Talk:Supreme Court of New South Wales

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Law This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Australia: New South Wales / Law Low‑importance Supreme Court of New South Wales is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject New South Wales (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Australian law (assessed as Low-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of New South Wales. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

The image

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking we should add Category:Australian appellate courts to this article. Is this correct for this article? Barrylb (talk) 03:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence is wrong.

The Court of Appeal is actually a division of the Supreme Court: see Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) section 38: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/sca1970183/s38.html. It is not a separate Court.

Likewise, the Court of Criminal Appeal is constituted by the Supreme Court. See section 3 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW). http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/caa1912137/s3.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.18.230 (talk) 11:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page needs to be updated as there are for instance two acting judges now and there are other errors. The list has omitted to include associate judges which there is one at the present (associate judges do not hear criminal matters).

the link is http://www.supremecourt.justice.nsw.gov.au/supremecourt/judicialcontacts.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.64.73 (talk) 11:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re President Beazley in the "Current Judges" list - while she has held the position of President for the time indicated, she has been a Justice on the Court of Appeal since 1996(see her page Margaret Beazley). Is there some way to reflect her two decades of service to that Court in the table that is in line with the formatting requirements of it? Miskate (talk) 02:46, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Supreme Court of New South Wales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.csu.edu.au/division/marketing/tms/T101/T101p13.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—

This is false and it is redundant to say "physically". The Law Courts Building in Queens Square houses the Supreme Court, the Federal Court, and the High Court. But the Supreme Court also uses other buildings, as outlined in the article, as well as the Darlinghurst Courthouse which for some reason isn't mentionned--Jack Upland (talk) 22:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting the discussion. I am sure that the location of the building is not false as I went past it this morning. There is a difference between the Court and the building. The principal court rooms, including the Banco Court, and the registry are in this building which is located on the northern side of Queen's Square and this is where the vast majority of cases are heard. The building, formally known as the Law Courts Building, but also called Queen's Square, was constructed specifically to accommodate the court rather than the then sprawling network of locations the court then sat in. Indeed Queen's Square was only created with the construction of the building. Yes the top floors of the Law Courts Building have always accommodated the Federal Court & High Court. The locations currently listed in the article are also places that have been referred to over time as the Supreme Court building.

The Court is different - it can sit anywhere it needs to - not just the locations referred to in the article & Darlinghurst Courthouse, but judges also regularly sit at Hospital Road, Wentworth Chambers, Downing Centre & the Sydney West Trial Courts. The Court used to regularly sit in country towns, such as Bathurst, Wagga Wagga and Dubbo, but those regular sittings dropped off around 10 years ago and instead occur as needed. As it happens there is currently a murder trial going on in Lismore. So far as I am aware, none of these places have ever been referred to as the Supreme Court building.

I would be happy if the lede was qualified along the lines of being the principle location, making it clear it is not the sole location the Court sits. I am also happy for the article to be expanded to refer to other locations, whether current or former. I also agree that reference to a building's physical location is redundant. --Find bruce (talk) 06:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

needs major updates after new chief justice 203.220.48.85 (talk) 21:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Already  Done --Find bruce (talk) 01:36, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]