Victoria's opposition leader, Jess Wilson, has announced a radical plan to split the state's Court of Appeal into two separate courts – one dedicated to criminal appeals and another for civil matters – a move aimed at delivering tougher sentences for serious offences. The proposal, unveiled on Sunday, has been met with immediate criticism from legal and human rights groups who argue it would politicise the judiciary and undermine judicial independence.
Under the Coalition's plan, which would be implemented if it wins the November state election, a new dedicated court of criminal appeal would be created alongside a separate court of civil appeal. The new criminal court would be staffed by additional judges with specialist expertise in criminal law, according to Wilson.
Coalition's plan to reshape Victoria's appeals court
Wilson said the overhaul would be introduced alongside tougher bail and sentencing laws, which the Coalition has committed to enacting before the end of the year if it forms government. Together, these measures would help set new legal precedents that would ultimately lead to longer sentences for serious crimes.
“It's time for a new approach,” Wilson said on Sunday. “Our new criminal court will empower specialist criminal law judges to ensure sentencing of criminals meet community expectations. Each sentence they hand down will form part of case law going forward, helping to establish appropriate consequences for criminal actions.”
The shadow attorney general, James Newbury, said the appointment process for judges – who are selected by the governor on the recommendation of the attorney general – would remain unchanged, but that a “strong background in criminal matters will be a key focus” when making future appointments. “It will mean that criminal matters are dealt with by specialist judges who will be tough on crime, who will be tough on criminal offences,” he said.
Legal groups condemn proposal as 'dangerous' and 'ignorant'
Newbury said he had consulted with judges and courts about the policy “in a way that Victorians would expect”, though he declined to discuss the details of those consultations publicly. However, legal and human rights groups have sharply criticised the proposal.
Gemma Cafarella, the president of Liberty Victoria, described it as a “dangerous and ignorant thought bubble designed without the input of experts”. She said that in “properly functioning democracies”, parliaments make the laws and courts apply them, with the two systems kept separate. “Governments shouldn't choose judges to get the outcomes they want,” Cafarella said. “This is a move that would politicise the criminal courts, and it must be rejected.” She also characterised the Coalition's comments as an “appalling political attack on the work of court of appeal judges”.
Greg Barns SC, the criminal justice spokesperson for the Australian Lawyers Alliance, said there was “no clear evidence” the current court of appeal structure was failing, “aside from the longstanding issue of underfunding”. He described the proposal as “a disturbing example of the risk of undermining the independence of the judiciary” and said it sent a signal that the opposition was “willing to interfere with judicial independence for political purposes”.
Concerns over judicial independence and political interference
The Alliance's director, Susan Accary, said the group was “not persuaded” that splitting the courts would improve the quality of justice or address delays in the system. Tom Ballantyne, president of the Law Institute of Victoria, said it was unclear how the proposal “adds anything” to the court of appeal, which “already has access to numerous judges with extensive criminal expertise”. He warned that “anything that could undermine the independence of the courts and its judges could have significant consequences and would be a significant concern to the community”.
The announcement comes amid heightened political focus on crime ahead of the November election. Earlier this month, One Nation's Victorian leader, Warren Pickering, said the party wanted to make “bleeding heart judges accountable” and “get rid” of those he believes fail to meet community expectations. The Labor government has already passed controversial “adult time for violent crime” and tougher bail laws, and is undertaking a review of sentencing.
Premier Ben Carroll responded to the opposition's plan on Sunday, saying it showed the Liberal party was “floundering” and questioned how the opposition could “rewrite case law overnight”. “It shows you the Liberal party today have no legal expertise,” Carroll said.
