Determining the number of real District Court judges … Numbers that never vary depending on who is included or excluded … Counter-terrorism provision that lapsed at sunset because no one was looking … Online application policy – one thing for JPs, another for GIPA requests … Polly Peck savours the vignettes of the NSW AG’s administration 

This is not an easy question to answer. Recent official responses at Attorney General’s estimates show that its “about 75”, but the AG’s people are not entirely sure. 

For instance, in answer to a question taken on notice the deputy secretary of the Department of Justice, Catherine D’Elia, said that the “headcount in the District Court is 75 judges”. 

She described this as “the highest number that there has been in 25 years”. 

When pressed whether that included judges who might be engaged in activities other than sitting in the District Court she said she would take it on notice and clarify the numbers. 

There were also supplementary estimates questions, including: 

The answer arrived on the same day as the first answer on notice: 

For each of those years the count excluded the chief judge, but included the chief magistrate, president of the Children’s Court, senior judge of the Drug Court and members of the Dust Diseases Tribunal. 

It’s confusing. The chief judge is included in the first count, but excluded in the second, but others who have primary duties elsewhere are regarded as full-time equivalent District Court judges. 

Contrary to government proclamations that it is getting on top of the District Court workload, the number of judges has remained steady or, depending on who is included and excluded, may have gone down. 

Interestingly, the number of full-time equivalent Supreme Court judges in NSW has increased by one over the previous three years. 

Those numbers included one associate judge and excluded the chief judge of the District Court and president of NCAT, both of who have Supreme Court status. 

Because of a sunset clause the offence of intentionally being part of a terrorist organisation had expired on September 13, 2019. 

It was not until September 24 that anyone noticed that people could join a terror outfit without attracting up to 10 years pokey. The government then moved an amendment to one of its Bills (Justice Legislation Amendment Bill, 2019) to restore the expired provision. 

It went through the Legislative Assembly and then the next day the debate on the abortion bill had to be interrupted to get it through the Legislative Council.

It had to be retrospective, of course. 

Here is the amendment to the amendment bill. 

In an answer at the end of 2017 to a question from shadow AG Paul Lynch, the attorney general said up to that point no one had been charged or convicted under this section of the Crimes Act, but that may have changed more recently. 

Justices of the Peace without a computer are doomed. Here we are again at AG’s estimates where the question arose about the renewal by Justices of the Peace of their registration. 

The Department of Justice insists it has to be done online. Most JPs have a computer, but the reappointment of those who don’t, or are not computer literate, or are confounded by the instructions, will lapse if they don’t access something called JP Online at least a year before their five year term expires. 

Yet, when it comes to making government information applications to agencies under the Government Information (Public Access) Act, 2009, the digital era suddenly ran out of functionality. 

Consequently, the arrangement is that agencies can accept electronic applications under GIPA, but they are not “required” to do so, i.e. government organisations have the discretion to ask information applicants to use ink and parchment or thumb-nails dipped in tar.