The Supreme Court’s definition is one of the most complex in the world.
It can change on a whim, but it is one that courts in Australia use to make their decisions.
And while the court has long been used to review and overturn laws and court rulings, the definition is more than just a legalistic guideline: it’s also a way of protecting people from abuse, abuse of power and the risk of losing their jobs, even when the case was decided in a way that left the justice system free of corruption and abuse.
“We do not have a right to be anonymous,” Justice John Hodgman said when the court was established in 1878.
“And if you are to become anonymous, then you must do your best to be an independent judge.
That’s the way of the world, isn’t it?”
Justice Hodgman, who is now the chief justice, is right about one thing: the court is not a neutral arbiter.
And its decision can have far-reaching consequences for people, businesses and the wider community.
What’s at stake for the public The definition has been criticised by groups who have campaigned to limit the power of the court to make decisions.
“The Supreme Court is a powerful institution,” says former Attorney-General Peter McClellan.
“There’s a strong sense that if you don’t like the law, you can go back and make your own law.
That is a very powerful mechanism.”
“We are an independent judiciary and we have the right to judge,” says Australian College of Legal Practitioners (ACLP) president David Leyonhjelm.
“This court has the right and responsibility to protect and advance the law.”
But it is also the case that the court can also be used by people to abuse power, to abuse the system or to abuse people’s rights.
The term “judicial review” is sometimes used to refer to a court ruling that is not directly appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court, which is the body that makes the final decision on whether to review a case.
The power of a court to overturn a court decision can be used to protect those who are the target of a ruling.
In the past, the courts have used the power to override the decision of the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) to overturn an Aboriginal woman’s conviction for aggravated indecent assault, for example.
In 2006, the Australian Labor Party used the powers of the Supreme Courts to challenge the constitutionality of the Human Rights Act, which was then passed.
This was a very controversial case, but one that did not involve the courts, and was ultimately ruled by the court.
In 2014, the Federal Court upheld a decision of a lower court in which a court found that a woman had been wrongfully convicted of a sexual assault.
The case concerned the same woman, who was also a victim of a violent assault.
“It was a real test of the courts’ ability to deal with these sorts of cases,” says Elizabeth Wightman, the barrister and legal director of the law centre, which specialises in family law matters.
The Federal Court ruled that the woman had not been a victim, but the court also found that the evidence had been insufficient to prove she had been a perpetrator.
The women were both cleared of the assault and were acquitted.
In her ruling, the court stated that the man who had assaulted the woman, had a “strong and significant propensity to engage in sexual intercourse”.
The woman’s lawyer, who did not wish to be named, said she believed the court’s decision had been “unfortunate and inappropriate”.
“I think it was quite clear in the judgment that there was a case for a dismissal,” she told The Australian Financial Review.
“I’m not sure that there is any particular law that would justify dismissal of a case, and it certainly didn’t apply here.”
When the woman’s case was heard by the Federal Circuit Court, she was found guilty of aggravated indecent penetration and given a six-month jail sentence.
The court found her guilty of the same offence, but also found her not guilty of other offences, including that of assault causing bodily harm.
The man who assaulted the girl was found not guilty by reason of mental incapacity.
The Supreme Judicial Council was also unable to reach a verdict in her case, despite the woman having previously been found not criminally responsible for the offences that led to her conviction.
The woman appealed to a higher court, but that court upheld her conviction and sentenced her to two years and four months in jail.
The appeals court then overturned the decision, and the woman was released on bail.
But the case went to appeal, and in April 2020, she appealed again to the Federal Supreme Court.
The decision of that court was not immediately made public.
In June 2020, the woman appealed again again to appeal the Supreme Administrative Tribunal, which found her guilt and imposed a sentence of two years in