The short version
- The Liberal opposition proposes dividing Victoria’s Court of Appeal into separate civil and criminal branches to ensure specialist judges handle serious offenses.
- Legal organizations and human rights advocates argue the move lacks evidence of systemic failure and risks compromising judicial independence by selecting judges based on sentencing preferences.
- Premier Ben Carroll dismissed the proposal as legally unsound, while the Coalition insists it will empower courts to meet community expectations for tougher consequences.
The Victorian Liberal Party has unveiled a significant structural reform proposal aimed at the state’s highest court, seeking to split the Court of Appeal into two distinct entities: a dedicated criminal appeals court and a separate civil appeals court. Opposition Leader Jess Wilson announced the plan on Sunday, positioning it as a central pillar of the Coalition’s strategy for the upcoming November election. The initiative is designed to address what the opposition describes as a need for more specialized judicial oversight in serious criminal matters.
Under the proposed framework, the new criminal appeals court would be staffed by judges with specific expertise in criminal law. Wilson stated that this specialization would allow these judges to establish case law that aligns more closely with community expectations regarding sentencing. The Coalition argues that current structures do not sufficiently prioritize the nuances of criminal justice, and that a dedicated bench would help set precedents leading to stricter penalties for serious offenses.
This structural change is intended to operate in tandem with broader legislative efforts already committed by the Coalition. If elected, the party plans to enact tougher bail and sentencing laws before the end of the year. Shadow Attorney General James Newbury emphasized that while the appointment process for judges would remain technically unchanged—still involving the governor on the recommendation of the attorney general—the criteria for selection would shift. He indicated that a strong background in criminal matters would become a key focus, ensuring that those appointed are perceived as tough on crime.
Critics from legal and human rights sectors have responded with immediate and severe condemnation. Gemma Cafarella, president of Liberty Victoria, characterized the proposal as a dangerous political maneuver that ignores expert input. She argued that in a functioning democracy, the separation between law-making parliaments and law-applying courts is essential. According to Cafarella, selecting judges to achieve specific sentencing outcomes politicizes the judiciary and constitutes an attack on the integrity of current appellate judges.
The Australian Lawyers Alliance echoed these concerns, with criminal justice spokesperson Greg Barns SC noting a lack of evidence that the current Court of Appeal structure is failing. Barns suggested that any perceived issues are more likely related to underfunding rather than structural design. He warned that the proposal signals a willingness by the opposition to interfere with judicial independence for political gain, which he described as a disturbing precedent.
Tom Ballantyne, president of the Law Institute of Victoria, questioned the practical necessity of the split. He pointed out that the existing Court of Appeal already has access to numerous judges with extensive criminal expertise. Ballantyne expressed concern that any measure perceived as undermining judicial independence could have significant negative consequences for public trust in the legal system. Susan Accary, director of the Alliance, added that there was no indication that splitting the courts would improve justice quality or reduce systemic delays.
The political context surrounding this announcement is charged with election dynamics. Crime remains a dominant issue in Victoria, with the incumbent Labor government having recently passed controversial measures including 'adult time for violent crime' laws and stricter bail regulations. The government is also conducting its own review of sentencing practices. Premier Ben Carroll dismissed the Liberal proposal as evidence that the opposition is floundering legally. He questioned the feasibility of rewriting case law overnight and criticized the lack of legal expertise demonstrated by the plan.
While Newbury claimed consultations with judges and courts had occurred, he declined to disclose details, citing appropriateness. This opacity has further fueled skepticism among legal professionals who argue that such a fundamental change requires transparent engagement with the judiciary. As the November election approaches, the debate over judicial structure highlights deeper tensions between political mandates for tougher crime responses and the traditional safeguards of judicial independence.
The proposal remains untested in legislative reality, contingent entirely on the outcome of the state election. If implemented, it would represent a radical departure from Victoria’s current appellate structure. However, without broad consensus among legal experts regarding its necessity or efficacy, the plan faces substantial hurdles beyond the ballot box. The coming months will likely see intensified scrutiny of how political parties balance electoral promises with constitutional principles.
Sources behind this briefing
Go to the original reporting
- The Guardian World↗Liberal plan to split Victorian appeals court attacked as ‘thought bubble’ that would politicise judiciary
