*Please note that the links to the content in this Part will direct you to Westlaw AU.<\/p>\n
The latest issue of the\u00c2\u00a0Journal\u00c2\u00a0of Judicial Administration <\/em>(Volume\u00c2\u00a025 Part 1) contains the following material:<\/p>\n Connecting with Victoria\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s culturally diverse communities: Enhancing public trust and confidence in courts and tribunals<\/a> <\/em><\/strong>\u00e2\u20ac\u201c <\/em>The Hon Chief Justice Marilyn Warren AC<\/p>\n Victorian courts and tribunals serve an extraordinarily diverse community; connecting with all members of this community is vital to enhancing public trust and confidence in the judiciary. To ensure equal access to justice for all, courts and judges must be sensitive to the needs of, and challenges faced by, different cultural groups. This article provides an overview of some of the recent initiatives adopted by Victorian courts and tribunals and related bodies to better engage Indigenous and ethnically diverse Victorians. It concludes by canvassing some future challenges for the courts and highlighting the importance of ongoing judicial leadership and education in this area.<\/p>\n To purchase this article, complete the Individual Article Sale<\/a> order form and email it to tlranz.journal.orders@thomsonreuters.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n From advocacy to collegiality: The view of experts of \u00e2\u20ac\u0153concurrent evidence\u00e2\u20ac\u009d and \u00e2\u20ac\u0153expert conferral\u00e2\u20ac\u009d in the State Administrative Tribunal<\/a><\/em><\/strong> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c <\/em>Bertus de Villiers<\/p>\n Australia plays a leading role in the way in which expert evidence is dealt with by the courts and tribunals. Key motivators for change are to find ways to properly access expert evidence, to utilise expert evidence to facilitate settlement of disputes or at least to reduce issues in dispute, and to create a less litigious atmosphere when dealing with expert evidence. Two important techniques that have been developed are \u00e2\u20ac\u0153conferral of experts\u00e2\u20ac\u009d prior to hearings and \u00e2\u20ac\u0153concurrent expert evidence\u00e2\u20ac\u009d during hearings. This article is based on the views of experts who have appeared in the State Administrative Tribunal of Western Australia about their experiences and perceptions of these two techniques. It appears that although there is room for improvement, the interviewees show strong support for these techniques and feel that their ability to give evidence as well as to engage with other experts are strengthened by same.<\/p>\n To purchase this article, complete the Individual Article Sale<\/a> order form and email it to tlranz.journal.orders@thomsonreuters.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n Known unknowns: The overarching obligations of self-represented parties<\/a><\/em><\/strong> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c <\/em>Harlis Kirimof and Erik Dober<\/p>\n In 2010, Victoria introduced the Civil Procedure Act 2010<\/em> (Vic) in an effort to stem the rising cost of litigation. The Act imposes on parties and their legal representatives a \u00e2\u20ac\u0153paramount duty\u00e2\u20ac\u009d and a number of \u00e2\u20ac\u0153overarching obligations\u00e2\u20ac\u009d that are designed to improve the efficiency of court process. Although the Act applies to self-represented parties, it does not differentiate between them and parties who are represented. It has no bespoke provisions that deal with self-represented parties. This article considers the application of the Act\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s obligation to self-represented parties and the manner in which hearings involving self-represented parties may be modified to improve their efficiency and fairness.<\/p>\n To purchase this article, complete the Individual Article Sale<\/a> order form and email it to tlranz.journal.orders@thomsonreuters.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n Should Australian courts give more witnesses the right to Skype?<\/a> <\/em><\/strong>\u00e2\u20ac\u201c <\/em>Marilyn Krawitz and Justine Howard<\/p>\n Millions of people use Skype, a common form of social media that permits people to talk to each other over the internet. Courts in Australia have permitted witnesses in at least a few instances to testify by Skype to date. This article examines whether Australian courts should permit witnesses to testify by Skype more often. The article considers using videoconferencing, as opposed to Skype, and security issues associated with Skype. It also considers the impact that Skype may have upon considering witness credibility. Ultimately, it argues that Australian judicial officers may want to consider permitting witnesses to testify by Skype if testifying by videoconference is not possible, on a case by case basis. The authors believe that this is the first scholarly article in Australia to focus on the issue of witnesses testifying by Skype.<\/p>\n To purchase this article, complete the Individual Article Sale<\/a> order form and email it to tlranz.journal.orders@thomsonreuters.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n For the PDF\u00c2\u00a0version of the table of contents, click here:\u00c2\u00a0JJA Vol 25 No 1 Contents<\/a><\/p>\nArticles<\/h3>\n