 (Cth). The office of the ALRC is at Level 4, Harry Gibbs Commonwealth Law Courts Building, 119 North Quay, Brisbane QLD 4000. Postal Address: PO Box 12953, George Street QLD 4003 Telephone: within Australia (07) 3248 1224 International: +61 7 3248 1224 Email: [email protected] Website: www.alrc.gov.au CONTENTS Judicial Impartiality Consultation Paper i The Law on Judicial Bias: A Primer JI1-1 Recusal and Self-Disqualification JI2-1 The Federal Judiciary – the Inquiry in Context JI3-1 Conceptions of Judicial Impartiality in Theory and Practice JI4-1 Ethics, Professional Development, and Accountability JI5-1 Cognitive and Social Biases in Judicial Decision-Making JI6-1 The Fair-Minded Observer and its Critics JI7-1 CONSULTATION PAPER JUDICIAL IMPARTIALITY APRIL 2021 This Consultation Paper reflects the law as at 30 April 2021. The Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) was established on 1 January 1975 and operates in accordance with the Australian Law Reform Commission Act 1996 (Cth). ALRC publications are available to view or download free of charge on the ALRC website: www.alrc.gov.au/publications. If you require assistance, please contact the ALRC. ISBN: 978-0-6482087-9-2 Citation: Australian Law Reform Commission, Judicial Impartiality: Consultation Paper (CP 1, 2021) Commission Reference: ALRC Consultation Paper 1, 2021 © Commonwealth of Australia 2021 This work is copyright. You may download, display, print and reproduce this material in whole or part, subject to acknowledgement of the source, for your personal, non-commercial use or use within your organisation.
    [Show full text]
  • 2005 Annual Report
    The Australian Institute of Judicial Administration Incorporated Annual Report for the year ended 30 June 2005 The Australian Institute of Judicial Administration Incorporated PATRON Ms Megan Greenwood The Hon Murray Gleeson AC Chief Executive Officer and Principal Chief Justice of Australia Registrar, Supreme Court of New South Wales COUNCIL President Mr John Gunson The Hon Justice John Byrne Partner, Gibney & Gunson, Solicitors, Supreme Court of Queensland New South Wales Deputy President Magistrate Annette Hennessy The Hon Justice Virginia Bell Queensland Supreme Court of New South Wales Mr Peter Johnstone Deputy President Partner, Blake Dawson Waldron Mr Laurie Glanfield AM Director General, Attorney-General’s Professor Marcia Neave AO Department, New South Wales Chairperson, Victorian Law Reform Commission Dr Andrew Cannon AM Deputy Chief Magistrate, South Australia The Hon Justice Robert Nicholson AO Federal Court of Australia Mrs Anne Coghlan Deputy President - General Mr Richard Refshauge SC Victorian Civil & Administrative Tribunal Director of Public Prosecutions - ACT Ms Jennifer Cooke Chief Judge Michael Rozenes Executive Director, Client Services County Court of Victoria Family Court of Australia Her Honour Judge Christine Trenorden The Hon Justice Linda Dessau Senior Judge, Environment, Resources and Family Court of Australia Development Court, South Australia Magistrate Peter Dixon Mr George Turnbull Tasmania Director, Legal Aid, Western Australia The Hon Justice Garry Downes AM The Hon Justice Peter Underwood AO President,
    [Show full text]
  • 'Passive Smoking' Defence Clears Woman of Drug Driving As Research Casts Doubt on Roadside Testing ABC North Coast by Gemma Sapwell Posted Thu 23 May 2019, 6:28Am
    'Passive smoking' defence clears woman of drug driving as research casts doubt on roadside testing ABC North Coast By Gemma Sapwell Posted Thu 23 May 2019, 6:28am PHOTO: Police officers take saliva swabs from drivers as part of the roadside drug driving tests. (ABC North Coast: Gemma Sapwell ) The accuracy of drug driving tests has been called into question RELATED STORY: Calls to relax Canberra's drug- after a landmark court ruling and new research by a leading driving laws as the ACT looks to legalise cannabis academic. RELATED STORY: Medicinal cannabis driving plan 'inconsistent' with road safety objectives Data collected by Sydney University has revealed roadside mobile saliva EXTERNAL LINK: Magistrate questions NSW drug tests returned inaccurate results more than 20 per cent of the time when driving testing program testing oral fluids for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the main psychoactive ingredient in cannabis. Researchers at the university's Lambert Initiative for Cannabinoid Therapeutics conducted hundreds of tests on drivers with varying levels of THC in their system to study whether there was any link between cannabis and driver impairment. The program's academic director Iain McGregor said the research, which is yet to be published, raised concerns. "The tests are particularly poor at detecting when people have a lot of THC in their system so they can be really stoned and getting a negative test," he said. PHOTO: A driving simulator is used in the Sydney University research into THC impairment. (Supplied: Professor Iain McGregor ) But he said what was even more alarming was the number of false positives recorded.
    [Show full text]
  • 2010 Local Court Annual Review
    Local Court of New South Wales Annual Review 2010 Contents Foreword by Chief Magistrate of New South Wales 2 1. An overview of the Local Court 4 Jurisdictions and divisions 5 The Magistrates 8 Chief Magistrate’s executive office 13 The work of the Local Court registries 14 2. Court operations during 2010 15 Criminal jurisdiction 16 Civil jurisdiction 18 Coronial jurisdiction 19 Industrial jurisdiction 22 Mental health 23 3. Diversionary programs and other aspects of the Court’s work 24 Diversionary programs 25 Technology in the Local Court 29 4. Judicial education and community involvement 31 Judicial education and professional development 32 Legal education in the community and participation in external bodies 34 Appendices 39 The Court’s time standards 40 The Court’s committees 41 2010 Court by Court statistics 43 1 Foreword by Chief Magistrate of New South Wales It is with pleasure that I present the Local Court 20 percent in the first year of the new scheme’s Annual Review for 2010, a year which marked operation. To this day, an increasingly large the 25th anniversary of the establishment of the number of indictable offences continue to be Local Courts of New South Wales. determined to finality in the Local Court. On 1 January 1985, upon the commencement As the jurisdiction of the Local Court has of the Local Courts Act 1982, the Local Courts developed, so too has the magistracy. Unlike assumed the jurisdiction previously exercised by the stipendiary magistrates of the Courts of the Courts of Petty Sessions and magistrates Petty Sessions, who were public servants were for the first time afforded the status of whose remuneration was set under the Public independent judicial officers.
    [Show full text]
  • Legal Education Review
    Bond University Legal Education Review Volume 29 Issue 1 2019 Do Law Clinics Need Trigger Warnings? Philosophical, Pedagogical and Practical Concerns Kate Seear Monash University _____________________________________________________________________________________ Follow this and additional works at: https://ler.scholasticahq.com/ This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 Licence. DO LAW CLINICS NEED TRIGGER WARNINGS? PHILOSOPHICAL, PEDAGOGICAL AND PRACTICAL CONCERNS KATE SEEAR∗ I INTRODUCTION In recent years, there has been growing concern about poor mental health among both law students and lawyers. 1 Concerns about the mental health of law students and lawyers are often traced back to the mid-1980s in North America, emerging from a series of studies that examined lawyers’ and law students’ physical and mental health and wellbeing, rates of alcohol and other drug use, suicidal ideations and more. In Australia, where I am based, these concerns are also the subject of considerable debate and attention. Several scholars attribute the Australian interest in these issues to the publication of the landmark Courting the Blues report in 2009.2 Following the publication of that report, there has been something of an explosion of work3 in this space, and a series of initiatives designed to address mental health and wellbeing, both at law school and among practitioners. In 2006, for ∗ Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Monash University. 1 I am indebted to my PhD student Claire Carroll for bringing much of this literature to my attention, and to the work of scholars such as Paula Baron and Christine Parker, for their collation and analysis of it.
    [Show full text]
  • 2009 Annual Review
    The Land and Environment Court of NSW Annual Review 2009 1 Contents 01 Foreword from Chief Judge 26 5. Court Performance 02 1. 2009: An Overview ❚ Overall caseload ❚ Court performance ❚ Court performance by class of jurisdiction ❚ Reforms and developments ❚ Measuring Court performance ❚ Education and community ❚ Output indicators of access to involvement justice ❚ Consultation with court users • Affordability 06 2. Court Profi le • Accessibility ❚ The Court • Responsiveness to the needs ❚ Statement of purpose of users ❚ The Court’s jurisdiction ❚ Output indicators of ❚ The Court’s place in the court effectiveness and effi ciency system • Backlog indicator • Delivery of reserved judgments ❚ Who makes the decisions? • Clearance rate • The Judges • Attendance indicator • The Commissioners ❚ Appeals • The Registrars ❚ Complaints ❚ Appointments and retirements • Complaints received and ❚ Supporting the Court: the fi nalised Registry • Patterns in complaints 14 3. Casefl ow Management 49 6. Education and Community ❚ Introduction Involvement ❚ Overview by class of jurisdiction ❚ Continuing professional ❚ Types of directions hearings development ❚ Class 1 hearing options • Continuing professional ❚ Alternative Dispute Resolution development policy • Conciliation • Annual Court conference • Mediation • Twilight seminar series • Neutral evaluation • National Mediator Accreditation • 360 degree feedback program 21 4. Reforms and Developments • Other educational activities ❚ Mining jurisdiction ❚ Performance indicators and ❚ Transfer of civil proceedings program evaluation between courts ❚ Education and participation in ❚ Amendments to Court rules the community ❚ International Framework for ❚ Individual Judges’ and Court Excellence Commissioners’ activities ❚ Sentencing database for environmental offences 74 Appendix 1 – Court Users Group 76 Appendix 2 – Court Committees LEC Annual Review 2009 2 Foreword From Chief Judge This Review provides information on litigation in the Court, its human resources and its the Court, the performance in the year under review.
    [Show full text]
  • Speaker Profiles and Presentation Abstracts
    SPEAKER PROFILES AND PRESENTATION ABSTRACTS NICM HEALTH RESEARCH INSTITUTE SYMPOSIUM 12 AUGUST 2021 MEDICINAL CANNABIS: RESEARCH, REGULATION AND EDUCATION Health Research Institute NICM HEALTH RESEARCH INSTITUTE – MEDICINAL CANNABIS RESEARCH SYMPOSIUM AUGUST 2021 1 PROFESSOR DENNIS CHANG WELCOME ADDRESS Director, NICM Health Research Institute, Western Sydney University Dennis Chang is the Director of NICM Health Research Institute and a Professor of Pharmacology. He is also the lead of NICM Health Research Institute’s Healthy Hearts Research Program. His research interests include clinical and pharmacological studies of herbal medicine and other complementary medicine interventions at the Institute. As the leading investigator of several significant clinical trials, Professor Chang’s research projects have centred around evaluating herbal medicine, yoga and tai chi for the treatment of dementia, mild cognitive impairment, coronary heart disease, metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes. He has also linkedin.com/in/prof-dennis-chang been involved in preclinical research to evaluate molecular mechanisms and synergistic interactions of active components of herbal medicine. Professor Chang’s research has been published in a broad range of high-quality peer-reviewed journals such as British Journal of Pharmacology, Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Drug, and Journal of Translational Medicine. His research has been supported by various competitive funding agencies, governments and industry totalling $7M. Prior to joining NICM Health Research Institute, Professor Chang served a number of academic leadership roles within Western Sydney University including Research Director of School of Science and Health, and Associate Head of School of Biomedical and Health Science. He initially trained in medicine and received postgraduate training in pharmacology.
    [Show full text]
  • Time to Define 'The Cornerstone of Public Order Legislation': the Elements of Offensive Conduct and Language Under The
    534 UNSW Law Journal Volume 36(2) TIME TO DEFINE ‘THE CORNERSTONE OF PUBLIC ORDER LEGISLATION’: THE ELEMENTS OF OFFENSIVE CONDUCT AND LANGUAGE UNDER THE SUMMARY OFFENCES ACT 1988 (NSW) * JULIA QUILTER ** AND LUKE MCNAMARA *** I INTRODUCTION This article addresses a contradiction that has long been at the heart of the criminal law concerned with ‘public order’. Although crimes such as offensive conduct and offensive language are amongst the most frequently prosecuted offences in Australia, their legal nature is poorly understood and rarely the subject of judicial scrutiny or academic explanation. In the context of ongoing controversy over whether such offences have a legitimate place on the statute books, we confront this oversight. This article draws on the High Court of Australia’s decision in He Kaw Teh v The Queen 1 to lay out a methodology for construing the elements of a statutory offence, and then employs this approach to produce a recommended interpretation of the elements of sections 4 and 4A of the Summary Offences Act 1988 (NSW). * This article has its origins in our work as criminal law teachers, and in our respective lead contributions to the public order chapters of criminal law textbooks: Donna Spears, Julia Quilter and Clive Harfield, Criminal Law for Common Law States (LexisNexis Butterworths, 2011) ch 8; David Brown et al, Criminal Laws: Materials and Commentary on Criminal Law and Process of New South Wales (Federation Press, 5 th ed, 2011) ch 8. We would like to thank our teaching colleagues, students and co- authors for the many stimulating conversations we have had over the years on the topic of public order offences generally, and offensive conduct/language laws in particular.
    [Show full text]
  • Of Judges by Judith Gibson1
    Vol. 7 No. 2, March 2016 ISSN 2156-7964 URL: http://www.iacajournal.org Cite this as: DOI: URN:NBN:NL:UI:10 http://doi.org/10.18352/ijca.199-1-115648 Copyright: Social Media and the Electronic “New World” of Judges By Judith Gibson1 Abstract: Courts in Australia not only have social media policies to control social media use in the courtroom, but are starting to use social media to publish judgments and court-related information. How will the interactive nature of social media affect the discourse between the court and litigants? Will social media require courts to take court “user” satisfaction into account in the provision of justice, and how is the dissemination of judgments on social media affecting public perceptions of traditional rules such as the doctrine of precedent? This discussion paper examines the future of courts in a social media world where the “like” button, and not just the legislature or stare decisis, may play an increasingly powerful role in shaping both the content of the law and the way in which courts administer justice. Keywords: Social Media Interactions, Courts, Judges, Doctrine of Precedent. 1. Introduction Social media use by judges, court administrators, and courts, although viewed with concern only a few years ago2, is now hailed as an “exhilarating opportunity for the Courts to tell the public we serve who we are” 3. Over the past three years, courts in Australia and in New Zealand have set up social media accounts,4 allowed social media reports of court proceedings and dealt with the tender of social media evidence in a wide range of civil and criminal proceedings.
    [Show full text]
  • Notices (NGT 09/20 P.12)
    [email protected] Letters Thin blue line NGT I want to thank David welcomes letters Heilpern for his column and other contributions received by email or post Notices (NGT 09/20 p.12). David’s language is insightful and prior to deadline. Letters Position vacant delightful. I’m very much longer than 300 words may Cawongla Playhouse is seeking a Cert III qualified looking forward to your be edited for length, and educator for a casual short term position 3 days a week in promised future columns. articles for accuracy. Please term 4. We are also seeking Cert III staff to join our relief However, the metaphor include your full name, list. You must have current working with children check, invoked by the phrase address and phone number first aid and Cert III qualifications. Please email your CV for verification purposes. “democracy shudders” fails to: [email protected] to truly capture the utter Opinions expressed remain despair, visceral anger, and those of the author, and Room to let permanent dark cynicism are not necessarily those of Vacancy available in large 4-bedroom home in bushland which many of us carry Nimbin Good Times. setting just a 12-minute walk to the Nimbin Post Office. around inside our bodies A third interesting and happy person is wanted, so there every minute of every day of media now openly describe www.hollyenglish.com will be a spare room. Huge verandah and large garden our ‘democratic’ lives. “Police accountability in area, some of it planted. Our possible house-mate would I agree with you that the NSW” as “pathetic and for the rail trail.
    [Show full text]