A temporary ‘fix’ for a permanent problem: the appointment of auxiliary judges in South Australia

In early April 2016 it came to public notice that the South Australian state government had sought to appoint three District Court judges to the superior Supreme Court on an auxiliary or temporary basis. This kind of appointment is not unusual within the Australian court system as cash-strapped state governments seek to add judicial officers to the ranks, without committing to the expense of a permanent judicial appointment. According to a statement made by the local Attorney General, ‘They are necessary from time to time to hear cases that may require specific legal expertise, or in cases where local judicial officers have a conflict of interest’. More broadly, however, they are being used to address caseload demands cheaply. In this case, however, the appointments did not play out as the government had hoped. One of the three District Court judges, Judge Barry Beazley, declined to take up the appointment. While he made no public statement as to his motivation, one media source suggested that his refusal was, according to ‘insiders’, as ‘he believes temporary judges won’t help the backlog and that the government should adequately resource the courts’. His reported decision was applauded by the local legal profession, with the Law Society President, David Caruso, stating he had ‘distinguished himself’. In Australia, judicial appointment is the gift of the executive and is not without episodes of considerable controversy. Most recently, the appointment of a Chief Magistrate to the position of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Queensland led to an unsightly judicial spat played out in newspapers across the nation, and ultimately to the resignation of the judicial officer in question. Despite a degree of concern about methods of appointment and a persistent lag in the appointment of a diverse judiciary,