We would argue that both are critical because the escalation in crime rates is directly linked to the Judiciary’s performance and effectiveness.

Linking the crime rate is, heaven forbid, akin to making the Judicial fraternity accountable and providing a measure by which their performance can be assessed, both as a profession and individually.

The figures produced by the Herald Sun on the 25th of April should be a wake-up call to the Judiciary to lift their game in both quantitative and qualitative terms.

“There are currently an estimated 489 judicial officers and VCAT members, according to Court Services Victoria’s latest annual report, including more than 130 magistrates and 70 County Court judges, where the backlogs are growing fastest.

The growing backlog crisis is most pronounced in the County Court, where the number of pending criminal matters ballooned by 603 to 3000 between December 2024 and December 2025.

In the Magistrates’ Court, 3404 criminal cases were added to the waitlist over the same period, bringing to 65,788 the number of matters waiting to be finalised.”

The most damning statistic is the number of cases that remain unfinalised: 65,788, which equates to 134 unfinalised cases for each jurist – they need to put more time into their job and improve their decision-making efficiency dramatically.

We suggest that, unless radical changes are made, this number will grow to a level impossible to rein in.

Simply more Judges will help, but may exacerbate the problem as well, particularly if the new Judges are as ineffective as those already serving.

This number alone shows the adverse impact on Victims, offenders, and the community overall, and addressing this issue will go a long way to unclogging the Court System.

In the Herald Sun article, the Leader of the Opposition, Jess Wilson, announced that she was open to appointing new judges, which is a positive step toward resolving the current imbroglio. But the rationale is somewhat constrained, and the current problems are not quantitative alone.

The government claims in the same article that,

“The government has repeatedly said higher court volumes were not a failure, but a result of new laws introduced to crack down on crime.”

This claim may have some basis in fact, but if the ‘crime crack down’ is not applied throughout the Legal system, then the crackdown is a myth.

But the big question is how and what needs to be addressed.

The community is sick and tired of offenders who Police arrest for crime being granted bail on what would seem the flimsiest of excuses, only to be in the headlines within days, arrested for more of the continuation of their original criminal behaviours, and in some reports, the behaviour has escalated.

Anybody who follows the media reporting on the performance of the judiciary would easily conclude that some of the Legal brethren would rather play at being Social Justice warriors rather than administering the Law as it was intended by our legislators.

This churlish behaviour brings disrespect to all the judiciary, many of whom do not deserve that ridicule.

The, what some would argue, draconian Laws and processes where sanctions can be imposed without a trial in the domestic violence space have been largely accepted by the community. It may be time to look at taking a similar approach to crime more broadly, with built-in safeguards to stem the tide, as current strategies are not working.

This revolving-door mindset that the Judiciary sponsors must be challenged, and the best way to do that is to enshrine accountability for judges who grant bail and/or, upon conviction, allow perpetrators to re-enter the community without penalty for their indiscretions.

The vast majority of Juveniles appearing before a court for a crime see walking out at the end of the hearing as beating it. All the Court processes and lectures delivered from the bench are just white noise to be tolerated

Administrative penalties don’t cut it and are interpreted as non-penalties.

A perpetrator’s refusal to accept accountability for their indiscretions is a major factor in recidivism, so the Courts must accept responsibility for imposing sanctions that do not achieve the accountability objective.

Why should a Judicial Officer continue to serve in a Court Division where they constantly have offenders reoffending after conviction?

That surely must be a legitimate measure of the Jurist’s performance.

Further, the caseload of each Jurist must be measured and compared with their peers to assess the Jurist’s quantitative performance.

It is also relevant to measure the quantum of cases awaiting finalisation by each jurist so that ditherers can be identified and guided to better performance.

The CAA has long argued that a Judicial Review Committee should be created to oversee the Judiciary’s performance and that the Committee should include non-lawyers among its members.

As to the political bias of Jurist, we are not aware that it is a problem per se; however, there are serious problems in the Legal processes where important cases are not finalised, and perpetrators can escape prosecution. That is called ‘corruption.’

We would argue that there is a proliferation of matters that reek of political bias, and that the bias is generated not by the judiciary but within the Law Department itself.

The matters that have been at the forefront over the last decade include

• Slug Gate
• The Gobbo affair
• Politicians’ Travel Rorts
• Bike Boy
• Branch Stacking and Misuse of Public Resources (Operation Watts)
• Hotel Quarantine Failures and Accountability Gaps (COVID‑19
• Improper Influence over Public Contracts (IBAC – Operation Daintree)
• “Red Shirts” Affair – Use of Taxpayer Funds for Campaigning
• Planning, Developer Donations, and Political Access (Operation Sandon).

The one thing these items have in common is the dearth of culprits who have not been held to account; we are not talking about some junior participant; the architects of these rorts are the ones who need to be held to account. If that starts to happen, there will be an immediate lift in performance within the legal system.

The behaviour of those responsible for this disgraceful approach to Law and Order, where some are untouched by prosecution, sends an unequivocal message to all those Victorians with a criminal bent: crime pays.

One standard for one section of the community and a different standard for others is a recipe for failure of Law and Order.

There are other contributors, and a pattern seems to have emerged across the decade of:

• Politicisation of public administration
• Weak accountability for ministerial advisers
• Over‑centralisation of power
• Limited anti‑corruption jurisdiction and enforcement.

Victoria seems to have evolved a class of oligarchs similar to those in some places in Europe, the untouchables, and this must be curtailed.

Coupled with reviewing the Judicial performance, these areas are in critical need of attention.

Addressing these issues, where historical matters at last find resolution and those responsible are held to account, is imperative.

Making those who serve the community accountable has to be the State’s priority, and for that, we need to rely on the politicians.

The Community Advocacy Alliance (CAA) is funded by the members and the generous donations from the public. Please consider donating to help us continue to work for you. Simply click on the button below. Thank you – your generosity is very much appreciated.

DONATE