Victorian Liberals' court split plan attacked as threat to judicial independence

In the lead-up to Victoria's November election, the state's Liberal opposition has proposed a fundamental restructuring of the court system that has alarmed legal professionals and human rights advocates. Opposition leader Jess Wilson announced on Sunday that if the Coalition wins government, it would split Victoria's court of appeal into two separate entities: a dedicated criminal appeals court and a distinct civil appeals court. The criminal court would be staffed by judges with specialized expertise in criminal law, and the Coalition frames this as a way to ensure sentences align with community expectations.

The proposal sits within a broader law-and-order agenda. The Coalition has committed to introducing tougher bail and sentencing laws before the end of the year if elected, and the court restructuring is designed to work in tandem with those measures. The logic, as Wilson articulated it, is that specialist criminal judges would hand down sentences that would then form legal precedent, gradually establishing a body of case law that pushes sentencing standards upward for serious offences. Shadow attorney general James Newbury emphasized that judges would be appointed through the existing process—by the governor on the attorney general's recommendation—but that criminal expertise would become a key criterion in selection.

The response from the legal community has been swift and pointed. Gemma Cafarella, president of Liberty Victoria, called the proposal a "dangerous and ignorant thought bubble" developed without expert consultation. She argued that in functioning democracies, parliaments write laws and courts apply them, with clear separation between the two powers. The concern is not merely structural but fundamentally about judicial independence: if governments begin selecting judges specifically to achieve particular sentencing outcomes, the courts cease to function as an independent check on executive power. Greg Barns SC, criminal justice spokesperson for the Australian Lawyers Alliance, described the plan as "a disturbing example of the risk of undermining the independence of the judiciary." He noted there is no evidence the current court of appeal structure is failing, aside from chronic underfunding.

Tom Ballantyne, president of the Law Institute of Victoria, raised a practical objection: the court of appeal already has access to numerous judges with extensive criminal expertise, so it is unclear what the new structure would actually add. The Alliance's director, Susan Accary, said the organization was unconvinced the split would improve justice quality or address systemic delays. The underlying worry, articulated by multiple voices, is that this amounts to politicizing the courts—using structural reform as a vehicle to stack the bench with judges predisposed toward harsher sentences.

Premier Ben Carroll, responding on Sunday, dismissed the proposal as evidence the Liberal party was "floundering," questioning how an opposition could "rewrite case law overnight." The timing reflects a broader election-year focus on crime. Labor has already passed controversial "adult time for violent crime" legislation and tougher bail laws, and is undertaking a sentencing review. One Nation's Victorian leader, Warren Pickering, has separately called for making "bleeding heart judges accountable" and removing those he believes fail community expectations. As the November vote approaches, crime policy has become a central battleground, with each party attempting to position itself as tougher on offenders. The Liberal proposal represents an attempt to institutionalize that toughness through court design—a move that legal professionals warn crosses a line from policy into the dangerous territory of judicial capture.