"What is a podcast?" Gertie's Law executive producer Sarah Dolan talks to StoryCraft host Ben Hart about how the Supreme Court of Victoria embraced new media to educate and inform in an entertaining way.

We've received your questions and in this final episode of Gertie’s Law, they get answered. What influences lawyers to challenge a juror during empanelment? Does a murder involving family violence attract a larger sentence? When does criticism become defamation? And are there more right wing terrorist cases coming to the court? Hear the answers to these questions and more in the final episode of Gertie’s Law.

Last episode we looked at completed terrorist acts, and why they attract such large sentences, however cases involving completed terrorist acts are rare, indeed the first one in Victoria was in 2019. Most terrorism cases which come before the Supreme Court occur before an act of terrorism has taken place. They’re preparatory offenses, that is, preparing to commit a terrorist act or conspiring to prepare for a terrorist act.  In this episode we look at the difficult problem of how far back is the right time to criminalise preparatory offenses. Too far back and you confront the idea of thought crimes. Too late and the results may well be horrendous.  Hear from judges, defense and prosecution barristers and find out how these cases are argued and what happens when they come to the Supreme Court.  Links to cases discussed in this episode. The Queen v Cerantonio & Ors R v Fattal & Ors    

Terrorism cases are among the most high-profile offences to come to the Supreme Court. The trials are complicated and usually long, as are the resulting sentences. The cases attract a lot of public interest. On the day of a sentence, the public galleries and press seats will be full, and TV cameras, lights and journos will be set up outside the Court to film what they can.  Only a few terrorism trials have been heard in Australia, and in this episode we look closely at two of them. This episode of Gertie’s Law details what terrorist offences are, and what happens when they come before a judge of the Supreme Court.   Links to cases discussed in this episode. The Queen v Shoma The Queen v Mohamed, Chaarani & Moukhaibe Court of Appeal Chaarani & Ors v The Queen High Court Chaarani v The Queen; Moukhaiber v The Queen  

Courtrooms can be stressful places, especially if you’re giving evidence. Two of the court’s recent employees, Lucy and Coop are helping to take the stress out of being in court. 

Most Victorians have heard of Sir Redmond Barry, not least because there’s so many things named after him in Melbourne. And notoriously, he’s the judge who sentenced Ned Kelly to the gallows. But his impact on Melbourne extends far beyond the Kelly story. From defending Aboriginal resistance fighters to getting into a duel, Barry is undoubtedly one of the courts, and indeed the city's, most influential and fascinating figures.

Defamation. Often salacious or scandalous, especially when it involves Hollywood Stars or high profile federal politicians. It’s about defending one’s honour - and earning capacity. It’s an area of law where a person’s right to protect their reputation rubs up against someone else’s freedom of expression. Defamation cases are the juridical stage on which these incredible battles of fundamental rights and freedoms play out. There’s a lot to consider before launching defamation action, not least whether the action itself increases the damage of the offending material.  And a lot of defamation is now happening online but our laws were written before the internet was invented, so keeping up with technology is essential to successful defamation laws. But it’s not a new problem. A case against the ABC when broadcasting began in the 1930s faced similar issues. Hear from judges and barristers about prosecuting and deciding these difficult cases. Links to matters discussed in this episode Meldrum v Australian Broadcasting Co Ltd Webb & Bloch Dow Jones and Company Inc v Gutnick  

It’s time to talk about manslaughter - one of the most controversial and misunderstood offences that comes before the court, due to its high range of culpability and sometimes fine line between it and murder. From a legal point of view it’s a very clear line between murder and manslaughter. The problem is that factually it’s not always easy to look at a case and say which of the categories it falls into.  Links to sentences mentioned in this episode. The Queen v O’Connor (2018) The Queen v Moreland, Tippins & Thorp (2015) DPP v Turner (2009) The Queen v Donker (2018)

Welcome to season two of Gertie's Law. In season one we heard from almost everyone at the Supreme Court - the judges, associates, reporters, tipstaves and even the prison officers. But now it’s time to meet the people who do the lion’s share of the talking in the courtroom, the people sitting at the bar table - the lawyers.

When COVID-19 hit Victoria, schools, pubs and restaurants closed. The AFL season stopped after only one round. But the courts couldn’t shut down because crime didn’t stop. People were in custody awaiting trial. Family violence continued unabated, disputes needed settling, appeals needed to be heard, and trials needed to continue to provide justice for both accused and victims. As an essential service, the courts had to move quickly. This episode of Gertie's Law looks at how the Supreme Court of Victoria responded to the challenge of a global pandemic. Hear how judges maintained order when the courtrooms went virtual, why Coronavirus was mentioned regularly in bail hearings, and whether beef carpaccio is better if you use shallots.

Where does criminality originate? What makes a great barrister? Do funny things happen in court? Would a judge know how to get away with murder? In the final episode of the season, we get the answers to your questions.

There's a view that judges and journalists don't always see eye to eye. In a bonus episode of Gertie's Law we assembled four Supreme Court judges and four court reporters - put them in a room together, and recorded it.

Despite most Victorians never having direct interaction with the Supreme Court, most still have an opinion about it, and those opinions are predominantly formed by the media. It's a fundamental principle of our legal system that justice is done in open court. Journalists therefore serve as the guardians of an open justice system.

A Supreme Court judge is one of the most senior positions in the law and also one of the most criticised. Find out what it's like to be a judge at the Supreme Court; how they're appointed, confronting personal bias, and staying mentally healthy while dealing with constant violence and death.

When you think of the Supreme Court, it’s natural for your mind to go straight to murders and terrorism.  This episode is about the areas of this court which rarely, if ever, appear on the TV news. From fighting over wills and the Master of Lunacy to corporate battles and urgent medical disputes.

Fifty years ago, the Menhennitt Ruling was an example of judge-made law and it determined the legality of abortion in Victoria. In this episode of Gertie's Law, we find out why it was left to the Supreme Court, and not the parliament, to decide on such a controversial social issue. Hear from judges and people directly affected by the 1969 ruling.

From arrest to sentence (or acquittal), we take you through the entire process (Legal Aid, committal hearing, mentions, trial, verdict and appeal). If you're charged with a serious crime in Victoria, this is what you can expect.

We've received your questions. From capital punishment and gender in the law to speeding fines and staying awake in court, we put your questions to judges.

Almost every day, randomly selected Victorians, often with no experience in or knowledge of the law, sit in court passing judgement on their fellow citizens. Learn how the jury system works and the challenges jurors face, such as staying off social media, leaving their sympathies at home and getting their heads around complex forensic evidence.

At first glance, the trial division building of the Supreme Court is imposing. Narrow corridors, very high ceilings with grand chandeliers and ornate plasterwork. Nineteenth century stonework and cedar panelling. And then there’s the artwork - mostly portraits of stern looking men in big leather chairs looking down from under their wigs. The effect of the original building is to communicate the authority - even fear - of the law. But things have changed a lot in that last few decades, and as the system changes, so too does the art and the architecture. Gradually, this 19th century heritage building is looking and feeling more like it belongs to a 21st century justice system.

Hundreds of people work at the Supreme Court every day, and the majority aren't judges. Meet with a variety of people who call the court their workplace, from prison officers and 'tippies' to journalists and librarians.

It’s a sad fact that most of the people accused of serious criminal offences in the Supreme Court are either suffering from a mental illness, taking illicit drugs, or both. “It’s one of the most difficult things a sentencing judge will need to balance.” Hear from judges and find out how they deal with the more controversial aspects of sentencing: mental illness, drugs and parole.

Sentencing. It's the most talked about and misunderstood aspect of the court's work. How does a judge go about deciding a length of time in jail? There’s a lot to consider and coming up with the final number is the end of a lengthy and complicated process. Some of the most experienced judges in the state explain how they come to the decisions they do.

Thousands pass it every day and it’s in the news most nights. Many criminals who’ve appeared here are household names. But how well do you really know this court?

Introducing Gertie’s Law, a podcast from the Supreme Court of Victoria.