The current imbroglio of the impact of youth and other criminals has the community firmly pointing the finger at the Courts, highlighted by the recent granting of bail to a recidivist offender to go on an overseas holiday.

The reality is that in a democracy, the government of the day must respond to community concerns about lenient sentencing and the manipulation of bail laws by Courts, or face electoral consequences.

Although they might not want to, the Government has to respond positively or face the backlash, which means more than just ‘tightening’, a euphemism for, fiddling around the edges, to fix the legal system failures and then exercising the dark art of trying to convince the electorate they are doing something and hoping to get away with spin instead of adequately addressing the problem.

We wonder if it’s the role of the Government to fix the issue or whether the Courts themselves should be held accountable for the current malaise.

It is perhaps time that the administrators of Justice in this State take responsibility and take some action to ensure continuity in proper jurisprudence.

If the administrators do not take decisive action, the government will inevitably be compelled to intervene, which will further erode the independence of the judges.

The Magistrate responsible for allowing a recidivist to continue on bail so he could travel overseas on a family holiday, irrespective of what excuse can be conjured up, is outrageous and totally unacceptable, reinforcing in the mind of the child that his offending is not serious. He goes on an overseas holiday while the victims are left to stew in their damaged emotions.

The family would have had to cancel the trip if their son had been bailed – there was always a simple and obvious option for the Magistrate – refuse bail, problem solved.

The bureaucracy of the Court administration is culpable for not immediately transferring this Magistrate to an administrative position; that action would send a message to all members of the bench.

As jurists make more inappropriate decisions, the only ones hitting the headlines are the most outrageous. However, every day, poor choices that work against the law’s objective of maintaining community safety are flaunted mercilessly by unaccountable jurists. And we wonder why crime is escalating?

Their independence will be further eroded as the public demands that the government take action, and that action will, by necessity, restrict jurists’ independence even further.

We are not convinced that it is necessarily a good thing, in the long term, because it won’t address poor oversight, training, and management of the judiciary.

The jurists must learn to ‘read the room’ and listen to the community or face the consequences.

The second and equally important issue that Court administrators face is the inordinate delay in bringing miscreants to court to be held to account for their behaviour. ‘Justice delayed is justice denied, ’ an ancient legal maxim attributed to William Ewart Gladstone, circa 1868, is regularly ignored by Victorian Courts.

Whether it is poor administration of Court lists, poor performance and failure to meet KPI’s by Jurists, delaying or exacerbating proceedings, or they are overloaded, the latter an administrative failing, we don’t know, but what we do know is the Courts have focused entirely on the perpetrator, and that is not the absolute role of the Courts.

Continually overlooked in the legal process is the impact of Court decisions and delays on the sector of the community that is the INNOCENT; the victims, a cohort to proceedings continually overlooked by the Courts.

The victims not only have to suffer the financial and or physical consequences of a crime, but, to rub salt into the wound, many of which are very deep, they also suffer the indignity of not being considered appropriately in the court process, with their convenience not a consideration.

We never hear of a Court rejecting a procedural delay in proceedings, such as a bail application, due to the unfair impact on a victim, which would drag the case out and penalise the victim further.

The Courts are guilty of facilitating these delays and punishing the victims.

The failure of courts to ensure reparation for victims, whether the perpetrator has the capacity to provide reparation to the victim or not, should not be a court consideration.

The level of reparation should be based entirely on the facts of the case and be commensurate with the damage done. The recovery of the reparation should be referred to the Sheriff for action. If an offender is unable to pay and has that debt hanging over their head, they might think twice before committing further crimes, which is an effective deterrent.

It is well past time that a Royal Commission be established to examine the Courts’ processes, the accountability and application of the law by Judges, and critically, the treatment of victims.