Take Action

What's Happening

The NSW Supreme Court issued Practice Note SC Gen 23 (effective February 2025) requiring lawyers to disclose use of generative AI (like ChatGPT) in submissions. However, this covers only lawyer use — not judicial use of AI tools or algorithmic decision-support systems. Other state courts have not yet published equivalent policies, and no court has published standards for disclosure of AI use in judicial decision-making.

Why This Matters

• Undisclosed algorithmic influence: A judge may use case-prediction software without disclosing it in reasons for judgment. Litigants have no way to challenge algorithmic bias or errors.
• Self-represented litigant vulnerability: Unrepresented litigants cannot afford AI research tools and don't know when opposing counsel or the court uses them, widening information asymmetry.
• Reliability risks: AI-generated legal citations can be fabricated. A barrister was referred to disciplinary regulators in 2024 for submitting non-existent case law generated by ChatGPT.
• No appeal mechanism: If a litigant discovers AI was used but wasn't disclosed, there is no clear legal avenue to challenge the decision.

Reform Ask

• National AI Disclosure Standards: Parliament should commission the ALRC to develop national court AI transparency standards, including mandatory disclosure in all submissions and published judicial policies on algorithmic tools.
• Self-Represented Protections: Courts should provide plain-language explanations of when AI may have been used in case assessment, and access to affordable AI-powered legal research tools.
• Audit & Appeal Mechanisms: Establish court-level AI audit functions and statutory grounds for appeal where undisclosed AI use is discovered.

What's Happening

Judicial complaints in Australia are handled by each state's judicial commission in fragmented, inconsistent ways. Federal judges have minimal oversight. Across the system, 96% of judicial complaints are dismissed without investigation (NSW data), and zero judges have been removed by Parliament in Australian history. This near-total lack of accountability undermines public confidence in judicial impartiality.

Key Statistics

• 96% dismissal rate of judicial complaints at early screening (NSW Judicial Commission)
• Zero parliamentary removals recorded in Australian history
• Five judicial resignations during misconduct proceedings (2020-2024) — all resigned voluntarily rather than facing removal
• Fragmented system: Each state operates independently; no unified national standard

ALRC Recommendation

The Australian Law Reform Commission's landmark report Without Fear or Favour: Judicial Impartiality and the Law on Bias (Report 138, 2021) recommended establishment of a Federal Judicial Commission as an independent oversight mechanism to support public confidence in judicial impartiality. The ALRC found that such a body would:

• Provide consistent standards across jurisdictions
• Increase accessibility for litigants
• Enhance public transparency
• Support remedies short of removal (censure, retraining, case reassignment)

Reform Ask

• Establish a Federal Judicial Commission: A statutory body independent of the Attorney-General with power to investigate complaints against federal judges, make binding findings, and recommend remedies.
• Harmonise State Commissions: Adopt consistent complaint-handling standards and publish comparative data on dismissal rates and outcomes.
• Increase Accessibility: Simplified complaint forms, free complaint process, and independent legal assistance for complainants.

What's Happening

Court transcripts are essential for appealing decisions and understanding judgment reasons. Yet transcripts cost $3–$5 per page or $50–$200+ per day of proceedings. For a multi-day trial, costs can reach $500–$2,000+. Most Australian court transcript services are run by private commercial providers; pricing is set by providers, not courts, and there is no uniform scale across jurisdictions.

NSW model (partial access): Litigants receiving Legal Aid have transcript fees waived, and all appellants in the Court of Criminal Appeal have fees waived. Self-represented litigants in civil matters pay full cost. Similar policies apply in Federal Court and Family Court.

Why This Matters

• Self-represented litigants locked out: Those without legal aid who lose at trial face a "pay to challenge" barrier to appeal. In family law, 39% of trials include at least one unrepresented party.
• Lawyer cost spiral: Families already paying $30,000–$100,000+ in legal costs must add transcript costs to pursue an appeal, forcing settlement on unfavourable terms.
• Judicial error unchecked: If a judge makes a material error and the only affected party cannot afford the transcript to prove it, the error stands.
• Access-to-justice failure: Transcripts are treated as a commercial service, not a public justice tool.

Evidence

• Family court trial cost: $30,000–$100,000+ per party
• Family court delays: 97 weeks median to trial, creating pressure to settle
• Legal aid qualification: Only 8% of Australians qualify for legal aid, excluding most middle-income families
• Transcript costs (examples): NSW courts $3–$5 per page; 100-page daily transcript = $300–$500/day

International Precedent

In the United Kingdom, transcripts are provided free in criminal appeals (supported by legal aid). In Canada (Ontario), courts provide free transcripts for appellants, funded through court budgets. Australia's criminal system already recognises this: criminal appellants receive free transcripts — a recognition that appeals are an access-to-justice issue.

Reform Ask

• Free Transcripts for Appellants: Extend free transcript access to all appellants in civil appeals, not only criminal appellants. Fund transcripts from court/justice budgets.
• Uniform National Standard: Establish a national transcript cost cap (e.g., maximum $2 per page) and harmonise waiver policies across jurisdictions.
• Court-Provided Alternatives: Expand court audio/recording access and develop digital transcript platforms with search functionality, reducing reliance on expensive paper transcripts.
• Pro Bono Support: Establish a national scheme encouraging lawyers to donate transcript costs for self-represented appellants.