Court Security Regulations 2025

The Regulations operate by reference and prescription. The core legal mechanism is the attachment of named tribunals and office-holders to statutory definitions in the Court Security Act 1980.

• Prescription by reference to the Court Security Act: Regulation 6 prescribes specific tribunals and bodies as "courts" for the purpose of paragraph (h) of the definition of "court" in section 2(1) of the Court Security Act 1980. The practical effect of that prescription is that the Court Security Act will apply to those entities in the ways the Act defines and empowers its covered "courts". The Regulations do not restate or alter the Court Security Act; they merely identify which bodies fall within its definitional reach (regulation 6).

• Prescription of clerks: Regulation 7 prescribes specific office-holders as "clerks" for the purpose of paragraph (d) of the definition of "clerk" in section 2(1) of the Court Security Act 1980. The listed persons are tied to particular prescribed courts or to specific tribunals (for example, the Officer in Charge, Office of Chief Examiner, for the Chief Examiner and an Examiner; and the Commissioner of IBAC for IBAC) (regulation 7).

• Cross-referencing to other Acts: Regulation 5 supplies definitions by reference to other statutes. For instance, "Chief Examiner" and "Examiner" are given the meanings they have in the Major Crime (Investigative Powers) Act 2004; "IBAC" is defined as in the Independent Broad-based Anti‑corruption Commission Act 2011; "Mental Health Tribunal" as in the Mental Health and Wellbeing Act 2022; and "Victorian Racing Tribunal" as in the Racing Act 1958. "Royal Commission" is defined either as a commission established under the Inquiries Act 2014 or one established under the prerogative of the Crown (regulation 5).

• Revocation and continuity: Regulation 4 expressly revokes the earlier Courts Security Regulations 2015 and the 2016 amendment. The Explanatory Endnotes identify the statutory rule numbers being revoked, confirming continuity of the instrument-making process (regulation 4 and Endnotes 1 and 3).

• Interpretation and legislative form: The Endnotes record that Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 (ILA) provisions apply to how this Statutory Rule is to be read, for example that headings, notes, punctuation and examples form part of a Statutory Rule made on or after 1 January 2001, and that explanatory materials printed after the Endnotes do not form part of the Statutory Rule (Endnote 1, and the ILA summary in Endnote 1). That affects how one reads the document as legal text.

The Regulations are limited in scope. They do not set out security standards, create offences, prescribe operational procedures, or allocate budgets. Their legal work is definitional: they expand the application of the Court Security Act 1980 by naming institutions and office-holders that fall into the Act's definitions.

The primary, express targets of the Regulations are the named tribunals, bodies and particular office-holders that the instrument prescribes.

Directly prescribed as "courts" for the purpose of paragraph (h) of the definition of "court" in section 2(1) of the Court Security Act 1980 (regulation 6):

• the Chief Examiner and an Examiner (as defined in the Major Crime (Investigative Powers) Act 2004);
• the Firearms Appeals Committee (Part 9, Firearms Act 1996);
• the Independent Broad-based Anti‑corruption Commission (IBAC) (as defined in the IBAC Act 2011);
• Integrity Oversight Victoria (as defined in the Integrity Oversight Victoria Act 2011);
• the Mental Health Tribunal (as defined in the Mental Health and Wellbeing Act 2022);
• a Royal Commission (either under the Inquiries Act 2014 or established under the Crown's prerogative); and
• the Victorian Racing Tribunal (as in the Racing Act 1958).

Directly prescribed as "clerks" for the purpose of paragraph (d) of the definition of "clerk" in section 2(1) of the Court Security Act 1980 (regulation 7):

• for the Chief Examiner and an Examiner, the Officer in Charge, Office of Chief Examiner;
• for the Firearms Appeals Committee, the Secretary of the Firearms Appeals Committee;
• for IBAC, the Commissioner of IBAC;
• for Integrity Oversight Victoria, the Chief Integrity Inspector of Integrity Oversight Victoria;
• for a Royal Commission, the commissioner or, if there is more than one commissioner, the chairperson of the Royal Commission;
• for the Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal, the principal registrar of that Tribunal; and
• for the Victorian Racing Tribunal, the Victorian Racing Tribunal Registrar.

Secondary and practical effects flow to other groups because those entities are now within the definitional ambit of the Court Security Act 1980:

• officers and staff of the named bodies, because the instrument nominates specific office-holders as clerks and brings the institutions within the Court Security Act's reference to "court" (regulations 6 and 7);
• persons who attend, appear before, or otherwise participate in proceedings before the prescribed tribunals and bodies, because the Court Security Act's measures (procedural or security-related) will apply to proceedings of those bodies once they are treated as courts under the Court Security Act (the Regulations themselves do not state what those measures are; they implement the definitional linkage) (regulation 6);
• security contractors, facility managers or other third-party service providers that support premises or events for the prescribed bodies, to the extent the Court Security Act imposes obligations or standards on how "courts" must be secured (the Regulations do not set those standards).

A notable textual point to note when determining who is affected. Regulation 7(f) prescribes the principal registrar of the Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal as a "clerk" for the purposes of the Court Security Act (regulation 7(f)), but that Tribunal is not included in regulation 6’s list of prescribed "courts". That means the Regulations nominate an officer as a clerk under the Court Security Act without, in this instrument, prescribing that Tribunal itself as a "court". How that plays out in practice depends on the interaction with the Court Security Act's definitions and how "clerk" and "court" are used in the Act; the Regulations themselves make the discrete prescriptions set out in regulations 6 and 7.

Finally, the Endnotes record the temporal scope: the Regulations were made on 1 July 2025 and commenced on 2 July 2025; they will sunset 10 years after making on 1 July 2035 (Endnote 1). That timing affects institutions planning medium-term compliance arrangements.

The Regulations do not themselves impose procedural duties or create rights. Their legal effect is to attach named tribunals and office-holders to statutory definitions in the Court Security Act 1980; any duties, powers or rights that follow flow from the Court Security Act rather than from these Regulations. The operative statements in the instrument are limited to prescriptions and definitions (regulations 1, 5, 6 and 7).

Explicit items in the source:

• Objective: The Regulations’ stated objective is to prescribe tribunals, bodies and persons as courts and clerks for the purposes of the Court Security Act 1980 (regulation 1). That is a declarative statement of purpose, not a list of duties.

• Definition attachments: Regulation 5 supplies definitions by cross-reference to other Acts (for example, "Chief Examiner" has the same meaning as in s 3 of the Major Crime (Investigative Powers) Act 2004; "IBAC" is as in s 3 of the IBAC Act 2011). Those definitional links determine which persons or bodies the prescriptions in regulations 6 and 7 target.

• Prescriptions that generate duties under another Act: By prescribing an entity as a "court" or naming a "clerk", these Regulations cause the Court Security Act 1980 to apply its existing provisions to the newly included entities and persons (regulations 6 and 7). Any associated duties placed on courts and clerks by the Court Security Act , for example duties to ensure security in court precincts, obligations to provide directions, authority to exclude persons from court premises, or other statutory responsibilities , are not recited in this instrument and must be located in the Court Security Act itself.

• No legislative creation of rights within the Regulations: There are no provisions in these Regulations creating procedural rights for participants, rights of access, or immunities. The Regulations do not set standards, thresholds, or processes. They do not state complaint mechanisms, appeal rights, or review routes; those will be found, if at all, in the Court Security Act or other applicable statutes.

• Administrative and interpretative rights: The Endnotes flag Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 consequences concerning how the statutory rule should be read (for instance that headings and notes are part of the rule) and that explanatory material printed after Endnotes does not form part of the Statutory Rule (Endnote 1). Those interpretive rules affect how one reads rights and duties where textual ambiguities arise in the Statutory Rule itself.

In short, the Regulations reallocate the scope of the Court Security Act. The concrete duties and rights that matter to practitioners , enforcement powers, obligations to secure premises, permitted exclusions, penal provisions and related administrative procedures , remain located in the Court Security Act 1980, not in these Regulations. To identify precise duties and rights applicable to a prescribed court or clerk, consult the Court Security Act 1980 in conjunction with these Regulations (regulations 6 and 7).

The Regulations themselves do not create offences, penalties or an enforcement scheme. There are no penalty provisions in the text of the Court Security Regulations 2025. The instrument’s operative effect is definitional: it prescribes which tribunals and which office-holders are treated as "courts" and "clerks" under the Court Security Act 1980 (regulations 6 and 7). Any penalties or enforcement powers that attach will derive from the Court Security Act rather than from these Regulations.

Specific source points:

• Absence of penalties in this Statutory Rule: No regulation creates monetary fines, imprisonment, compliance notices, infringement notices, administrative sanctions, or civil liability. Regulators and lawyers should not look to the 2025 Regulations for new enforcement provisions.

• Delegated enforcement located in the parent Act: Because the Regulations operate by reference to definitions in the Court Security Act 1980 (regulations 6 and 7), enforcement powers, procedures for breaches, applicable sanctions and any related offence definitions will be in the Court Security Act or in other primary or subordinate instruments that create and allocate such powers. The Regulations themselves do not allocate enforcement responsibility, nor do they specify which agency will exercise security or enforcement functions in relation to the newly prescribed courts.

• Practical consequence for compliance: That structural division means that an entity or person brought within the Court Security Act by these Regulations will be subject to whatever enforcement regime the Court Security Act provides. For example, if the Court Security Act authorises court officers to exclude persons from proceedings or to call security, those powers will be available where a tribunal has been prescribed as a "court" under regulation 6. The Regulations do not alter enforcement mechanisms; they change who is covered.

• Administrative temporal control: The Endnotes record the making and commencement dates (made 1 July 2025, operative 2 July 2025) and the sunset date (1 July 2035) (Endnote 1). Enforcement arrangements should be considered with these dates in mind because the Regulations remain in force only for the statutory term unless remade or amended.

In summary, enforcement and penalty questions require reference to the Court Security Act 1980. These Regulations determine the population to which that enforcement framework applies; they do not set or modify penalties themselves.

The Regulations are primarily an exercise in statutory cross-reference. They do not stand alone; their function is to extend the scope of the Court Security Act 1980 by naming bodies and office-holders that will be treated as "courts" and "clerks" within that Act. The instrument cites and uses multiple other statutes to define terms and determine named persons.

Direct statutory links present in the Regulations:

• Court Security Act 1980: The Regulations are made under s 6 of that Act (regulation 2) and expressly operate to prescribe tribunals and persons for the purposes of definitions contained in s 2(1) of the Court Security Act (see regulations 6 and 7). Therefore, the substantive effect of this Statutory Rule is realised through the provisions of that Act; the Regulations themselves are not freestanding in dictating security obligations.

• Major Crime (Investigative Powers) Act 2004: The terms "Chief Examiner" and "Examiner" are adopted from s 3 of that Act (regulation 5). The Regulations therefore import the institutional structure and officers created by that Act, and subject those roles to the Court Security Act’s coverage.

• Independent Broad‑based Anti‑corruption Commission Act 2011 (IBAC Act): The abbreviation "IBAC" and its meaning come from s 3 of the IBAC Act (regulation 5). The Regulations therefore draw IBAC within the Court Security Act’s definitional perimeter.

• Integrity Oversight Victoria Act 2011 and Mental Health and Wellbeing Act 2022: Definitions for Integrity Oversight Victoria and the Mental Health Tribunal are taken from those Acts (regulation 5), connecting those institutions to the Court Security Act via prescription in regulation 6.

• Firearms Act 1996 and Racing Act 1958: The Firearms Appeals Committee and the Victorian Racing Tribunal are each defined by reference to their parent Acts (regulation 5) and then prescribed as courts (regulation 6).

• Inquiries Act 2014 and the Crown’s prerogative: The term "Royal Commission" covers commissions established under the Inquiries Act 2014 or commissions established under the prerogative of the Crown (regulation 5). That wording ensures Royal Commissions established by different legal instruments are included.

• Subordinate Legislation Act 1994: The Endnotes rely on that Act to state the Regulations will sunset 10 years after the day of making (Endnote 1). This places a temporal limit on how long the cross-reference will operate unless replaced.

• Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984: The Endnotes summarise various interpretative consequences (for example that headings, punctuation, notes and examples form part of a Statutory Rule made after 1 January 2001, and that explanatory memoranda are not part of the Rule) (Endnote 1). Those interpretive rules affect how courts and practitioners will construe the Statutory Rule in the context of the wider legislative instrument set.

Interactions and potential asymmetries:

• The Regulations import defined terms from multiple Acts but do not import those Acts’ procedural or substantive powers directly. The import is limited to identity: for instance, calling "IBAC" by its IBAC Act definition causes the Court Security Act to treat IBAC as a court; it does not otherwise modify the IBAC Act.

• The instrument revokes prior subordinate instruments (the 2015 Regulations and 2016 amendment) (regulation 4), so the current cross-referential map replaces earlier prescriptions. The Explanatory Endnotes identify the instruments revoked (Endnotes 1 and 3), which may affect transitional arrangements implemented under those prior instruments.

• The Regulations create an interpretive coupling between the Court Security Act and several specialist Acts. Where the specialist Acts change definitions or office-holders, the effect on the Regulations will depend on whether the specialist Act's definitions are static or dynamic; regulation 5 indicates the Regulations adopt the same meanings "as in" those Acts, so changes in those Acts that alter who fits the adoptive definitions may change who is captured when the Court Security Act is applied.

In short, these Regulations operate by aligning the Court Security Act’s coverage with institutional structures set out across a suite of Victorian primary Acts. The Regulations themselves make no substantive additions to the legal powers in those Acts; they determine which existing institutions are matched to the Court Security Act’s security-related framework.

The Regulations provide an internal amendment and revocation record in a compact form.

• Revocations: Regulation 4 revokes the Court Security Regulations 2015 and the Court Security Amendment Regulations 2016 (regulation 4(a)-(b)). The Explanatory Endnotes identify the statutory rule numbers for those revoked instruments (Endnote 3: S.R. No. 89/2015 as amended by S.R. No. 74/2016; S.R. No. 74/2016). That indicates this 2025 instrument replaces and consolidates the prescriptions previously found in the 2015 instrument and its 2016 amendment.

• No subsequent amendments recorded: The document’s Table of Amendments records that there are no amendments made to the Court Security Regulations 2025 by statutory rules, subordinate instruments or Acts (Endnote 2). As at the version date (2 July 2025) there have been no post‑making amendments.

• Temporal expiry/sunset: The Endnotes state the Statutory Rule will sunset 10 years after the day of making on 1 July 2035, citing section 5 of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 (Endnote 1). That is an automatic expiry provision under the Subordinate Legislation Act rather than an amendment of content.

• Making and commencement: The Endnotes record the instrument was made on 1 July 2025 by the Governor in Council under s 6 of the Court Security Act 1980 and came into operation on 2 July 2025 (Endnote 1 and regulation 3). Those dates provide the starting point for any transitional or retrospective effect considerations.

• Explanatory details: The Endnotes include brief explanatory references matching the revocations in regulation 4 to the earlier instruments (Endnote 3). The document does not provide a detailed legislative history beyond that.

Practically, the amendment history shows replacement rather than incremental amendment: the 2025 Regulations constitute the current instrument governing prescriptions under the Court Security Act 1980 and revive the prescription function in updated form while revoking earlier statutory rules. As of the version date, there have been no subsequent statutory rule amendments to the 2025 Regulations.

The Statutory Rule and its Endnotes do not record any litigation history. The Regulations contain no references to cases, court decisions, orders or judicial review proceedings. The Table of Amendments shows no subsequent subordinate instruments or Acts altering the Regulations (Endnote 2), and there is no mention of litigation in the Explanatory details or the body of the instrument.

Two consequences follow for researchers:

• No reported judicial interpretation within this instrument: Because the Regulations themselves are newly made (1 July 2025) and the text contains no references to case law, there is no litigation-based interpretive guidance provided in the source material. Any legal disputes about the Regulations’ meaning or application would need to be researched separately in court records or legal databases; none appear in the Regulations or its Endnotes.

• Application disputes will require reference to the parent Act: Where questions arise about the practical effect of prescribing an entity as a "court" or an officer as a "clerk", litigation or administrative review necessarily goes to the provisions of the Court Security Act 1980 and to how courts interpret the interaction between primary and subordinate instruments. This Statutory Rule supplies the prescription that gives rise to the contested application, but not the enforcement language, which is contained in the higher-level Act.

In short, the source supplies no litigation history or precedent; practitioners should assume that any legal disputes will require separate searches of case law and administrative tribunal decisions concerning the Court Security Act 1980 and the named institutions.

The Regulations are short and focused, but a number of specific textual features and cross-referential quirks could produce practical traps for practitioners and administrators. These are facts drawn from the text and Endnotes; they are not normative judgments.

• Prescribed clerks include an officer for a tribunal not listed as a prescribed court: Regulation 7(f) names the principal registrar of the Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal as a prescribed clerk for the purposes of paragraph (d) of the definition of "clerk" in s 2(1) of the Court Security Act 1980. The Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal is not included in the regulation 6 list of prescribed courts. That asymmetric placement can create drafting confusion about whether the Tribunal itself is intended to be within the Court Security Act’s definition of "court" or whether the principal registrar is prescribed in anticipation of some other linkage. The text as written prescribes the officer as a clerk; it does not legislate that the Tribunal is a court under regulation 6.

• Broad definition of "Royal Commission": Regulation 5 defines "Royal Commission" to include commissions established either under the Inquiries Act 2014 or under the prerogative of the Crown (regulation 5). That catches commissions created under different legal bases, and may capture ad hoc commissions established by executive instruments. Practitioners should note the twofold route into the definition when determining whether a particular inquiry is a "Royal Commission" for Court Security Act purposes.

• Office-holder prescriptions tied to external definitions: Several prescriptions rely on meanings drawn from other Acts (for example "Chief Examiner" as defined in the Major Crime (Investigative Powers) Act 2004; "IBAC" as in the IBAC Act 2011). If those primary Acts are amended to change who occupies a role or what the office is called, the population captured by these Regulations may change as a statutory consequence. The Regulations do not contain standalone, fixed descriptions of the offices; they adopt the definitions as they exist in other statutes (regulation 5).

• No substantive operational detail: The Regulations do not specify what security measures will apply, who funds additional security, or who bears liability for security-related decisions. Those operational questions are left to the Court Security Act and administrative arrangements. Entities newly prescribed as "courts" will need to consult the Court Security Act and relevant administrative policy or practice to identify concrete obligations.

• Interpretive formality: The Endnotes emphasise that headings, notes, punctuation and examples in Statutory Rules made after 1 January 2001 form part of the Statutory Rule (Endnote 1, ILA summary). Practitioners must therefore treat headings and notes within the instrument as legally cognisable text when construing the instrument’s scope.

• Sunset timing: The Regulations will automatically sunset 10 years after making, on 1 July 2035 (Endnote 1). Any long-term compliance or infrastructural changes should factor that temporal limit into planning; the prescription could cease unless the instrument is remade or replaced.

• Absence of penalties and enforcement text: Because the Regulations do not contain enforcement or penalty provisions, readers must not attempt to infer sanctioning mechanisms from this Statutory Rule; the Court Security Act contains those elements. Failure to locate enforcement provisions in the Act could lead to misunderstandings about what powers are exercisable and by whom in relation to matters such as exclusion from premises or detention.

These textual and structural particulars are derived from the instrument’s wording and Endnotes. Where a user encounters operational uncertainty, the correct next step is to examine the Court Security Act 1980 and the relevant Acts referenced in regulation 5 for substantive provisions and to check whether any administrative protocols or memoranda address practical implementation.

Because the Regulations operate by definitional prescription rather than by setting substantive operational rules, compliance is primarily about recognising who has been brought within the Court Security Act 1980 and ensuring office-holders and institutions are ready to respond to any duties and processes that the Court Security Act imposes. The following practical checklist is grounded in the Regulations’ text and Endnotes.

1. Confirm whether your institution or office is prescribed.

   • Check the list in regulation 6 to see if your tribunal or body is prescribed as a "court" for the purposes of the Court Security Act 1980 (regulation 6).
   • Check regulation 7 to confirm whether an office-holder in your organisation is prescribed as a "clerk" (regulation 7).
   • If you administer or advise an entity not named but with a similar role, do not assume coverage; only those bodies and persons expressly listed are prescribed by this Statutory Rule.

2. Map the statutory linkage to obligations in the Court Security Act 1980.

   • Because this instrument implements definitional extension only, identify and review all provisions in the Court Security Act 1980 that impose duties, powers or obligations on "courts" and "clerks".
   • Determine which obligations fall on the institution and which are allocated to the office-holder nominated as clerk.

3. Verify the nominated office-holder and their authority.

   • Ensure that the person named in regulation 7 (for example, the Officer in Charge, Office of Chief Examiner; the Commissioner of IBAC; or the Victorian Racing Tribunal Registrar) is the person currently occupying the listed office and has the administrative authority to fulfil any clerk responsibilities under the Court Security Act.
   • If the office-holder’s title or appointment mechanism changes in the parent Act, check whether that affects coverage (regulation 5 imports definitions from other Acts).

4. Update operational plans and notifications.

   • Once obligations under the Court Security Act are identified, update security policies, signage, staff training, vendor contracts and access controls as needed to comply with the Court Security Act’s requirements for courts and clerks.
   • Where external security contractors are used, confirm which party funds and commissions security services; the Regulations do not allocate funding responsibility.

5. Document inter-agency liaison arrangements.

   • For bodies that operate in non-traditional court environments (for example, Royal Commissions, IBAC hearings, an Examiner’s hearings), establish coordination procedures with the agency who implements court security under the Court Security Act.
   • Record points of contact, notification procedures for hearings, and escalation routes for security incidents.

6. Review administrative and legal supports.

   • Engage legal counsel to interpret which sections of the Court Security Act apply to your operations and to advise on risk management, particularly if the body’s typical operating model differs from a conventional court (for example, in-camera hearings, investigative hearings, or hearings held at multiple locations).

7. Track temporal and amendment risks.

   • Note the instrument’s sunset date (1 July 2035) in planning documents (Endnote 1). If your compliance investments are long-term, factor the ten-year sunset into budgeting and risk assessments.
   • Monitor any amendments to the Court Security Act or to the other Acts cross-referenced in regulation 5, as changes to those Acts’ definitions can affect who falls within these Regulations.

8. Address the "Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal" asymmetry.

   • If you advise the Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal, note that regulation 7(f) prescribes the Tribunal’s principal registrar as a "clerk" without regulation 6 prescribing the Tribunal as a "court". Seek legal advice on whether and how the Court Security Act’s provisions apply in this configuration in your specific context.

9. Maintain records of implementation and training.

   • Keep written records showing that the institution reviewed the Regulations and the Court Security Act, identified responsible officers, updated procedures, and trained staff. Those records will be relevant in any administrative review or question about compliance.

10. Revisit annually and on statutory change.

• Because the Regulations adopt definitions from other Acts, any amendments to those parent Acts or to the Court Security Act could alter coverage. Schedule an annual legal review to capture changes in statutory definitions, office-holders, or legislative amendments.

This compliance checklist is intentionally procedural because the Regulations do not state particular substantive requirements. The immediate legal obligation is to treat the listed bodies and persons as falling within the Court Security Act 1980 and then to follow the Act’s provisions. Where there is uncertainty, obtain targeted legal advice and consult the Court Security Act 1980 for the substantive rules that now apply to the prescribed courts and clerks.