Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://anrows.intersearch.com.au/anrowsjspui/handle/1/12515 Record ID: 4f1246b5-14d5-49bb-962b-ed417655cf7f
Full metadata record
| DC Field | Value | Language |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.author | Hunter, Rosemary | en |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2022-06-30T23:00:25Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2022-06-30T23:00:25Z | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2005 | en |
| dc.identifier.citation | 30 (5), October 2005 | en |
| dc.identifier.issn | 1037-969X | en |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://anrows.intersearch.com.au/anrowsjspui/handle/1/12515 | - |
| dc.language | en | en |
| dc.publisher | Legal Service Bulletin Co-operative Ltd | en |
| dc.subject | Criminal justice responses | en |
| dc.subject | Protection orders | en |
| dc.title | Styles of judging: how magistrates deal with applications for intervention orders | en |
| dc.title.alternative | Alternative law journal | en |
| dc.type | Journal Article | en |
| dc.identifier.catalogid | 1032 | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | new_record | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | Journal article/research paper | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | International | en |
| dc.description.notes | Journal is supported by Faculty of Law, Monash University.<br/ >This article discusses Australian and North American research on judicial styles in first level courts. The North American studies provide a framework for research on intervention order proceedings in magistrates’ courts in Melbourne. It looks at the typology of judicial styles suggested in the 3 North American studies and examines their application in Australia. Five different judicial styles are identified and described from 2 North American studies: the strict adherence to the Law; the Law Maker; the authoritative decision maker; the mediator; and the proceduralist. Another North American study observed civil restraining order hearings and used a typology of 5 styles of judicial demeanours: good-natured; bureaucratic; firm or formal; harsh; and condescending or patronising. It is found that individual magistrates’ styles varied between cases, in their attitude to litigants but also in their attitude to decision making. In the Melbourne study between 1996 and 1997, a total of 100 cases involving family violence, heard by 17 different magistrates, were observed. It found that authoritative decision makers applied when applicants were unrepresented; law makers when applicants were represented; bureaucratic when applicants were unrepresented but not in contested matters; good-natured when applicants were represented, especially by court support programme lawyers but never in final order applications in the absence of the defendant; and firm or formal in contested matters but never to applicants for interim orders. Victorian magistrates also appeared most often bureaucratic towards both parties, although more to the applicants than the defendants. The magistrates were good-natured to applicants too infrequently, and good-natured to defendants far too frequently. They were also more or less equally firm or formal to applicants and to defendants. It seemed that applicants would have felt unsupported in the intervention order proceedings since magistrates did not engage with then and did not send clear messages about the unacceptability of violence to defendants. | en |
| dc.identifier.source | Alternative Law Journal | en |
| dc.date.entered | 2006-08-31 | en |
| Appears in Collections: | Journal Articles | |
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in ANROWS library are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.