Liberal plan to split Victorian appeals court attacked as ‘thought bubble’ that would politicise judiciary

Opposition leader Jess Wilson says new dedicated court of criminal appeal would set precedents for tougher sentences

A radical overhaul of Victoria’s highest court, proposed by the Liberal party to increase sentences, has been criticised by legal and human rights groups who warn it would politicise the judiciary.

The opposition leader, Jess Wilson, on Sunday announced that if elected in November the Coalition would split the court of appeal in two, creating a dedicated court of criminal appeal alongside a separate court of civil appeal.

It would appoint additional judges with expertise in criminal law to the new court of criminal appeal.

The overhaul would be introduced alongside tougher bail and sentencing laws, which the Coalition has committed to enacting before the end of the year if it wins government.

Together, the measures would help set new legal precedents which the Coalition said would ultimately lead to tougher sentences for serious offences.

“It’s time for a new approach,” Wilson said on Sunday. “Our new criminal court will empower specialist criminal law judges to ensure sentencing of criminals meet community expectations. Each sentence they hand down will form part of case law going forward, helping to establish appropriate consequences for criminal actions.

In Victoria , judges are appointed by the governor on the recommendation of the attorney general. The shadow attorney general, James Newbury, said “nothing will change” about that process, though a “strong background in criminal matters will be a key focus” when making appointments.

“[It] will mean that criminal matters are dealt with by specialist judges who will be tough on crime, who will be tough on criminal offences,” he said.

Newbury said he had “consulted in a way that Victorians would expect” with judges and the courts about the policy, though he said it would be inappropriate to discuss the consultation publicly.

Gemma Cafarella, the president of Liberty Victoria, described it as a “dangerous and ignorant thought bubble designed without the input of experts”.

She said in “properly functioning democracies” parliaments make the laws and courts apply them, with the two systems kept seperate.

“Governments shouldn’t choose judges to get the outcomes they want,” Cafarella said. “This is a move that would politicise the criminal courts, and it must be rejected.”

She said the comments by the Coalition were by implication an “appalling political attack on the work of court of appeal judges”.