News from far corners … Western Australia and Tasmania … SC agitation … Finding the right appointment “process” … Displaced Circus Court judge pops up in Hobart … Outcry over fiddling with the law course at U Tas … Theodora on the parapet
In October Penglis wrote to the chief justice Peter Quinlan and every other big-wig in town saying that an overhaul of SC appointments was overdue.
“Having experienced the system as an applicant for some seven years, and having heard from various reliable sources (primarily judges and former judges), I consider the system to be far too ad hoc, opaque and susceptible to inappropriate and unfair influence by persons outside of those who are referred to in the existing Practice Direction as parties with whom the Chief Justice is to confer.”
Barrister Geoff Hancy wanted to go further, saying if the system can’t be reformed it should be abolished.
In 2015 Hancy prepared an 87-page document dealing with procedural fairness of the appointment process.
In supporting Penglis, Hancy said:
“I consider the process we have in our state, that results in titling some but not other equally or more senior barristers ‘senior counsel’, to be so remote from our role as lawyers (and judges) that lawyers must act to bring about abolition or reform.”
Bar president Martin Cuerden denied anything was amiss, telling the rank ‘n’ file that the bar council, “wishes to disassociate itself from the suggestion that the current system is ‘susceptible to inappropriate and unfair influence by persons outside of those referred to in the existing practice direction as parties with whom the chief justice is to confer’.”
Penglis also sent out another message on October 15 with corrections at the request of the CJ.
Last week (Thursday, Feb. 24) barristers were receiving fresh messages from Pengelis complaining about the lack of response to his proposal from the bar association to its members.
The troops seem to be disinterested in reforming the silk selection lottery.
After a rocky few years he’s put up his shingle as a Hobart lawyer and mediator.
In July last year it emerged that Two Wigs Willy Alstergren commissioned three retired judges of the Victorian Supremes to make findings about the allegations against Harman. It is not known if Peter Vickery was among them.
At that point Harman had been on leave of absence for at least a year.
The committee found the complaints substantiated, involving “inappropriate communication” and two “unwelcome hugs”.
In 2011, when he was a federal magistrate, Harman was suspended after two adverse appeal rulings. In one case he failed to follow the correct procedure and peremptorily convicted and sentenced a demented man for contempt.
In another case, he dismissed an application to disqualify himself from hearing a case in which a solicitor appeared with whom Harman had an “extremely hostile” personal and business relationship.
The case was later transferred, but the Family Court was unhappy that the rules of procedural fairness had been “clearly breached”.
It was reported at the time that Harman was “believed to be suffering from a mental illness”.
In May 2015 it was Justinian’s solemn duty to report Harman’s complaints that the Circus Court at Parramatta was overburdened, that cases were being delayed and judges were handling a workload two to three times beyond what was reasonable.
“Nationally accredited mediator, Joe has been dealing with family law matters since 1986 and mediating disputes since 1992. To date, he’s clocked up more than 5000 hours of mediation together with 11 years as a judge.”
Heaps of family lawyers in Hobart got an email from Joe advertising his wares.
A high-powered delegation of big wigs, including chief justice Alan Blow, the former governor Kate Warner, plus presidents of the bar and law society, took their concerns to the vice-chancellor Rufus Black.
The delegation wanted to know why changes were afoot at the law school and whether they had anything to do with “the reportedly high level of staff turnover”.
The nabobs from the profession sought assurances that core legal units will continue to be taught by “people who are expert in the subject areas they are teaching”.
But shock, horror, it was discovered that the university was planning “to engage a mainland provider to deliver post-graduate practical legal training in Tasmania …”
There was much discussion about how this would impact the Centre for Legal Studies.
According to Law Society president Simon Gates:
“The practical legal education and training provided by the Centre for Legal Studies is regarded by many as the best on offer in Australia …”
Apparently, it’s “hands on” in a “face-to-face learning environment [with] the opportunity to interact with experienced local judges, magistrates and lawyers – all while learning local practice and procedure”.
The last thing anyone wants is some foreigner from the mainland fiddling with local tribal customs.