Justice Debra Mortimer goes to town on “certain Federal Circuit Court judges” who make it a “common practice” to deliver written reasons after the appeal time has expired … Canine court “interactions” … Tasmanian briefs lured by the idea that life will be better if the royal trinket is reinstated … Theodora reports
She has sat on a number of appeals from his decisions – see here and here
Just before Christmas she was on the job again in AAM17 v Minister for Immigration, Etc.
A self-represented asylum-seeker with limited English had been treated to an ex-tempore judgment from Street J, refusing judicial review of an AAT decision which rejected his application for a protection visa.
In his reasons, Street said that in December 2018, the applicant was asked to file an amended application, affidavit of evidence and submissions. “No such documents were filed.”
He said that the applicant’s submissions from the bar table simply reflected disagreement with the adverse findings by the tribunal. Street said:
“The tribunal provided logical and rational reasons in support of its adverse findings that were dispositive of the applicant’s claims. Those adverse findings cannot be said to lack an evident and intelligible justification.”
The written judgment wasn’t made available until after the expiration of time to appeal.
Mortimer took a dim view of this, observing that this is a “common practice” among “certain Federal Circuit Court judges”. After setting out some high authority on procedural fairness, she concluded:
“In my opinion, it is an unfair procedure, and a denial of procedural fairness in the sense explained by Gageler J in Condon, for orders to be pronounced at a final hearing of a judicial review application, with reasons delivered orally and contemporaneously to a self-represented litigant who is using an interpreter, without those reasons being interpreted, and without provision of any version of written reasons to that litigant as soon as practicable after the orders are pronounced.
That denial is not cured by the production of formal written reasons a month or more after the expiration of the appeal period, and after the filing of a notice of appeal … [F]undamentally, by the process adopted by the Federal Circuit Court the appellant was denied the opportunity to understand at all why he had lost his case.”
Start again with another judge.
See other reports on Sandy Street’s cases:
Judicial speedster too heavy on the accelerator
Another birching for Sandy Street
The latest annual report from the NSW Department of Justice is published under the title “Creating a safe and just NSW”.
It’s a treasure trove of information – including details about the Canine Court Companion Program, which sees therapy dogs and their handlers roaming “publicly accessible court areas with the aim of reducing stress and anxiety for victims, witnesses and other court participants”. All this and more on page 42.
The “program sites” include local courts at Manly, Gosford, Sutherland, Burwood, Campbelltown, Lismore, Goulburn, Nowra, Orange and Wagga Wagga.
In the year under review, the report says “there have been 35,554 “interactions between court users and therapy dogs recorded by canine handlers”.
An “independent outcomes evaluation” by Monash University is shortly to be finalised.
No-one could object to pooches roaming courts to cheer-up “court participants”, yet spare a thought for the put-upon handlers who have to tot up for the department the number of times their canines were patted, i.e. “interactions”.
There are further granular details on the “victims’ services” component of the Justice website.
Briefs are flapping their frilled cuffs in support of reinstating the Queen’s Counsel title in the Apple Isle.
Tasmanian bar ‘n’ grill president Sandra Taglieri SC in her end-of-year school report announced that the results of the online survey organised by Fabian Dixon SC.
The “survey” went to 74 members, of which 55 percent or 41 practise primarily in Van Diemen’s Land.
However, only 36 members responded, of whom 30 ply their trade locally. About 80 percent of the respondents were in favour of adopting the royal bauble – but only for those who had first been appointed SCs under the Supreme Court’s existing protocol.
That is, 28 members want the QC brand, of which six are interstate barristers.
The news has been dispatched to the attorney general, Elise Archer, who was told that a majority of the members of the bar council are not in favour of the change.
Taglieri said that the bar council was aware of the “potential shortcomings of simple online surveys” and added:
“As a result of the relatively low survey participation rate this issue will not be a priority for the work of the bar council.”