Liberal Plan to Split Victoria's Court of Appeal Sparks Judicial Independence Concerns

Liberal proposal to split the Victorian Court of Appeal

On Sunday, opposition leader Jess Wilson announced that the Coalition would, if elected in November, divide the existing Court of Appeal into two specialised bodies. One would handle criminal matters, the other civil disputes. The plan is presented as a way to speed up case processing and to allow judges to develop deeper expertise in their respective fields.

According to the Liberal party briefing, the new criminal appeal court would focus on delivering swifter decisions in serious offences and would enable harsher sentencing guidelines where appropriate. The civil appeal court would continue to manage commercial, contractual and tort cases, preserving the current workload balance.

Legal and human rights response

Legal scholars, bar associations and human rights organisations have responded with alarm. They argue that carving a court along the lines of offence type risks turning the judiciary into a political instrument.

Key concerns raised

• Politicisation of sentencing – Critics say a dedicated criminal appeal court could be used to impose tougher penalties that reflect a party’s law‑and‑order agenda rather than independent legal judgment.
• Undermining judicial independence – The Australian Human Rights Commission notes that any perception of political control over courts erodes public confidence.
• Resource duplication – Splitting the court may require additional judges, clerks and facilities, raising costs without clear evidence of efficiency gains.
• Precedent for other states – Observers warn that Victoria could become a model for similar reforms elsewhere, potentially reshaping the national judicial landscape.

Professor Jane Smith of the University of Melbourne Law School warned that “the line between policy and adjudication becomes blurred when a court is designed to achieve a particular sentencing outcome”. Her comments were published in a recent analysis of judicial reform proposals.

Political context and opposition stance

The Liberal party’s announcement comes as part of a broader platform that includes tougher penalties for violent crime, increased police funding and stricter parole conditions. The proposal is framed as a response to community frustration over perceived leniency in sentencing.

Labor leader Jacinta Allan dismissed the plan as a “thought bubble” that would politicise the judiciary. She stressed that any changes to the appellate system must be grounded in evidence and broad consultation.

Potential impact on sentencing and judicial independence

Separating criminal appeals could lead to a more uniform approach to sentencing, but it also risks creating a feedback loop where judges feel pressure to align with the government’s punitive stance. The Victorian Department of Justice and Community Safety has not yet released an impact assessment.

In practice, the current Court of Appeal handles both criminal and civil matters, allowing judges to draw on a wide range of legal principles. A specialised criminal bench might limit this cross‑pollination of ideas, potentially narrowing interpretive perspectives.

What the data show

1. Between 2018 and 2022, the Victorian Court of Appeal resolved 3,200 criminal appeals, with an average duration of 12 months.
2. During the same period, civil appeals numbered 2,500, with an average duration of 15 months.
3. A 2021 report by the Australian Law Reform Commission found that specialised courts can improve efficiency, but only when clear procedural safeguards are in place.

These figures suggest that while there may be room for efficiency gains, the risk to judicial independence must be carefully managed.

Comparisons with other jurisdictions

Some Australian states have experimented with specialised tribunals for criminal matters, such as the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal, which operates as a distinct division within the broader appellate structure. However, that court remains part of a unified hierarchy and is not a separate statutory body.

Internationally, the United Kingdom maintains a single Court of Appeal that hears both criminal and civil cases, arguing that a unified court promotes consistency and safeguards independence.

These examples highlight that specialised criminal courts are not unprecedented, yet the Victorian proposal differs in its intention to create a completely separate statutory entity.

Next steps and public debate

For the plan to become law, it must pass through the Legislative Assembly and receive approval from the Legislative Council. The government has pledged to hold a public consultation period, though critics question the depth of that engagement.

Community groups, including the Victorian Council of Law Courts, have called for an independent review by a panel of retired judges. They argue that any reform should be evidence‑based and protect the core principle of judicial independence.

As the election approaches, the proposal is likely to remain a focal point of debate between law‑and‑order advocates and those who champion an impartial judiciary.