3.1 Roles of judicial officers
3.2 Judicial Independence
3.3 Judicial Powers
3.3.1 Powers conferred by the Magistrates’ Court Act 1989
3.3.2 Powers conferred by the CYFA or any other legislation
3.3.3 Implied powers to govern the process of the Court
3.4 Procedural guidelines
3.4.1 Comprehensibility etc.
3.4.2 Standing to participate as a party
3.4.4 Representation of adults in the Family Division
3.5 What happens in Court
3.5.2 No wigs or gowns
3.5.4 Contested Criminal Division cases
3.5.5 Use of recorded evidence in certain criminal cases
220.127.116.11 Evidence-in-chief in certain summary hearings, special hearings or trials
18.104.22.168 Evidence in certain criminal special hearings and trials
3.5.6 Contested Family Division cases
22.214.171.124 The usual procedure
126.96.36.199 Informal procedure
188.8.131.52 Section 215B of the CYFA
184.108.40.206 Obligation to afford procedural fairness
3.5.7 The modern Less Adversarial Trial approach of the Family Court of Australia
3.5.8 Use of recorded evidence in cases in the Family Division
3.5.9 Production of documents in cases in the Children’s Court
220.127.116.11 Production under sub-poena
18.104.22.168 Pre-hearing disclosure in the Criminal Division
22.214.171.124 Production of “notes” in “apprehension cases” in the Family Division
3.5.10 Children as witnesses in court cases
126.96.36.199 Compellability in criminal proceedings generally
3.5.11 Oaths and affirmations
3.5.12 Appearance or giving evidence in other than the traditional manner
188.8.131.52 Appearance etc. by a person other than an accused
184.108.40.206 Appearance etc. by an accused in a criminal or associated proceeding
220.127.116.11 Alternative arrangements for giving evidence in criminal proceedings
3.5.13 The rule in Browne v Dunn
3.5.14 The rule in Jones v Dunkel
3.5.15 Unfavourable witnesses
3.5.16 The hearsay rule and exceptions thereto
3.6 Statutory interpretation
3.7 Judgments - Explanation of and reasons for orders
3.7.1 Explanation & Reasons
3.8 Amending judgments - The 'slip rule'
3.9.1 Criminal Division (costs of defendant)
3.9.2 Criminal Division (costs of prosecution)
3.9.3 Family Division (protection proceedings)
3.9.4 Family Division (intervention order proceedings)
3.9.5 Enforcement of costs orders made in the Family Division
3.10 Appeals – General
3.11 Case stated
3.1 Roles of judicial officers
"I've been a judge for 21 years. The voices have kept at me and at me. Mellifluous, strident, sad, cool, persuasive, angry – voices demanding justice ‑ voices insisting upon the law – some voices wanting both. "
Robert Shenton French (Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia)
The President and Magistrates preside over all hearings - other than dispute resolution conferences - in both Divisions of the Children's Court of Victoria. There is no distinction in judicial role between the President and any of the magistrates. Each has the same powers and the same obligations. Each can be assigned to any case. Each has the same orders at his or her disposal. The only difference is that one of the avenues of appeal from a decision of the President is different from those of an appeal from a decision of a magistrate.
About 5% of all applications which are filed in the Family Division proceed to a final contested hearing, although a significantly greater percentage involve at least one contested interim hearing. Only about 2% of charges filed in the Criminal Division proceed to a final contested hearing, but again a significantly greater percentage involve at least one contested application for bail.
The role of the judicial officer is to determine the dispute between the parties by applying the relevant law to particular fact situations. In Noone, Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria v Operation Smile (Australia) Inc & Ors (No 2)  VSC 153 at  Pagone J said of this: “The overriding duty for the Court must be to achieve justice between the parties and to ensure that it is satisfied that the burden which a party bears is adequately and reliably discharged.” In this process, the judicial officer is required by law to accord procedural fairness – sometimes described as “natural justice” – to all parties. In SZBEL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs  HCA 63 the High Court of Australia held that the Tribunal which had refused to grant the Iranian appellant a protection visa had not accorded the appellant procedural fairness in that it had not given the him a sufficient opportunity to give evidence, or make submissions, about what turned out to be two of three determinative issues arising in relation to the decision under review. In its joint judgment at  the High Court referred with approval to the following dicta of Northrop, Miles & French JJ in the Federal Court of Australia in Commissioner for Australian Capital Territory Revenue v Alphaone Pty Ltd (1994) 49 FCR 576 at 591-592:
“It is a fundamental principle that where the rules of procedural fairness apply to a decision‑making process, the party liable to be directly affected by the decision is to be given the opportunity of being heard. That would ordinarily require the party affected to be given the opportunity of ascertaining the relevant issues and to be informed of the nature and content of adverse material." [emphasis added]
However at  the High Court also approved the limitation enunciated by Lord Diplock in F Hoffmann‑La Roche & Co AG v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry  AC 295 at 369:
“The rules of natural justice do not require the decision maker to disclose what he is minded to decide so that the parties may have a further opportunity of criticising his mental processes before he reaches a final decision. If this were a rule of natural justice only the most talkative of judges would satisfy it and trial by jury would have to be abolished."
In Mehmet Ucar v Nylex Industrial Products Pty Ltd (2007) 17 VR 492;  VSCA 181 the Court of Appeal, applying the principle in Stead v State Government Insurance Commission (1986) 161 CLR 141, granted a new trial as a consequence of a trial judge’s reliance on his observations of the appellant’s movements in court behind counsel which he had not disclosed to counsel. At  the Court said that the obligation of a judicial officer to provide a party with an opportunity to be heard extended to the following circumstance:
“Where the risk of an adverse finding being made does not necessarily inhere in the issues to be decided or where the facts or the inference which the judge contemplates drawing from the facts and which gives rise to such a risk is unknown to the party, the fundamental rule of fairness requires the decision-maker in some way to draw attention to the existence of that risk.”
See also J v Lieschke (1987) 162 CLR 447 at 457 per Brennan J (Mason, Wilson, Deane & Dawson JJ agreeing); R v Fisher  VSCA 100 at ; Pantorno v The Queen (1989) 166 CLR 466 at 473 per Mason CJ & Brennan J; Friend v Brooker  HCA 21 at  per Heydon J; MH6 v mental Health Review Board and another  VSCA 184 at -; [CL] v [RP] (Ruling)  VSCA 297; DPP v Sanding  VSC 42 at - per Bell J; AB v Magistrates’ Court at Heidelberg  VSC 61 at  per Mukhtar AsJ; Zigouris v Sunshine Magistrates’ Court  VSC 183 at - per Zammit AsJ; DOHS v Children’s Court of Victoria & Ors  VSC 422 at -,  &  per Dixon J; Danne v Coroner  VSC 454 at - per Kyrou J; Eaton v Dental Board of Australia  VSC 510 at - per Kyrou J.
In Tomasevic v Travaglini  VSC 337 at -, Bell J said:
“A trial judge has an overriding duty to ensure a fair trial. This emerges with crystal clarity and moral force from Dietrich v R (1992) 177 CLR 292…Deane & Gaudron JJ made clear the requirement for a ‘fair trial’ went further than a trial ‘according to law’. To Deane J the requirement ‘transcends the content of more particularized legal rules and principles and provides the ultimate rationale and touchstone of the rules and practices which the common law requires to be observed in the administration of the substantive criminal law’ [at p.326].
What is required to produce a fair trial depends on the circumstances. In some cases it may be necessary to have interpreters, acceptable custodial facilities or a special court venue: (1992) 177 CLR 292 at 331 per Deane J, 363 per Gaudron J. In other cases, evidence may have to be excluded because of its unfair prejudicial effect [ibid at 363 per Gaudron J] or an adjournment granted to allow pre-trial publicity to abate. This list is far from exhaustive and the categories are not closed. Indeed ‘the practical content of the requirement that a criminal trial be fair may vary with changing social standards and circumstances’ [ibid at 328 per Deane J; see also Jago v District Court of New South Wales (1989) 168 CLR 23, 57]. The general principle is that the courts possess all the necessary powers to ensure a fair trial [Barton v R (1980) 147 CLR 75, 96 cited in Dietrich v R (1992) 177 CLR 292, 327], one aspect of which is the power to give assistance to a litigant in person.”
In determining cases judges and magistrates must also act impartially and, although it rarely happens, a party can request that a judicial officer disqualify himself or herself from hearing a matter on the ground of actual bias or a reasonable apprehension of bias. The Guide to Judicial Conduct published for the Council of Chief Justices of Australia in 2002 states the guiding principles to be [at p.8]:
"Whether an appearance of bias or a possible conflict of interest is sufficient to disqualify a judicial officer from hearing a case is to be judged by the perception of a reasonable well-informed observer. Disqualification on trivial grounds creates an unnecessary burden on colleagues, parties and their legal advisers;
The parties should always be informed by the judicial officer of facts which might reasonably give rise to a perception of bias or conflict of interest but the judicial officer must himself or herself make the decision whether it is appropriate to sit."
Some examples where disqualification might be appropriate include cases where the judicial officer:
was related to or had significant personal knowledge of one of the parties or a witness;
had a direct or significant indirect interest in the outcome of the litigation (eg. if a corporation was a party and the judicial officer was a shareholder);
had strongly expressed pre-conceived views about a relevant issue; or
intervened in the course of the proceedings in an unwarranted and excessive manner or appeared to be taking sides.
However, the expression of tentative views during the course of a case does not necessarily amount to bias. In Concrete Pty Limited v Parramatta Design & Developments Pty Ltd  HCA 55 the Full Court of the Federal Court had allowed an appeal from the decision of the primary judge on the grounds that in his conduct of the case the primary judge had demonstrated apparent bias. The High Court restored the judgment. At  Kirby & Crennan JJ said:
“Sometimes judicial interventions and observations can exceed what is a proper and reasonable expression of tentative views. Whether that has happened is a matter of judgment taking into account all of the circumstances of the case: Antoun v The Queen (2006) 80 ALJR 497 at 502  per Gleeson CJ, 503-504 - per Kirby J, 508-509 - per Hayne J, 517  per Callinan J. However, one thing that is clear is that the expression of tentative views during the course of argument as to matters on which the parties are permitted to make full submissions does not manifest partiality or bias: Bienstein v Bienstein (2003) 195 ALR 225 at 232  per McHugh, Kirby & Callinan JJ.”
At  Callinan J said:
“Taken cumulatively, his Honour's interventions and reasons for judgment do not give rise to an apprehension of bias. Critical, strong and candid they may have been, but excessively so they were not. To some extent they may be taken to be expressions of exasperation, unfortunately so perhaps, but as a matter of degree, still falling short of apparent bias.”
In R v Fisher  VSCA 100 there had been an exchange of emails between a sentencing judge’s associate and the Office of Public Prosecutions during a period of adjournment of the plea. The emails contained information bearing upon substantive issues in the plea. Although holding that there had been no unfairness in the sentencing judge continuing after the out of court communication had been disclosed, Redlich & Dodds-Streeton JJA cautioned at  against the use of out of court material:
“It is an undoubted principle that a judge ’s decision should be made on the basis of the evidence and arguments in the case, and not on the basis of information or knowledge which is acquired out of court. In Re Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance; ex parte Hoyts Corporation Pty Ltd (1994) 119 ALR 206, 210 Mason CJ and Brennan, Deane, Dawson and Gaudron JJ, described it as an aspect of ‘the rule against bias‘. Their Honours said that this aspect of the rule is similar to the rule of procedural fairness, but not identical because the question is whether in the circumstances, the parties or the public ‘might entertain a reasonable apprehension that information or knowledge which has been independently acquired will influence the decision‘.
In R v Al-Assadi  VSCA 111 the 21 year old applicant was found guilty by a jury of two counts of sexual penetration of a child under the age of 16 years but was acquitted of 13 other sexual offences against the same 15 year old complainant. Two of the grounds of appeal were that the trial judge (i) failed to disqualify herself for ostensible bias and (ii) failed to advise counsel for the applicant that she had earlier given evidence for the Crown in committal proceedings for sexual offences where her daughter was a complainant of a similar age and in similar circumstances with a sentence pending in a case of R v Balassis  VSC 127. At - Buchanan JA (with whom Hansen & Tate JJA agreed) rejected the assertion by the applicant that the trial judge had displayed “excessive solicitude” to the complainant, saying at : “Her Honour quite properly sought to ensure that a young witness was not overawed or frightened by a strange, formal and potentially hostile environment. Critically, the complainant, unlike the applicant, was not represented by counsel.” However, at - the Court of Appeal went on to uphold the first ground of appeal, saying at :
“The mere fact that a judge is related to a victim of crime is not sufficient to disqualify the judge from presiding at a trial of a person accused of a like crime: cf. R v Goodall (2007) 15 VR 673. In the present case, however, the relationship of the judge to the victim of the first crime, the similar age and circumstances of the victims and the emotional involvement of the judge might have led a fair minded observer to think the similarity in the crimes and victims might have induced in her Honour a sympathy for the alleged victim of the offences with which the applicant was charged which prevented her from bringing an impartial mind to the conduct of the trial. In this respect I think it is significant that the judge underwent the harrowing experiences of searching for her child overnight and then dealing as best she could with her daughter’s distress.”
Other cases in which principles relating to disqualification for bias have been discussed include Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337; Clenae v ANZ Banking Group Ltd  HCA 63; Anne Wintle v Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee & Others  VSC 39; Livesey v New South Wales Bar Association (1983) 151 CLR 288; Re JRL: Ex parte CJL (1986) 161 CLR 34; Vakauta v Kelly (1989) 167 CLR 342; Webb v R (1994) 181 CLR 44; Johnson v Johnson (2000) 201 CLR 488 at 506; Mond & Mond v Dyan Rabbi Isaac Dov Berger  VSC 45; Gascor v Ellicott  1 VR 332; Laws v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (1990) 170 CLR 70; Webb v The Queen (1993) 181 CLR 41; Re Keeley: Ex parte Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd (1990) 94 ALR 1; Antoun v The Queen (2006) 80 ALJR 497 at , -, - & ; Smits v Roach  HCA 63; Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Taylor  VSC 3; Anderson v National Australia Bank  VSCA 172; R v Rich (Ruling No.21)  VSC 32; Slaveski v Victoria  VSC 97; R v Sonnet  VSCA 315 at -; Michael Wilson & Partners Limited v Nicholls  HCA 48; Velissaris v Bruno Distributors Pty Ltd  VSC 395; Moorfields Community & Ors v Stanislawa Bahonko  VSCA 295; Bahonko v Moorfields Community  VSCA 89; R v Vasiliou  VSC 216 at -; Flavel v Morsby  VSC 433; Waddington v Magistrates’ Court of Victoria & Kha (No. 2)  VSC 340 at -.
Judicial officers must be aware not only of what the relevant legislation says, but of how it has been interpreted and applied in other decided cases. If there is a decision made by another magistrate with which a particular magistrate disagrees, the latter is not bound to follow the interpretation or application of the law as decided in that case, but would need to show clearly why he or she disagrees. Where the decision is one made by the Supreme Court of Victoria or the High Court of Australia, the President and magistrates of the Children's Court are bound to accept that interpretation of the law and apply it.