Yes, the Doctrine of Judicial Independence ensures that judges consider Parliament’s perspective and exercise their functions in accordance with this

No, the Doctrine of Judicial Superiority says that High Court judges are superior to Parliament and therefore do not need to consider Parliament’s instructions

No, the Doctrine of Judicial Independence ensures that judges are not subject to external pressures when adjudicating cases

Yes, the Doctrine of Judicial Immunity does not prevent judges from following Parliament’s instructions

The Victorian Governor-in-Council

The Commonwealth Attorney-General

A member of Federal Cabinet

The Governor-General

The Commonwealth Attorney-General after consultation with other judges

The State Governor acting on the advice of the State Executive Council

The Federal Court acting on the advice of the Governor-in-Council

The Federal Cabinet acting on the advice of the State Governor

That the term of judges are fixed when they are appointed

That all federal judges retire at 70

That all judges have appropriate formal qualifications

That Parliamentary Commissions be established to investigate allegations of judge’s misbehaviour

If they hand down judgments which oppose Government policy

If their term of office is not fixed

If they demonstrate judicial independence

If they fail to show “good behaviour”

Former King’s Counsel (or Senior Counsel)

Former State Parliamentarians

Appointed directly from previously being solicitors

Appointed without formal legal qualifications

Chief Justice Susan Kiefel 

Chief Justice Michelle Gordon

Chief Justice Virginia Bell

Chief Justice James Edelman

That the truth will be gained by judges having the power to go out and gather evidence for themselves

That each party will do its best to present all the facts and legal arguments which support its case and to demonstrate any weakness in the other party’s evidence

That access to justice ensues because all law is gathered together in one code and thus the law is accessible to the public

That it is a level playing field in which everyone, including minorities, indigenous people and the poor have equal access to legal representation

Feminist Jurisprudence. This approach examines how females are disadvantaged in criminal law proceedings.

Economic Analysis of Law. This approach examines how female dominance is embodied in the law. 

Critical Legal Theory. This approach examines how females are disadvantaged in family violence matters.

Feminist Jurisprudence. This approach examines how male dominance is embodied in the law. 

It would not make sense if Isaac’s command coupled with a threat constituted a “law”. Hart believes that “laws” will be recognised if they have gone through an established procedure. 

Hart thought that “laws” could only be made by judges and politicians. If Isaac was a politician or a judge his command and threat would have constituted a “law”.

According to Hart “laws” must be entrenched in our Constitution. Isaac’s command and threat is not expressly or impliedly entrenched in our Constitution. Therefore it is not a “law”. 

Hart narrowed the scope of possible sanctions. Laws cannot threaten death or serious injury. Therefore Isaac’s command and threat did not constitute a “law”.