Pension age - and Judges !

Along with the rest of the work force, judges retirement ages are under review and it is proposed that the present retirement age in New South Wales be lifted from seventy-two to seventy-five.  The reason is that becoming a judge is usually reserved for those who have long served the law and who have accumulated a vast experience of the law.  Preserving this service for a longer period of time will obviously deliver savings to the state.

At present, judges who have served for ten years and who retire voluntarily are entitled to a pension of sixty percent of their final salary.  As a result, Supreme court judges retiring are paid $441,940 per year.  Both the pension and retirement age differs between the states and territories and retirement age ranges from 65 to 72.

It is not unusual for a retiring judge to be reappointed as an acting judge for a limited time on an  hoc basis, but in New South Wales this has a final limit of age seventy-seven. Judges of the High Court and Federal Court must retire at seventy and cannot return as acting judges.   Very little uniformity applies to the judiciary.

This is an issue that may generate mixed feelings from those who serve the legal system.  The purpose of a judge seems to be based on conducting a trial strictly within the rules and regulations that apply to the law, and deciding the penalty that will apply to those found guilty.  It is the sentencing option that may cause some people to question the ages of judges in coming to an understanding of the changes in moral toning that have occurred in our society - and shaping the sentence to reflect that change.

Legal counsel are well known for " judge shopping " - using tactics to delay or speed up case preparation in the hope of selecting a judge of their choice.   They wish to avoid judges with a known prejudice against an issue that will be crucial in a coming trial.   The prejudices of individual judges quickly becomes widely known to both the defence and prosecution attorneys and often dictate the  tactics that will be used in the case presentation.

Few of the sentences handed down are the end of the matter.  Most are immediately appealed and reviewed in a court of appeal and very often that initial sentence is reduced, but on rare occasions it may be increased.  This reduction can be dramatic.  Terms of imprisonment are sometimes substituted by imposition of a mere good behaviour bond which often results in public disquiet. Generally, the public seem to favour harsher sentencing.

There is no guarantee that younger judges would be free of individual prejudices and by and large the system we have works very well.  The appeals system takes care of any glaring misjudgements and so far the imposition of mandatory sentencing has been kept to a minimum.   That admonition of " if it 'aint broke don't fix it " seems to apply.