Judicial bias: Liberal Half think-tank blocked

The judicial impartiality investigation review was ordered by former Attorney General Christian Porter in October last year, shortly after the appeals division of the family court dismissed allegations of arrested bias against a trial judge who had a relationship with one of the attorneys involved. This case is now before the High Court.

Believed to be unsuitable

The ALRC received 48 responses to a consultation paper suggesting that some requests to disqualify a judge for bias should be heard by someone other than the judge in charge of the case.

It published only 30, of which 11 were withheld at the author’s request. The remaining seven were deemed unsuitable for various reasons. According to the ALRC website, this could mean that she has violated privacy regulations, made defamatory or defamatory comments, abused, harassed or threatened others, or used obscene or offensive language.

The Australian Law Reform Commission has suggested that bias claims be heard by other judges. Tamara Voninksi

An ALRC spokeswoman said that some objectionable submissions fell into “multiple categories” for non-publication.

A statement posted on the Commission’s website said: “Based on outside legal advice, the ALRC believes that the Menzies Research Center’s report on Jan.

“In accordance with the Submission Policy, the ALRC will keep the submission confidential and will not post it on the ALRC website. The fact that the submission can be published by the Menzies Research Center or by third parties does not contradict the ALRC’s view of its defamatory content.


“Menzies Research Center has the option to submit a new application that does not contain defamatory or libelous information, and such application would be posted on the ALRC website if it complies with the ALRC submission guidelines.”

Mr. Cater said the MRC will not revise its submission, which has been “carefully researched and carefully drafted”.

The newspaper lamented the “increasing use of the courts for political purposes” and highlighted a decision by Judge Mordy Bromberg of the Federal Court of Justice that the Federal Environment Minister owed a duty of care to children, not to harm them through mining developments.

It also examined 271 labor law judgments by 33 judges of the Federal Court of Justice from 2018-2020. It found that 52 percent were in favor of unions or workers, but some judges were outliers.

Selected: Judge Mordy Bromberg

Judge Bromberg ruled in favor of unions / employees in 10 out of 11 cases (91 percent), ahead of Justice Collier (67 percent) and Judge John Reeves (80 percent).

According to the MRC, Judges Robert Bromwich (80 percent) and Judge Richard White (75 percent) were the most common judges found for employers.

The submission found that five judgments of Judge Bromberg were overturned by the High Court. This included the recent ruling on casual workers, which restored the primacy of the contract. Justice White also took place for the workers.

It also included comments from Labor Senator Kimberley Kitching to commentator Andrew Bolt after Judge Bromberg found that Mr Bolt had violated the Racial Discrimination Act by commenting on “fair-skinned” Indians. “He was an active ALP person [before going to the bench] … Maybe he wasn’t the best person to hear your case, ”Senator Kitching told Mr. Bolt, according to the submission.

The MRC supported the ALRC’s suggestion that the presiding judge should not hear claims of actual or arrested bias. It cited a poll by polling firm True North, which found that 76 percent of respondents felt that applications should be heard by an independent panel of experts instead.

The work of the courts would be severely hampered if each individual request for bias had to be referred to a different judge.

– Judicial Officers Association of Australia, in their submission for investigation

“Independent oversight makes sense and helps avoid the long and costly delays that can arise from bias concerns.”

However, the Judicial Officers Association of Australia warned in its post that such a rule could be abused.

“Annulment motions in some courts can be used as a practical tactical tool, especially in areas of law with very high discretion. The abuse of such requests can impose real hardship on the party wishing to proceed with the dispute settlement …

“The work of the courts would be severely hampered if each individual request for bias had to be referred to a different judge. It would be a very practical tactical mechanism that a litigant could use to introduce delays. “

Comments are closed.