Open PDF - Self represented Litigants a challenge - Size 786 KB

More documents

Recommendations

Info

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA The Participants 6 The Court was fortunate to secure the services of Mr Fred Chaney AO as a facilitator for the weekend. His experience with a similar exercise in Western Australia ideally suited him for the task. In addition, his passion, imagination, concern and enthusiasm made him the ideal person for the job. 7 The others invited were: ~ The Hon Justice Geoffrey Davies, Queensland Court of Appeal; ~ Associate Professor Kathy Mack, School of Law, Flinders University; ~ Mr Tim Mulvany, T.L Mulvany & Co Solicitors; ~ Ms Zoe Rathus, Women’s Legal Service, Queensland; ~ Professor John Braithwaite, Research School of Social Science, Australian National University; ~ Chief Judge David Carruthers, District Court of New Zealand; ~ Mrs Dianne Smith, Judicial Registrar, Family Court of Australia; ~ Ms Sarah Mansfield, Victoria Legal Aid; ~ Professor John Dewar, Dean, Faculty of Law, Griffith University; ~ Mr Raymond Lenton, self-represented litigant; ~ Ms Belinda Lo, Brimbank Community Centre; ~ Ms Janet Tregear, self-represented litigant; ~ Ms Julie, self-represented litigant; ~ Ms Sandra Elims, Assistant Secretary, Legal Assistance Branch, Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department; and ~ three self-represented litigants. And with the participation of Justice John Faulks, Judge of the Family Court of Australia and leader of the SRL project. 8 All participants were chosen not only, or so much, for their expertise in the Family Court processes themselves, but rather for their ability to think outside the square of the existing patterns of litigation. For example, Mr Justice Geoffrey Davies’ seminal paper about the convergence of the inquisitorial and adversarial systems ideally qualified him to participate in this creation of a new jurisprudence. 56 9 Similarly, the experience of Professor John Braithwaite with restorative justice in fields quite different from the Family Court meant that he was able to contribute uniquely to the process. Equally importantly was the contribution made by Chief Judge David Carruthers of the District Court in
Self-represented Litigants ~ A Challenge: PROJECT REPORT New Zealand. He brought his unrivalled experience in "conferencing" to say nothing of his observations of other systems and his exceptionally clear thinking. 10 Others who participated did so, in many cases, from a depth of experience of the Court itself and this enabled a balance to be struck between the theoretical and the real. The process was designed to bring about a proposal for reform of the Family Court processes. It was always contemplated that the results would be available to all other Courts so that, to the extent that they were relevant to those Courts, they could be adapted and used. However, its primary focus was to provide opportunities for the Family Court of Australia to go forward. 11 Logically, for this process to have any measure of credibility it was necessary for a number of people who had been involved in the experience of self-representation to be part of the team. In this regard the Court was fortunate to secure the attendance of three individuals, all of whom had been through the process of self-representation and all of whom are keen to assist those going through the same process in the future. In varying degrees they had already begun this process but it would be fair to single out Mr Raymond Lenton as someone who has contributed enormously to the assistance of those who are representing themselves in and about Parramatta in Sydney. What it was hoped to achieve 12 As is set out above, it was hoped that there might be one or more proposals from those present which would provide a broad path to the future. It was clear that there would be no constraints on the possibilities in this part of the process except those dictated by common sense and the general objectives of the Family Court of Australia. 13 It was also recognised that as part of that process, inevitably, there would be suggestions for reforms that might be instituted immediately. That catalogue of suggestions would be conveyed to the Chief Justice’s Consultative Council via the project team in the expectation that such suggestions would be considered, and if feasible, implemented. The selfrepresenting litigants participating have made a number of sensible suggestions. Some of these reinforce existing Court processes; others suggest amplification of those process; and still others offer alternatives or new ideas which will enhance the Court processes. Those are set out in a later part of this report. 57
Page 1 and 2:
Self-represented Litigants A Challe
Page 3 and 4:
Self-represented Litigants A Challe
Page 5 and 6:
Self-represented Litigants ~ A Chal
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14: Self-represented Litigants ~ A Chal
Page 63: Self-represented Litigants ~ A Chal
show all

Open PDF - Self represented Litigants a challenge - Size 786 KB

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?