Stop press

First, the important news … this announcement arrived last month from the inner sanctum at Vic’s Bar ‘n’ Grill:

“… we decided to conform with the Australian Guide to Legal Citation, authorised by the High Court of Australia and issued by the University of Melbourne, to drop the stops in the post-nominals ‘S.C.’. This change in style means that we will also now conform to the Australian Government Style Manual and will bring Victoria into line with NSW.

The change is timely, given the current rebuild of the Bar’s website. If you have recently purchased new stationery, do not be overly concerned – a search of the Bar’s current website demonstrates that there are already varied styles adopted by our SCs.”

Nothing too granular is beyond the detailed attention of the bar’s panjandrums.

Matrimonial causes

Distressing news from the Lubyanka at Sydney’s Queens Square.

The Joint Law Courts Library is on the cusp of being de-jointed. Like most unhappy marriages, money is the root of the problem. The Feds don’t want to keep forking-up $770,000 a year for access to the learned gems.

Everyone is shaking their heads in despair about the break up, which takes effect on August 1, 2024. It will mean that High Court and Federal Court judges can still access the hard copy volumes, but not the massive digital archive.

Even more distressing, library staff will no longer provide research services for federal judges.

Library tantrum on level 15

The Federal Court is a member of the NSW Justice Consortium for Legal Publication Subscriptions, so will be able to get some back-up from that source.

The Law Courts Library kicked off in 1977 and has been a unique arrangement providing books, information, and research to all the courts housed within the Lubyanka – the Saloon, the Federales, and the Supremes.

Over 400,000 volumes are maintained – apparently including a massive library on defamation law, everything ever written on the subject – commissioned by former Justice Rares.

It must have assisted the judge in his calculation of massive damages for any media organisation that crossed his threshhold. What happens to that treasure trove is now the subject of conjecture.

The entire library collection started even before there was a Supreme Court and comprised the Judge-Advocate’s library, gradually supplemented by the private collections of early judges – W.C. Wentworth, James Martin, and Frederick Darley.

The arrangement to date has been for a shared library jointly funded by the State and the Commonwealth, with the whole shebang administered by the Library Services Unit within the NSW Department of Communities and Justice.

See: History of the Law Courts Library by J.M. Bennett

Onward Christian Soldiers

Progress has been slow on the Anti-Discrimination Amendment (Heterosexual Discrimination) Bill, 2024.

It was introduced into the NSW Legislative Council last March by Mark Banasiak, a member of the Hunters, Shooters & Rooters Party – and there’s been little effort since to push this desperately needed law onto the books.

The Bill seeks an amendment to the Anti-Discrimination Act, 1977. Maybe, it’s Mr Banasiak’s provision defining the offence that has everyone stumped:

49ZTB What constitutes discrimination on the ground of heterosexuality

(1) A person (the perpetrator) discriminates against another person (the aggrieved person) on the ground of heterosexuality if the perpetrator –

(a) on the ground of the aggrieved person’s heterosexuality or the heterosexuality of a relative or associate of the aggrieved person, treats the aggrieved person less favourably than in the same circumstances, or in circumstances that are not materially different, the perpetrator treats or would treat a person who the perpetrator did not think was a heterosexual person or who does not have such a relative or associate who the perpetrator thinks was a heterosexual person, or

(b) requires the aggrieved person to comply with a requirement or condition –

(i) that a substantially higher proportion of persons who are not heterosexual persons, or who do not have a relative or associate who is a heterosexual person, comply or are able to comply with, and

(ii) that is not a reasonable requirement having regard to the circumstances of the case and with which the aggrieved person does not or is not able to comply.

(2) For subsection (1)(a), something is done on the ground of a person’s heterosexuality if it is done on the ground of –

(a) the person’s heterosexuality, or

(b) a characteristic that relates generally to heterosexual persons, or

Morals monitors: Elaine and Fred Nile

It looks as though Banasiak is drawing inspiration from an earlier version of the same legislation proposed by the late Elaine Nile MLC, from the Fundamentalist Hallelujah Back to the Ark Party.

No ticket, no trade

After the engagement of numerous judges and a couple of proceedings for contempt of court, barrister Michael Rollinson has been derolled after failing to jump through the fit and proper hoop.

He had a barrister’s ticket from 1995 until June 30, 2021. He seems to have run out of funds for its renewal, but nonetheless continued to ply the trade.

In August 2021 he breached an undertaking not to “engage in legal services”.

Between August 23 and October 20, 2021, he breached an injunction restraining him from ploughing his furrow at the bar; and in September 2021 he again breached another injunction by turning up at the Local Court.

He was up for a total of 16 counts of contempt and in April 2022 Beech-Jones CJ at CL described Rollinson’s conduct as “wilful disobedience … public defiance … distain … [and] blatant disregard”.

He was sentenced to nine months porridge, suspended for three years. Another sentencing for contempt has been put off until November 13, 2024.

By the time the NSW CA got to it on the papers, Rollinson decided to roll over and accept the relief sought by the Bar Association.

Leeming JA, Stern JA and Griffith AJA nonetheless wanted to provide a bit of birching on his way out.

It was submitted that this case is a “great tragedy” – arising from vascular dementia. Adjunct Prof. Tuly Rosenfeld reported the dementing illness was “insidious, gradual and progressive”.

Dr Andrew Ellis went further saying that Rollinson “pre-morbidly suffered from a schizoid personality disorder”.

The situation is unlikely to improve and being ever protective of the community there was nothing else to do but detach the ticketless brief from the jam roll.

How many other members of the ancient and noble guild with schizoid disorders and progressively deteriorating faculties are still out there?

Council of the NSW Bar Association v Rollinson

Streetscape

Raper J: assistance required for self-represented applicantIt’s a struggle to get through the migration list as speedily as possible and at the same time arrive at the right outcome.

For FCFC judges, including Sandy Street, it is an ongoing problem.

Justice Elizabeth Raper from the FCA has had the sorry duty to send back for a rehearing another of Sandy’s fast findings.

In AHD20 v Minister for Rejections and Turnbacks, Street J was dealing with an application to review a decision of the Immigration Assessment Authority, which had refused a protection visa for a Tamil applicant.

The minister had requested an adjournment so that consideration could be given to a fresh edict from the High Court concerning the IAA’s failure in another case to correctly determine whether new information could be considered.

On appeal from Street in the FCFC, Raper J pointed out:

“It is apparent from the transcript that the primary judge did not discharge his duty in the manner required of him and, as correctly conceded by the Minister …”

Judge Sandy had failed to “assist the [self-represented] appellant sufficiently to ensure that the arguments about the arguable legal error could be properly developed … and the ability of procedural mechanisms (such as adjournment or the ability to put on submissions) to assist the appellant in being able to present his case”.

Extra time required. Go back. Start again.

AHD20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs

Feather fluffing

Over 180 barristers in New Zealand have stumped up $NZ500 each to play in the latest game of silk selection.

That represents about 10% of the entire bar in the Land of the Strangled Vowel. About 12% of the Aotearoa legal profession are barristers, where KC is the official plumage.

85% of the bar practice as “barristers sole”, and there also is a strange category described as “employed barrister”.