{"id":"supreme-court-senior-counsel-rules-2007","name":"SUPREME COURT (SENIOR COUNSEL) RULES 2007","slug":"supreme-court-senior-counsel-rules-2007","collection":"regulation","jurisdiction":"nt","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":null,"makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":177157,"registerId":"nt-supreme-court-senior-counsel-rules-2007-current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-04-05","status":"InForce","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"1","sectionType":"section","heading":"SUPREME COURT (SENIOR COUNSEL) RULES 2007","content":"NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA\nSUPREME COURT (SENIOR COUNSEL) RULES 2007\nAs in force at 29 March 2017\nTable of provisions\n1 Citation ............................................................................................ 1\n2 Purpose ........................................................................................... 1\n3 General principles governing the exercise of statutory powers........ 1\n4 Attributes required for appointment as Senior Counsel ................... 1\n5 Application for appointment ............................................................. 2\n6 Consultation..................................................................................... 2\n7 Notification of decision ..................................................................... 3\nENDNOTES\n\n\n\nNORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA\n____________________\nAs in force at 29 March 2017\n____________________\nSUPREME COURT (SENIOR COUNSEL) RULES 2007\nRules under the Supreme Court Act 1979\n1 Citation\nThese Rules may be cited as the Supreme Court (Senior Counsel)\nRules 2007.\n2 Purpose\nThese Rules state the principles on which the Chief Justice will\nexercise the power to appoint Senior Counsel under section 21 of\nthe Legal Profession Act 2006.\n3 General principles governing the exercise of statutory powers\n(1) The Chief Justice will not appoint Queen's Counsel.\n(2) Except in exceptional cases, appointment as a Senior Counsel will\nbe confined to practising advocates.\n4 Attributes required for appointment as Senior Counsel\nThe following attributes are required for appointment as a Senior\nCounsel:\n(a) exemplary knowledge and understanding of the law;\n(b) a high level of skill as an advocate;\n(c) integrity and trustworthiness;\n(d) commitment to the best traditions of the bar and to the\nadministration of justice;\n(e) maturity of judgment acquired from substantial experience in\nlegal practice.\n\nSupreme Court (Senior Counsel) Rules 2007 2\n5 Application for appointment\n(1) A legal practitioner may apply to the Chief Justice to be considered\nfor appointment as Senior Counsel.\n(2) The application must be made in writing no later than 31 August.\n(3) The application must:\n(a) provide evidence the applicant has the attributes required for\nappointment; and\n(b) include any undertaking required by the Chief Justice.\n(4) Immediately after the closing date for applications, the Chief Justice\nmust provide a list of the names of all the applicants to the\nfollowing:\n(a) the Attorney-General;\n(b) the President of the Law Society;\n(c) the President of the Northern Territory Bar Association.\n(5) A person to whom the list is given under subrule (4) may make it\navailable for inspection by anyone else.\n6 Consultation\n(1) For the purposes of section 21(2)(b)(iii) of the Legal Profession\nAct 2006:\n(a) the President of the Law Society must, in each year, nominate\nto the Chief Justice at least one solicitor to represent the\nSociety; and\n(b) the President of the Northern Territory Bar Association\nIncorporated must, in each year, nominate to the Chief Justice\nat least one barrister to represent the Association.\n(2) The nominations must be made in writing no later than 31 July.\n(3) The consultation required under section 21(2)(b) of the Legal\nProfession Act 2006 is to be conducted as the Chief Justice\nconsiders appropriate.\n(4) The Chief Justice may (but is not obliged to) refer adverse\ncomments made about an applicant to the applicant for a response.\n(5) If the Chief Justice refers an adverse comment to the applicant, the\nChief Justice is not obliged to disclose the source of the comment.\n\nSupreme Court (Senior Counsel) Rules 2007 3\n7 Notification of decision\n(1) The Chief Justice must notify an applicant of the Chief Justice's\ndecision regarding the applicant's application.\n(2) The Chief Justice is not obliged to give reasons for the decision.\n\nENDNOTES\nSupreme Court (Senior Counsel) Rules 2007 4\nENDNOTES\n1 KEY\nKey to abbreviations\namd = amended od = order\napp = appendix om = omitted\nbl = by-law pt = Part\nch = Chapter r = regulation/rule\ncl = clause rem = remainder\ndiv = Division renum = renumbered\nexp = expires/expired rep = repealed\nf = forms s = section\nGaz = Gazette sch = Schedule\nhdg = heading sdiv = Subdivision\nins = inserted SL = Subordinate Legislation\nlt = long title sub = substituted\nnc = not commenced\n2 LIST OF LEGISLATION\nSupreme Court (Senior Counsel) Rules 2007 (SL No. 43, 2007)\nNotified 16 January 2008\nCommenced 16 January 2008\nSupreme Court (Senior Counsel) Amendment Rules 2007 (SL No. 5, 2017)\nNotified 29 March 2017\nCommenced 29 March 2017\n3 GENERAL AMENDMENTS\nGeneral amendments of a formal nature (which are not referred to in the table\nof amendments to this reprint) are made by the Interpretation Legislation\nAmendment Act 2018 (Act No. 22, 2018) to: rr 1, 2 and 6.\n4 LIST OF AMENDMENTS\nr 5 amd No. 5, 2017, r 3","sortOrder":0}],"analysis":{"issue_detection":{"absurdities":[],"contradictions":[]},"summary":{"complexity_score":3,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"Based on the available information, the rules appear to remain focused on their original purpose of governing Senior Counsel appointments in the Supreme Court. The reprint designation indicates updates have been made, but there is no evidence from the provided text that the scope has materially shifted from its original intent."},"complexity_factors":["Limited substantive content is available in the provided text — the document appears to be largely metadata/framework rather than detailed operative rules","The underlying subject matter (professional appointment criteria and process) is relatively straightforward in concept","Procedural rules of this nature typically involve defined eligibility thresholds, nomination or application steps, and decision-maker discretion, which adds moderate complexity","The legislation has been reprinted (Reprint No. REPS020R4), suggesting some amendments over time that could create interpretive layers"],"plain_english_summary":"These rules set out how experienced barristers are appointed as Senior Counsel by the Supreme Court, defining the formal process, eligibility and decision-making for conferment of this senior legal rank. \n\nThey affect applicants, the Court and professional bodies, and matter because SC appointment recognises exceptional skill, integrity and standing in the profession; current rules commenced 29 March 2017."},"flash_summary_failed":{"failed":true,"reason":"Unauthenticated. Configure AI_GATEWAY_API_KEY or use a provider module. Learn more: https://ai-sdk.dev/unauthenticated-ai-gateway","source":"analysis-cron"},"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":3,"scope_assessment":{"changed":true,"description":"The reprint records an amendment to rule 5 in 2017 (Supreme Court (Senior Counsel) Amendment Rules 2017, SL No. 5, 2017). That indicates the application procedure was altered from the original instrument. The endnotes also record formal amendments to rr 1, 2 and 6 in 2018; those are noted as of a formal nature. The reprint does not include the prior wording, so the precise substantive scope change to the application process cannot be extracted from this text alone."},"complexity_factors":["Prohibition on appointing Queen's Counsel (r 3(1)) reduces candidate types and changes comparative evaluation.","Appointment confined to practising advocates except in exceptional cases (r 3(2)) narrows eligibility.","Detailed candidate attributes required (r 4) create evidential and evaluative demands on applicants.","Fixed annual deadlines for nominations and applications (r 6(2); r 5(2)) create time-sensitive compliance burdens.","Application content requirements and possible Chief Justice-imposed undertakings (r 5(3)) increase applicant obligations.","Mandatory circulation of applicant list to Attorney-General, Law Society President and Bar Association President (r 5(4)) increases public visibility and third‑party involvement; recipients may disclose the list (r 5(5)).","Obligatory nominations from Law Society and Bar Association (r 6(1)) institutionalise stakeholder input and creates coordination costs for those bodies.","Chief Justice’s broad discretion on how to conduct consultation (r 6(3)) centralises decision-making and introduces interpretive discretion.","Power to refer adverse comments to applicants without disclosing the source (r 6(4)–(5)) creates asymmetries of information and procedural uncertainty for applicants.","No obligation to provide reasons for decisions (r 7(2)) limits transparency and remedies, affecting contestability.","Recorded amendments to rule 5 (SL No. 5, 2017) and later formal amendments (endnotes 2–3) mean the current text has been altered since original enactment, adding interpretive complexity."],"plain_english_summary":"These Rules set the procedure the Chief Justice must follow to appoint Senior Counsel in the Northern Territory. They prescribe required candidate attributes, an annual written application process with deadlines, consultation with nominated solicitor and barrister representatives, and give the Chief Justice discretion over consultation, handling adverse comments and whether to give reasons.\n\nThey affect practising advocates who apply, the Chief Justice who decides, and legal bodies that must nominate or receive applicant lists. They matter because they allocate decision-making power, impose evidence and timing burdens on applicants, and allow confidentiality that shapes incentives and contestability."},"kimi_summary":{"content_quality":"ok","complexity_score":2,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"The legislation remains tightly focused on its original purpose: establishing the process for appointing Senior Counsel in the Northern Territory. The 2017 amendment was minor (updating rule 5 regarding application procedures), and the Rules have not expanded beyond their initial scope of governing judicial appointments of senior advocates."},"complexity_factors":["Only 7 substantive rules covering a narrow, specific process","Minimal defined terms (only standard legislative abbreviations in endnotes)","Simple sequential structure: citation → purpose → principles → application → consultation → decision","No nested exceptions or complex conditional logic","Single cross-reference to Legal Profession Act 2006 (section 21)","Straightforward procedural requirements (dates, written applications, notification obligations)"],"plain_english_summary":"**What this legislation does:**\n\nThese Rules set out how the Chief Justice of the Northern Territory appoints **Senior Counsel** — a prestigious title given to experienced barristers (courtroom lawyers) who have demonstrated exceptional skill and integrity.\n\n**Key points:**\n\n* **No more \"Queen's Counsel\"**: The Chief Justice will not appoint anyone as \"Queen's Counsel\" (QC) — the old title. Instead, the top rank is \"Senior Counsel\" (SC).\n* **Who can apply**: Practising advocates (barristers who appear in court) can apply each year by 31 August. They must show they have:\n  * Deep legal knowledge\n  * High-level advocacy skills\n  * Integrity and trustworthiness\n  * Commitment to professional traditions and justice\n  * Substantial experience and mature judgment\n* **Consultation process**: The Chief Justice must consult with representatives from the Law Society (solicitors) and the Bar Association (barristers) before making appointments.\n* **Transparency**: After applications close, the list of applicants is shared with the Attorney-General and the heads of the legal professional bodies — and they can make that list public.\n* **No reasons required**: If you're rejected, the Chief Justice doesn't have to explain why.\n\n**Why it matters:**\n\nThese Rules ensure that becoming Senior Counsel is based on merit and peer review, not political patronage. The title signals to clients and courts that the lawyer is among the most skilled advocates in the Territory. The shift from \"Queen's Counsel\" to \"Senior Counsel\" reflects a modern, republican approach to legal titles — similar changes happened in other Australian states."}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/supreme-court-senior-counsel-rules-2007","history":"/api/acts/supreme-court-senior-counsel-rules-2007/history","analysis":"/api/acts/supreme-court-senior-counsel-rules-2007/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/supreme-court-senior-counsel-rules-2007/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/supreme-court-senior-counsel-rules-2007/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/supreme-court-senior-counsel-rules-2007/documents"}}