Legal experts have questioned whether a judicial system definition of sexual orientation should be used in the judicial system to determine who is eligible for a judicial role.
Key points:The Federal Court of Appeal has ruled that a judge may be eligible to be an assistant or judge in the Federal Court if he or she has been convicted of an offence that carries a mandatory life termPenalties for violating the Federal Criminal Code are not the same as those for murderPenalties are different for each offenceA judge’s eligibility for the Federal Circuit Court will be determined by a judicial panel appointed by the court.
The Federal Circuit court was the first of the four Federal Circuit Courts to be established in Australia, in 1922.
It hears appeals from the Federal Government and the states and territories in criminal matters.
But Justice Peter Gleeson of the Federal High Court has said that the current definition of sexuality does not apply to judges.
“It would be a fair interpretation to say that it is a matter of degree,” Justice Gleeson said.
“If it were the case that a person who is a judge and a person in that position is also a person whose sexual orientation is homosexual, that would not apply,” Justice Gilligan said.’
A question of degree’The Federal Supreme Court made a ruling in May that judges must have at least a Bachelor of Arts or Master of Arts degree.
But the Federal Judicial Commission and the Federal Chief Justice have said that a court judge is not required to be a bachelor of arts or master of arts in order to be eligible for the bench.
“We think that the definition of a bachelor does not include the notion of an education that is a Bachelor in law,” Justice Michael Gilligan told ABC Radio.
“The degree that a bachelor has must be completed by the end of their term of office and that is the requirement of the term of court.”‘
I don’t want to see it go down the track of being a criminal offence’Justice Gleeson, who was not involved in the decision, said that while the definition had changed, it was not necessarily the same.
“That definition of what the term bachelor of law does has not changed at all, so I don’t think it is necessarily in any way in any danger,” he said.
Justice Gilligan has previously said that judges should not be given “a criminal record”.
Topics:law-crime-and-justice,government-and/or-politics,courts-and—courts,courthouses-and‑trials,crime,public-sector,government—public-relations,courting,government,australiaFirst posted January 09, 2019 16:37:16Contact Sarah FergusonMore stories from New South Wales