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

Victorian Opposition’s Court-Splitting Plan Draws Sharp Fire from Legal Community Ahead of November Vote

Wanderstayfinder.com – With less than three months until Victorians head to the polls, the state’s highest court has become an unlikely battleground in a campaign already dominated by crime and public safety. The Liberal-led Coalition has unveiled a sweeping structural reform that would divide the existing Court of Appeal into two separate tribunals — one handling criminal matters exclusively, the other confined to civil disputes. Critics across the legal profession and human rights sector have panned the scheme as a thinly veiled attempt to shape judicial outcomes through judicial appointments, raising fundamental questions about the separation of powers in a functioning democracy.

The Coalition’s Blueprint

Opposition leader Jess Wilson laid out the plan on Sunday, stating that a victory in November would trigger the creation of a dedicated criminal appeals court staffed by additional judges selected specifically for their expertise in criminal law. The structural change would arrive bundled with a package of tougher bail provisions and sentencing legislation that the Coalition has pledged to pass before the calendar year ends should it take government. In the party’s framing, the combined effect would generate fresh legal precedents calibrated to produce harsher penalties for serious offences.

“It’s time for a new approach,” Wilson said. “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.”

Shadow attorney general James Newbury was quick to reassure the public that the existing appointment mechanism — whereby judges are selected by the governor on the recommendation of the attorney general — would remain intact. He insisted that “nothing will change” about that process, while adding that a “strong background in criminal matters will be a key focus” when filling the new bench.

“[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,” Newbury said.

Newbury also claimed the policy had been developed after consultation with judges and court officials, describing the process as something done “in a way that Victorians would expect.” He declined, however, to disclose details of those discussions publicly, calling it inappropriate to do so.

Legal and Rights Groups Push Back

The reaction from the profession was swift and largely unanimous in its scepticism. Gemma Cafarella, president of Liberty Victoria, called the proposal a “dangerous and ignorant thought bubble designed without the input of experts.” Her objection went to the constitutional architecture of the state: in her view, parliaments legislate and courts interpret, and the two functions must remain institutionally distinct.

“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 characterised the Coalition’s rhetoric as an implicit “appalling political attack on the work of court of appeal judges,” suggesting the party was implicitly questioning the competence of sitting appellate judges.

Greg Barns SC, criminal justice spokesperson for the Australian Lawyers Alliance, argued there was “no clear evidence” the existing appeals structure was malfunctioning, “aside from the longstanding issue of underfunding.” He framed the proposal in systemic terms.

“This is a disturbing example of the risk of undermining the independence of the judiciary,” Barns said. “It sends a signal that the opposition is willing to interfere with judicial independence for political purposes.”

Susan Accary, director of the Alliance, added that the organisation was “not persuaded” splitting the courts would enhance the quality of justice delivered or alleviate existing delays in the system.

Tom Ballantyne, president of the Law Institute of Victoria, questioned the practical necessity of the reform, noting the existing Court of Appeal “already has access to numerous judges with extensive criminal expertise.” He warned of broader consequences.

“Anything that could undermine the independence of the courts and its judges could have significant consequences and would be a significant concern to the community,” Ballantyne said.

Political Context and Government Response

The proposal lands amid a broader electoral contest over crime. Earlier this month, One Nation’s Victorian leader Warren Pickering declared the party wanted to make “bleeding heart judges accountable” and “get rid” of those he believes fall short of community expectations — language that underscores how judicial performance has become a campaign talking point across the political spectrum.

The incumbent Labor government has already moved to tighten the legal landscape, passing what it terms “adult time for violent crime” sentencing provisions and stricter bail laws, while simultaneously commissioning a review of sentencing practice. Premier Ben Carroll seized on Sunday’s announcement to attack the opposition’s credibility on legal matters.

“It shows you the Liberal party today have no legal expertise,” Carroll said, questioning how the opposition could “rewrite case law overnight.”

He described the policy as evidence the Liberals were “floundering” in their attempt to position themselves as the tougher option on public safety.

Why the Structure Matters

The Victorian Court of Appeal currently sits as a single body hearing both civil and criminal appeals from the Supreme Court and lower tribunals. Its composition, workload, and precedent-setting role make it the final domestic arbiter of state-level legal questions. Proposals to bifurcate such a court are rare in Australian history and typically attract scrutiny over whether they serve genuine access-and-efficiency goals or, as critics here argue, create a channel through which elected politicians can tilt the balance of appellate jurisprudence toward a preferred policy direction. The November election will determine whether that debate remains academic or becomes operational.