Straight-laced legalese is getting a social media makeover as emojis enter Australian courtrooms and legal proceedings. John Molloy, Lecturer at the College of Law, recently won the Australian Institute of Administrative Law blog competition with his examination of emoji use in administrative law. His analysis explores how these small digital pictographs might reshape legal communication in an increasingly digital world.
The High Court's emoji moment
The Miller case brought emoji into Australia's highest court in a surprising context. John Molloy explains how this landmark case unfolded and introduced emoji into High Court deliberations.
"Mr Miller basically used the wrong form when lodging his review application in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. He was supposed to say why he thought the decision not to revoke the cancellation of his visa was wrong. He eventually did provide a statement about why he thought the decision was wrong, but did so after the very strict nine-day time limit for lodging applications to review character-related visa cancellation decisions. Did failing to give a statement of reasons in his initial review application mean he hadn't validly applied to have the decision reviewed?” John asks.
The High Court worked this out by answering the 'Project Blue Sky' question in 1998, when it famously set forth the purposive approach, defining Australia’s pragmatism when it comes to interpreting legislation.
Quoting the case, John explains that invalidity “depends upon whether there can be discerned a legislative purpose to invalidate any act that fails to comply with the condition. The existence of the purpose is ascertained by reference to the language of the statute, its subject matter and objects, and the consequences for the parties of holding void every act done in breach of the condition."
The emoji connection emerged when the Court considered what constituted valid communication of dissatisfaction. Emoji came up in this context John explains.
“Would an emoji be enough to show the applicant was unhappy with the decision? A scribble? The court decided that simply applying for review was enough to show the applicant was dissatisfied with the decision. It was still a valid application for review even with no statement of reasons for the application."
Emoji Core in the Court 🧐
Is Australia witnessing the birth of emoji precedent, or is this merely a modern judicial approach to outdated formalities? Molloy offers a measured perspective.
"In areas like defamation, there is a bit more 'emoji precedent'. In administrative law it probably won't be something courts have to deal with very often,” John says. “Under the new Administrative Review Tribunal Act, applicants don't even need to give a 'statement of reasons' for a review application."
His award-winning blog reveals that emoji have already made occasional appearances in Australian legal contexts. Molloy noted in his article that until recently, "only Justice Steward had referred to emoji in a High Court judgment: Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd v Voller [2021] HCA 27, (2021) 273 CLR 346 at 393, [145]." The Miller case is the second High Court case to consider emoji, and the first in the context of administrative decision-making.
Emoji making the law more accessible
Could emoji genuinely make administrative justice more accessible than traditional legalese? Molloy sees potential for emoji to enhance legal communication in specific contexts.
"I think some emoji could help with making Tribunal practice directions a little more user-friendly. And the Tribunal operates according to principles of accessible and informal procedure, without unnecessary formality. Emoji could have a place!"
While Australian judges remain cautious about incorporating emoji into judgments, international trends suggest this may change.
"Judges don't seem to do this much, probably for good reason," Molloy observes. "US law professor Eric Goldman keeps a record of emoji use in US court opinions – from the first use in 2004, there is now a 22-page list which seems to be growing exponentially - with more than 70 cases considering emoji in the first quarter of 2025 alone! So maybe Australian judges will start using a few more emoji - just not in the ratio of their decisions."
In his blog, Molloy highlights that while Justice Gleeson included a smiley face 😊 in at least one Federal Court judgment, we shouldn't expect emoji to proliferate in the Commonwealth Law Reports any time soon. “After all, 'the law is and should be a serious business'."
Nevertheless, as communication evolves, the legal system may need to adapt. Molloy's blog points out that "emoji are gaining recognition as an alternate literacy vehicle for people challenged by traditional forms of writing and speaking," citing research by Kirley and McMahon.
The Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 might create opportunities for emoji in legal practice. As Molloy explains in his blog, the Act allows applications to be made "in writing or in any other manner specified for the application in the practice directions." He suggests the President of the Administrative Review Tribunal could make practice directions relating to “the accessibility of the Tribunal…to the diverse needs of the parties to proceedings.”
As digital natives enter the legal profession and judiciary, emoji may become more commonplace in legal contexts. For now, though, they remain a curiosity, a sign of how modern communication is gradually influencing even our most formal institutions. The law, it seems, is slowly but surely getting the message.
![How to handle Direct Speech after Gan v Xie [2023] NSWCA 163](https://images4.cmp.optimizely.com/assets/Lawyer+Up+direct+speech+in+drafting+NSW+legislation+OCT232.jpg/Zz1hNDU4YzQyMjQzNzkxMWVmYjFlNGY2ODk3ZWMxNzE0Mw==)
