Victoria's judges are effectively unaccountable

Perhaps I do not fully appreciate the Victorian proposal. If I do, I am surprised it has not received more significant criticism.

As is this writer, and on that note we return to that crucial question we asked earlier: what process does the Attorney-General have in place to decide whether complaints of serious misconduct warrant investigation?

If the writer’s experience is any guide, there is none, and it is clear the Victorian judicial complaints procedure not only does not work, it cannot work. Further, the incongruous nature of its design sees it inherently predisposed to perpetuate the very problem it purports to remedy.

We should never forget that our courts set the standards by which we are all judged, and that if we wish to be judged by the highest standards, we must have in place the most effective means of ensuring our courts achieve them. For this reason Federal Attorney-General, Robert McClelland’s recent proposal for an independent expert body to scrutinise the judicial complaints of the nation is a cause to be embraced by all Australians, especially Victorians.

In finishing, it’s worth noting Professor Sallman’s Report (2003) reveals that in arriving at his recommendations, he was strongly influenced by the opposition of Victorian judges to a NSW-type model. Of course, it is perfectly reasonable that the judges’ views be considered, but in our grand social scheme, judges are there to serve the public, and like other public servants, they should have to account to the public.