A Liberal proposal to break Victoria’s Court of Appeal into two separate courts has been criticised by legal and human rights groups, who warn the plan risks drawing judges into politics. Opposition Leader Jess Wilson announced the policy on Sunday, saying a Coalition government elected in November would create a dedicated court of criminal appeal alongside a new court of civil appeal.
What is being proposed #
Under the plan outlined by Ms Wilson, the Victorian Court of Appeal — currently a single division of the Supreme Court that hears both criminal and civil appeals — would be split so that criminal matters are dealt with by a standalone bench. Ms Wilson said the change was designed to help build a body of case law that would, over time, produce tougher sentencing outcomes.
The Coalition has framed the proposal as a response to community concern about sentencing for violent and repeat offending. Ms Wilson said a dedicated criminal appeal court would allow judges to develop specialist expertise and set precedents more quickly than under the current combined structure.
VCN understands further detail on staffing, transition arrangements and cost has not yet been released, and the Coalition has not said when or how the policy would be legislated if the party wins government.
How the Court of Appeal works now #
The Court of Appeal sits at the top of Victoria’s court hierarchy below the High Court of Australia. It hears appeals from the Supreme Court’s trial division, the County Court, and in some circumstances from lower courts, covering both criminal appeals — such as challenges to convictions or sentences — and civil appeals, including commercial, planning and defamation disputes.
Judges of the Court of Appeal are also judges of the Supreme Court and can be assigned across both criminal and civil lists depending on need. Supporters of the existing model say this flexibility allows the court to manage caseloads efficiently and ensures judges bring broad legal experience to criminal sentencing questions, rather than being confined to a single area of law.
Legal and rights groups push back #
Legal and human rights organisations have criticised the proposal, warning that a court structure designed explicitly to produce harsher outcomes risks undermining the independence of the judiciary. Critics argue that sentencing is a judicial function that should be guided by the law and the facts of each case, not by a structural change intended in advance to shift outcomes in one direction.
Groups opposed to the plan have also raised concerns about the practical impact of splitting an already stretched court, warning that dividing judicial resources into two separate benches could create new bottlenecks rather than solve existing ones. Some have described the proposal as a “thought bubble” that has not been tested against the realities of court administration or judicial workload.
VCN has sought further comment from the Law Institute of Victoria and the Victorian Bar on the proposal.
Why sentencing has become a political flashpoint #
Sentencing has been a recurring point of contention in Victorian politics, with both major parties under pressure ahead of the November election to respond to community concern about crime, particularly youth offending, aggravated burglary and repeat offending on bail. The Allan government has previously introduced changes to bail laws and sentencing settings in response to similar pressure.
Ms Wilson’s announcement positions the Coalition’s court restructure as a further step in that debate, alongside existing calls from the opposition for tougher bail tests and mandatory sentencing in some categories of offending. Government MPs are expected to respond to the proposal in coming days, and VCN will report any official statement from the Attorney-General’s office as it is issued.
The independence question #
At the centre of the criticism is a long-standing principle in Australian law: that courts interpret and apply the law independently of the parliament and the executive, and that judicial appointments and structures should not be designed to achieve a particular political outcome. Critics of the Coalition proposal argue that explicitly stating the goal of a court restructure is to produce tougher sentences blurs that line, because it ties a change in court architecture to a desired result rather than to administrative efficiency or access to justice.
Defenders of the proposal are likely to argue that parliament regularly sets sentencing frameworks, including maximum penalties and standard sentence provisions, and that restructuring a court to better manage criminal appeals is a legitimate exercise of that power. That debate is expected to continue as the Coalition releases further detail on the policy in the lead-up to the election.
What happens next #
No legislation has yet been introduced, and the proposal remains a Coalition election commitment rather than government policy. Any change to the structure of the Court of Appeal would require legislative amendment and would likely involve consultation with the judiciary, the legal profession and relevant oversight bodies before implementation.
VCN will continue to follow the policy as it develops, including any response from the Victorian government, the courts, and legal representative bodies. As with all matters involving the operation of Victoria’s courts, our reporting will be based on official statements and publicly available material from the parties involved.
The matter is currently a live political and policy debate rather than a court proceeding. VCN will update this report as further detail on the Coalition’s proposal, and any government response, becomes available.
