Login
Bill to amend WA Children’s Court could compromise independence of judiciary, Law Society says
A new Western Australian bill to amend the powers of the president of the Children’s Court and the Chief Magistrate as it relates to administration and allocation of workloads has prompted concerns that if it is passed in its current form, it could potentially lead to ramifications on the independence of the judiciary.
Naomi Neilson
The Western Australian Legislative Assembly has for the third time heard the Courts Legislation Amendment (Magistrates) Bill 2021 while it deliberates clarifying the powers of the president of the Children’s Court and the Chief Magistrate. Before it is passed, the Western Australian Law Society has asked the government to open it up to review.
“The Law Society of Western Australia has briefly reviewed the bill and considers that it may have potential significant ramifications for the independence of the judiciary in WA,” the society said, clarifying that at this time it does not have a position one way or the other about the bill but wishes to review it further.
According to an explanatory memorandum, the bill intends to amend the Children’s Court of Western Australia Act 1988 and the Magistrates Court Act 2004 to clarify the powers of the president of the Children’s Court and the Chief Magistrate in respect of administration and allocation in the Children’s Court of Western Australia.
The bill contains amendments to the Children’s Court Act to formalise the process by which a duly appointed magistrate may be required to perform Children’s Court functions. It also sets the scope of powers of the president and the Chief Magistrate to give directions to the magistrates where needed.
Part three of the bill contains amendments to the Magistrates Court Act to clarify that the Chief Magistrate must not issue a direction to a magistrate in respect of their functions as a magistrate of the Children’s Court. Part three also provides that where a dually qualified magistrate resigns, they will be taken to have resigned from both.
“The society considers the bill may have consequences that are not immediately appreciated, and it is not clear whether the bill will be subjected to scrutiny by any parliamentary committee,” the Law Society commented in a recent statement.
Naomi Neilson
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
