3 ms·

...unprecedented suppression order by the Australian Supreme Court in Melbourne, Victoria... Minor nit: It sounds like strictly speaking, this order is from

...unprecedented suppression order by the Australian Supreme Court in Melbourne, Victoria... Minor nit: It sounds like strictly speaking, this order is from the Victorian Supreme Court (state level), not the Australian Supreme Court, which is the High Court in Canberra. http://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/ http://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Court_of_Australia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Court_of_Australia

danieltillett 12y ago
It really should be “an” not “the”. I would expect that most people outside of Australia (and unfortunately most within) are unlikely to know the correct terminology for the Australian court system.
- vacri 12y ago
  I love how we have nine (state and territory) 'Supreme' courts, all of which are outranked by the one (national) 'High' court. Someone didn't get their semantics right, back in the day.
  - danieltillett 12y ago
    It is due to the fact that all the Australia states were once sovereign nations and each state’s “supreme” courts existed before Australian federation. The same exists in the USA with the state supreme courts.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > The same exists in the USA with the state supreme courts. OTOH, a real violation of expected semantics occurs in the New York State court system where the ultimate appellate court is the "Court of Appeals", the trial court of general jurisdiction is the "Supreme Court", and the intermediate appellate court between the two is the "Supreme Court, Appellate Division".
      - sandworm101 12y ago
        Canada uses the same scheme. It isn't incorrect, just different. A "supreme" court is one of general jurisdiction and are the highest court to which an issue may be brought (as opposed to appellate courts which do not hear issues directly). They are supreme over courts of limited jurisdiction such as family or probate courts. The US Supreme Court (federal) actually uses the same name scheme as New York and Canada. All district and appellate are limited geographically, with the supreme court being the only court of general jurisdiction (Amongst the fed. All US fed courts are technically limited). But some actions can still be brought directly to the SCOTUS such as disputes between states over land. So it is not purely an appellate court, hence the term supreme.
    - skeletonjelly 12y ago
      Did we not pick "Super Supreme" due to the existing association with a certain pizza perhaps?
  - synchronise 12y ago
    Two national courts actually, there's the Federal Court too. Then you have all the specialised courts, like the Family Courts, the Environmental Courts, the Court of Disputed Returns and many others that I can't remember off the top of my head. And before the 1980's, you could technically appeal a high court decision to the Privy Council in the UK in certain circumstances, although I don't think that was ever used.
    - danieltillett 12y ago
      Yes appeals used to go the Privy council [1]. Talking about anachronistic ties to the UK, Australia should do something about all the UK citizens on the electoral roll. There are hundreds of thousands of non-Australian citizens (i.e UK citizens who arrived before 1984) who can vote in Australian elections. Really if you can’t decide if you want to be an Australian citizen after being here for 30 years then you really should stop voting in Australian elections! [1]. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Court_of_Australia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Court_of_Australia
      - refurb 12y ago
        Unless something has changed recently, a citizen of a Commonwealth nation (e.g. Australia) can vote in UK elections without being a citizen, as long as they are a resident. Maybe it's about reciprocity?
    - jacques_chester 12y ago
      Often a court is the same judges as another court, so the proliferation can be illusory. For example, justices of the High Court recently sat as the Court of Disputed Returns in that WA Senate cockup.
hornetblack 12y ago
Victoria has done it before. The a series of the TV show Underbelly was banned temporally. The show depicted a true story of a crime that was still going through the court system. Australian Juries are not supposed to know anything about a case before it goes to court. If the story was on a very popular TV show before proceedings it becomes harder to ensure this.
fblp 12y ago
Court hierarchy in Australia is: 1. High Court of Australia 2. Federal Court of Australia 3. State Supreme Courts 4. Magistrates / Local Courts This means there are two courts of appeal above the Victorian Supreme Court where this order was made. This is not about prejudicing the jury as these sorts of cases are usually decided by a judge with no jury in Australia.
- flgb 12y ago
  We also have District Courts, which are superior to Magistrates / Local Courts and and a whole bunch of different kinds judicial and administrative tribunals.
- jacques_chester 12y ago
  It's been a long time since I studied, but as I recall it the Federal Court is not superior to Supreme Courts. They are the lower courts for Federal laws. Appeals from either to the High Court is where the commonality comes in.
- sjy 12y ago
  The hierarchy has branches; the Federal Court isn't above the State Supreme Courts in any meaningful sense. Appeals from a State Supreme Court go to a State Court of Appeal and don't touch the federal system unless they are ultimately appealed to the High Court.

danieltillett 12y ago

It really should be “an” not “the”. I would expect that most people outside of Australia (and unfortunately most within) are unlikely to know the correct terminology for the Australian court system.

vacri 12y ago
I love how we have nine (state and territory) 'Supreme' courts, all of which are outranked by the one (national) 'High' court. Someone didn't get their semantics right, back in the day.
- danieltillett 12y ago
  It is due to the fact that all the Australia states were once sovereign nations and each state’s “supreme” courts existed before Australian federation. The same exists in the USA with the state supreme courts.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > The same exists in the USA with the state supreme courts. OTOH, a real violation of expected semantics occurs in the New York State court system where the ultimate appellate court is the "Court of Appeals", the trial court of general jurisdiction is the "Supreme Court", and the intermediate appellate court between the two is the "Supreme Court, Appellate Division".
    - sandworm101 12y ago
      Canada uses the same scheme. It isn't incorrect, just different. A "supreme" court is one of general jurisdiction and are the highest court to which an issue may be brought (as opposed to appellate courts which do not hear issues directly). They are supreme over courts of limited jurisdiction such as family or probate courts. The US Supreme Court (federal) actually uses the same name scheme as New York and Canada. All district and appellate are limited geographically, with the supreme court being the only court of general jurisdiction (Amongst the fed. All US fed courts are technically limited). But some actions can still be brought directly to the SCOTUS such as disputes between states over land. So it is not purely an appellate court, hence the term supreme.
  - skeletonjelly 12y ago
    Did we not pick "Super Supreme" due to the existing association with a certain pizza perhaps?
- synchronise 12y ago
  Two national courts actually, there's the Federal Court too. Then you have all the specialised courts, like the Family Courts, the Environmental Courts, the Court of Disputed Returns and many others that I can't remember off the top of my head. And before the 1980's, you could technically appeal a high court decision to the Privy Council in the UK in certain circumstances, although I don't think that was ever used.
  - danieltillett 12y ago
    Yes appeals used to go the Privy council [1]. Talking about anachronistic ties to the UK, Australia should do something about all the UK citizens on the electoral roll. There are hundreds of thousands of non-Australian citizens (i.e UK citizens who arrived before 1984) who can vote in Australian elections. Really if you can’t decide if you want to be an Australian citizen after being here for 30 years then you really should stop voting in Australian elections! [1]. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Court_of_Australia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Court_of_Australia
    - refurb 12y ago
      Unless something has changed recently, a citizen of a Commonwealth nation (e.g. Australia) can vote in UK elections without being a citizen, as long as they are a resident. Maybe it's about reciprocity?
  - jacques_chester 12y ago
    Often a court is the same judges as another court, so the proliferation can be illusory. For example, justices of the High Court recently sat as the Court of Disputed Returns in that WA Senate cockup.

hornetblack 12y ago

Victoria has done it before. The a series of the TV show Underbelly was banned temporally. The show depicted a true story of a crime that was still going through the court system. Australian Juries are not supposed to know anything about a case before it goes to court. If the story was on a very popular TV show before proceedings it becomes harder to ensure this.

fblp 12y ago

Court hierarchy in Australia is: 1. High Court of Australia 2. Federal Court of Australia 3. State Supreme Courts 4. Magistrates / Local Courts This means there are two courts of appeal above the Victorian Supreme Court where this order was made. This is not about prejudicing the jury as these sorts of cases are usually decided by a judge with no jury in Australia.

flgb 12y ago
We also have District Courts, which are superior to Magistrates / Local Courts and and a whole bunch of different kinds judicial and administrative tribunals.
jacques_chester 12y ago
It's been a long time since I studied, but as I recall it the Federal Court is not superior to Supreme Courts. They are the lower courts for Federal laws. Appeals from either to the High Court is where the commonality comes in.
sjy 12y ago
The hierarchy has branches; the Federal Court isn't above the State Supreme Courts in any meaningful sense. Appeals from a State Supreme Court go to a State Court of Appeal and don't touch the federal system unless they are ultimately appealed to the High Court.