A Flood of Light?: Comments on the Interpretation Act 2005

Judicial Studies Institute Journal, 2005

2011

This article considers the norms that surround the freedom of speeches of judges in Ireland in the context of the referendum on judicial salaries.

Judicial Dialogue and Human Rights

Introduction As underlined by the editor of this volume and by other contributors, much remains to be explored as to ‘how judges learn about foreign law developments’. This chapter lifts the veil on one of the ways via which judges – in this context, judges of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR or the Court) – learn about foreign legal material: the contributions made by amici curiae, or ‘friends of the court’. The hypothesis that ECtHR judges find inspiration to look at the jurisprudence of other courts in amicus curiae briefs stems from judgments directly indicating that comparative elements were brought by amici, from statements of the judges themselves and from scholarly literature. The hypothesis is thus the following: briefs which try to inform and/or to influence the Court by engaging in comparative legal analyses and by referring to various international, regional and domestic court decisions can encourage the Court to have this ‘dialogue’. This contribution empirically examines whether, and in what form, amici indeed bring this information in their briefs to the ECtHR, and whether traces of the comparative references of the briefs can be found in the Court’s judgments. An exploration of the briefs’ content and their influence on the judgments helps to explain one of the methods through which ECtHR judges become aware of foreign decisions. It also seeks to provide answers to questions asked in this volume regarding the impact of the Court’s use of amicus curie briefs on the extent, methods and purposes of the ECtHR’s engagement in judicial dialogue. This chapter focuses on the briefs submitted by human rights non-governmental organisations (NGOs) to the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR. This topic is particularly relevant, as no empirical work has yet examined the content of the briefs and drawn the link with the practice of the ECtHR’s judicial dialogue. While some studies have closely examined the role of civil society organisations before the ECtHR, they do not focus on the comparative material that their briefs bring before the Court. Most authors who assert that amici play an important role base their findings on a small number of cases, often those that are most frequently cited; or they only rely on the references in the judgments.

Irish Law Times, 2011

1992

JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE IN AUSTRALIA, 2019

PART THREE UPDATE IN VIEW OF NUMEROUS APPEALS BEING UPHELD AFTER JUDGMENTS ISSUED BY THE GENERAL DIVISION OF THE FED CIRCUIT COURT IN FAMILY MATTERS JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE MIGHT WELL NEED REVISITING. THE MERGING OF THE FAMILY COURT INTO GENERAL BUSINESS WITH JUDGES PARTICIPATING WHO HAVE NO FAMILY LAW EXPERIENCE IS A HOT SUBJECT TODAY TAXPAYERS SLUGGED FOR JUDGE’S DUD DECISIONS The Attorney-General has declined to comment on a Federal Circuit Court judge, who has been criticised on some recent appeals that so soundly overturned his judgments that taxpayers had to pick up the court costs. https://www.afr.com/business/legal/could-salvatore-vasta-be-australias-worst-judge-20190225-h1bp1k Judicial independence is a fundamental aspect of law and governance in Australia, commanding near universal endorsement. Despite its vital importance, the independence of the Australian judiciary is threatened on a variety of fronts. This volume brings together some of Australia’s leading constitutional scholars to discuss judicial independence and its contemporary challenges, including challenges posed by politics, judicial selection, extra-judicial activities, social media and the war on terror. Contributions include theoretical, empirical and comparative perspectives. The book includes an initial essay by former Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, Sir Anthony Mason AC KBE CBE QC. The volume provides a valuable guide to future directions in law and governance, with an eye to strengthening judicial independence in Australia. PART 3 Judge's biting criticism (some elect to call it a tirade) exposes 'crisis' in family courts Michael Pelly Legal Affairs Editor Mar 17, 2019 — FIN REVIEW ''Totally unsatisfactory state of affairs'' ...the Law Council says Justice Peter Murphy exposed tensions in the Family Court and Federal Circuit court that ''cannot be allowed to continue''. The incendiary farewell speech by Family Court judge Peter Murphy that took aim at "finger-puppet" appointments has convinced the Law Council "there is a judicial crisis in the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court". The council's president, Arthur Moses, SC, said there needed to be a circuit-breaker and that the nation's peak legal body was willing to mediate to ease the "deep division amongst the bench". Mr Moses blamed multiple factors for what he said was a "totally unsatisfactory state of affairs", including judges anonymously criticising their colleagues in the press and "consistent failure" on judicial appointments. ''Totally unsatisfactory state of affairs'' ...the Law Council says Justice Peter Murphy exposed tensions in the Family Court and Federal Circuit court that ''cannot be allowed to continue''. Angela Wylie "If judges do not have respect for each other, it is difficult for judges to expect the public to respect the court in turn," he said. "It is plain that the situation is untenable and cannot be allowed to continue as it undermines the administration of justice and public confidence in our courts." Justice Murphy, who doesn't leave the bench until May, told a Brisbane courtroom on March 8 that the Family Court's leaders – Chief Justice Will Alstergren (who is also Chief Judge of the Circuit Court) and his predecessor John Pascoe – "should hang their heads in shame" for not defending it during the protracted debate on changes to the family law system. With the Chief Justice sitting next to him, Justice Murphy took aim at "judges who are finger puppets for politicians and governments", saying they "sacrificed their self-respect and undermined the rule of law". Justice Murphy, who was appointed in 2007, also reflected concern within the court and among senior practitioners that some appointments to both the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court – which handles more than 80 per cent of family law work – have not been made on legal merit. "Courts must not ever be the playthings of governments. Nor should they be the repositories of favours for partisan mates or other political largesse," Justice Murphy said in his speech. ''Untenable''...Law Council president Arthur Moses, SC, says ''there is a judicial crisis in the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court''. supplied "Merit is observable and notorious. It is capable of verification through due diligence. It is not found refracted through the prism of party political favours." Mr Moses suggested Justice Murphy "felt compelled to defend the judges of his court because it has been used as a punching bag to justify misconceived changes to the Family Court which will harm, not help, families". "However, there needs to be a circuit breaker to stop the situation deteriorating further,'' he said. "The Law Council is extremely concerned at the present state of affairs and stands ready, willing and able to assist both courts in any way to mediate and promptly resolve these tensions." Failed to defend the court... Justice Murphy criticised Family Court Chief Justice Will Alstergren, pictured (left) with the court's Deputy Chief Justice Robert McClelland. Supplied He cited "judges anonymously criticising their colleagues in the press, rampant uncertainty as to the courts' futures caused by the government's misconceived merger plans which were not the subject of consultation with the judges, public misinformation about the performance of the courts, and a consistent failure by governments to make timely and transparent judicial appointments to meet areas of community need". "All of this has inevitably led to pressure and deep division amongst the bench which cannot be ignored or allowed to continue," Mr Moses said He largely absolved the judges of any blame. "There is a judicial crisis in the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court which is not of the making of the overwhelming majority of the judiciary who work tirelessly in an under-resourced system... "At the end of the day, it is Australian families and children who will suffer the consequences." Michael Pelly writes on the law and the legal profession. Based in our Sydney newsroom. Michael is the Fin Review 's Legal Affairs [email protected] https://www.academia.edu/28874798/Judicial_independence_from_the_executive_a_first-principles_review_of_the_Australian_cases MATERIAL FOR REFERENCE ON SUBJECT MATTER https://www.academia.edu/38559476/Judicial_Expertise_requirements_for_Family_Law_Court_Judges.docx https://www.academia.edu/38557234/UPDATE_Judicial_Independence_in_Australia_PART_2_HKN.docx https://www.academia.edu/38448030/Judicial_Independence_in_Australia_Conte.pdf https://www.academia.edu/38448027/The_Judicial_System.pdf https://www.academia.edu/38574340/3553_-_FC_and_FCA_Bill_2018_Bill_Consequential_Amendments_and_Transitional_Provisions_Bill_2018.pdf https://www.academia.edu/38456388/ON_FED_COURTS_MERGER.docx https://www.academia.edu/38448028/Judges_in_vice-regal_roles.pdf https://www.academia.edu/38429107/Rangiah-J-20170125.rtf https://www.academia.edu/38573559/the_Law_Council_says_exposed_tensions_in_the_Family_Court_and_Federal_Circuit_court_cannot_be_allowed_to_continue..docx https://www.academia.edu/38475197/Miscarriage_of_Justice.docx https://www.academia.edu/38327653/FCFC_Bill_2018_Scrutiny_Digest_12_page_84---89.docx

SSRN Electronic Journal, 2010

2017

This symposium focuses on judicial politics at the micro level. Its aim is to shed lighton justice in action, drawing on an ethnographic approach to explore the routinedecision-making practices of judges and other legal actors, and to study their interactionswith citizens and politicians. Each article is based on close observation of the interactionsbetween legal professionals and administrative actors who are at the frontline in local andlower courts. By examining a variety of jurisdictions around the globe, the articles in thissymposium offer fresh insight into “judicial politics on the ground.”

California Law Review, 1992