Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-684899dbb8-7wlv9 Total loading time: 0.633 Render date: 2022-05-20T18:08:48.110Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true }

Chapter 9 - The accountability of judges

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2012

Enid Campbell
Affiliation:
Monash University, Victoria
H. P. Lee
Affiliation:
Monash University, Victoria
Get access

Summary

The concept of accountability

In 1995, an English judge, Lord Taylor of Gosforth, observed that the term ‘accountability has become one of the buzzwords of the age’. It is a term often used interchangeably with several other words and phrases, such as ‘being answerable’, ‘responsibility’ and being the ‘subject of scrutiny’. Lord Taylor’s observation was made in the context of general remarks on what some had perceived to be a lack or insufficiency of accountability on the part of members of the judicial branch of government. In recent times, several Australian judges have found occasion to speak or write about the same subject.

One can only speculate on why there have been charges of lack of appropriate judicial accountability. Sometimes the charges may have been generated by widely publicised episodes involving official inquiries into the conduct of individual judges, sometimes by judicial decisions which have re-shaped the law. Critics of such decisions may allege that it was wrong for the judges to have decided as they did, in that they exceeded their limited law-making functions and trespassed into a domain reserved for an elected legislature whose members are accountable to electors. Concerns about judicial accountability may even have been spawned by increased awareness among members of the general public about the operations of the courts. Chief Justice Doyle of the Supreme Court of South Australia seems to have recognised this possibility when he observed:

There is a greater public awareness that judges suffer from the normal human frailties. This is a time in which there are high public expectations of government and of the professions, and the public are, as we all know, highly and rightly critical when acceptable standards are not met.

There is nothing wrong with the notion that judges should be accountable. As Justice McGarvie pointed out, ‘[i]n a good democracy, power is never exercised without accountability for it’. But if judges are to be held accountable, one needs to ask to whom are they accountable, for what and in what ways? There is the further question of what can and should be done when judicial accounting is found to be unsatisfactory.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Australian Judiciary , pp. 249 - 307
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Lord Taylor of GosforthThe Independence of the Judiciary in a Democracy 1995 4 Asia Pacific Law Review1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coffin, F MThe Ways of a JudgeHoughton Mifflin 1980 246Google Scholar
Gleeson, MJudicial Accountability 1995 2 The Judicial Review117Google Scholar
Roden, AJudiciary and Accountability: The Restraints of Leadership 1994 26 Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doyle, JThe Well-Tuned CymbalCunningham, HFragile Bastion – Judicial Independence in the Nineties and BeyondJudicial Commission of New South Wales 1997 50Google Scholar
McGarvie, R EThe Ways Available to the Judicial Arm of Government to Preserve Judicial Independence 1992 1 Journal of Judicial Administration236Google Scholar
Purvis, R MJudiciary and Accountability, the Appointment of Judges 1994 26 Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gleeson, MThe Rule of Law and the ConstitutionABC Books 2000 82Google Scholar
Doyle, J 1998
Gleeson, MJudicial Accountability 1995 2 The Judicial ReviewGoogle Scholar
Judicial Independence 1997 16 Australian Bar Review212
Lamer, AThe Rule of Law and Judicial Independence: Protecting Core Values in Times of Change 1996 45 University of New Brunswick Law Journal3Google Scholar
Shetreet, SJustice in Israel: A Study of the Israeli JudiciaryMartinus Nijhoff Publishers 1994 289Google Scholar
Cappelleti, MWho Watches the Watchmen? A Comparative Study on Judicial Responsibility 1983 31 American Journal of Comparative Law1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morabito, VAre Australian Judges Accountable? 1994 1 Canberra Law Review73Google Scholar
1976
1913
1979
Spigelman, JSeen to be Done: The Principle of Open Justice – Parts 1 and 2 2000 74 Australian Law Journal290Google Scholar
Spigelman, JThe Principle of Open Justice: A Comparative Perspective 2006 29 University of New South Wales Law Journal147Google Scholar
1985
1985
1995
1991
1966
1950
Bentham, JThe Works of Jeremy BenthamBowring, JWilliam Tait 1843Google Scholar
1986
1936
1979
1976
1985
Kitto, FrankWhy Write Judgments?Judicial EssaysLaw Foundation of New South Wales and Victorian Law Foundation 1975 9Google Scholar
1979
1976
2011
1930
1888
1975
1975
1829
1930
1979
1985
2011
1976
2011
1989
1995
1938
1985
1913
1965
1927
1979
1913
1989
2011
1985
1937
1979
1979
1986
1995
1979
1913
Nettheim, GOpen Justice Versus Justice 1985 9 Adelaide Law Review487Google Scholar
Walker, SMedia Law – Commentary and MaterialsLBC Information Services 2000 458Google Scholar
Kenyon, ANot Seeing Justice Done: Suppression orders in Australian Law and Practice 2006 27 Adelaide Law Review279Google Scholar
Rodrick, SOpen Justice, the Media and Avenues of Access to Documents on the Court Record 2006 29 University of New South Wales Law Journal90Google Scholar
Kirby, MReasons for Judgment: “Always Permissible, Usually Desirable and Often Obligatory” 1994 12 Australian Bar Review121Google Scholar
1987
1987
1990
1983
1986
1987
1997
Pagone, G TCentipedes, Liars and Unconscious Bias 2009 83 Australian Law Journal255Google Scholar
1947
1971
1979
1976
1991
1990
1992
1998
1990
1991
1987
2007
1987
1987
1996
2007
1991
1996
1990
1990
1992
1993
1995
1996
1989
1991
1983
1987
1989
1997
Bayne, PThe Inadequacy of Reasons as an Error of Law 1992 66 Australian Law Journal302Google Scholar
Katzer, HInadequacy of Reasons as a Ground of Appeal 1993 1 Australian Journal of Administrative Law33Google Scholar
Smith, HThe Obligation of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to Give Adequate Reasons 1992 3 Public Law Review258Google Scholar
2005
1987
1991
2005
1989
Kirby, MEx Tempore Reasons 1992 9 Australian Bar Review93Google Scholar
1989 162
Kitto, FWhy Write Judgments? 1992 66 Australian Law Journal787Google Scholar
Gibbs, HJudgment Writing 1993 67 Australian Law Journal494Google Scholar
1989
Beaumont, BContemporary Judgment Writing: The Problem Restated 1999 73 Australian Law Journal743Google Scholar
1990
1990
1992
1993
1995
1996
1991
1997
1998
1971
1987
1989
1989
1957
1989
1997
Olsson, TGuide to Uniform Production of JudgmentsAustralian Institute of Judicial Administration 1999Google Scholar
Doyle, JJudgment Writing: Are There Needs for Change? 1999 73 Australian Law Journal737Google Scholar
The High Court – One Judgment or Several? 1939 13 Australian Law Journal257
Multiple Judgments in the High Court 1975 49 Australian Law Journal156
Judicial Consensus and Multiple Judgments 1976 50 Australian Law Journal55
1989
1991
1992
1994
1996
1992
1996
1988
1990
1991
1992
1975
Judicial Consensus and Multiple Judgments 1976 50 Australian Law Journal55
Kitto, The High Court One Judgment or Several 1939 13 Australian Law Journal257Google Scholar
Marr, DBarwickAllen & Unwin 1980 233Google Scholar
Aldisert, Ruggero JOpinion WritingWest Publishing 1990Google Scholar
1995
1995
1995
The Role of a Constitutional Court in a Federation 1986 16 Federal Law Review1
Kirby, MIn Praise of Common Law Renewal 1992 15 University of New South Wales Law Journal462Google Scholar
1996
1997
1997
2004
2010
1947
1962
1973
1989
Dawson, J 1996
Gleeson, MJudging the Judges 1979 53 Australian Law Journal330Google Scholar
Crawford, JOpeskin, BAustralian Courts of LawOxford University Press 2004 14Google Scholar
Aronson, MDyer, BGroves, MJudicial Review of Administrative ActionThomson Reuters 2009Google Scholar
Jolowicz, J AAppeal and Review in Comparative Law: Similarities, Differences and Purposes 1986 15 Melbourne University Law Review618Google Scholar
1976
1993
1931
1953
1984
1971
1970
1979
1985
1990
1991
1992
1993
1999
2003
1936
1950
1953
1979
1984
1986
1990
1992
2008
2009
Hutley, F CAppeals within the Judicial HierarchyTay, A E-SKamenka, ELaw Making in AustraliaEdward Arnold 1980 184Google Scholar
Campbell, EAppeals to Courts from Administrative Decisions: Restrictions on Further Review 1997 4 Australian Journal of Administrative Law164Google Scholar
1995
Mason, AThe Regulation of Appeals to the High Court: The Jurisdiction to Grant Special Leave to Appeal 1996 15 University of Tasmania Law Review1Google Scholar
1948
1950
1989
2007
2010
1957
1955
1991
1991
Introduction to the Law of the ConstitutionMacMillan 1886 339
1979
Campbell, ERules of CourtLawBook 1985Google Scholar
1995
ANAOAudit Work ProgramCommonwealth of Australia 2011 15Google Scholar
Campbell, EParliamentary PrivilegeFederation Press 2003 163Google Scholar
Evans, HOdgers’ Australian Senate PracticeCanberraAustralian Government Publishing Service 2010 35Google Scholar
1694
Campbell, EJudges at the Bar of Parliament 1999 18 Australian Bar Review131Google Scholar
Butler, DRodrick, SAustralian Media LawThomson Reuters 2012 208Google Scholar
Shetreet, SJudges on TrialNorth Holland 1976 179Google Scholar
Shetreet, SJudicial Accountability: A Comparative Analysis of the Models and the Recent Trends 1986 11 International Legal Practititoner38Google Scholar
Lord DenningThe Road to JusticeStevens and Sons 1955 64Google Scholar
Nicholson, R DThe Courts, the Media and the Community 1995 5 Journal of Judicial Administration5Google Scholar
MacKay, A WJudicial Free Speech and Accountability: Should Judges Be Seen but Not Heard? 1993 3 National Journal of Constitutional Law159Google Scholar
Balkin, R PDavies, J L RLaw of TortsLexisNexis Butterworths 2009 517Google Scholar
1920
1935
Lee, H PThe Implied Freedom of Political CommunicationLee, H PWinterton, GAustralian Constitutional LandmarksCambridge University Press 2003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1997
2011
2005
2011
Kirby, MJudiciary Media and Government 1993 3 Journal of Judicial Administration63Google Scholar
Thomas, J BJudicial Ethics in AustraliaLexisNexis Butterworths 2009 128Google Scholar
Cornes, R, the Lord Chancellor and the Law Lords 2000 Public Law166Google Scholar
Mason, AThe Courts as Community Institutions 1998 9 Public Law Review83Google Scholar
Parker, SThe Independence of the JudiciaryOpeskin, BWheeler, FThe Australian Judicial SystemMelbourne University Press 2000 82Google Scholar
Williams, D R 1994
King, L JThe Attorney-General, Politics and the Judiciary 2000 29 University of Western Australia Law Review155Google Scholar
Williams, D 2002 13 252
McColl, RReflections on the Role of the Attorney-General 2003 13 Public Law Review20Google Scholar
Mason, AAddress 1997 35 Law Society Journal51Google Scholar
Williams, DJudicial Independence 1998 36 Law Society Journal50Google Scholar
Lightfoot, RCourt the HeightsThe Australian 4 2000 12Google Scholar
Williams, DHigh Court subject to governmentThe Australian 8 2000 12Google Scholar
Black, MOpening Address 1998 1 University of Technology Sydney Law Review7Google Scholar
Mason, AThe State of the Judicature 1994 68 Australian Law Journal125Google Scholar
Wood, DJudicial Ethics – A Discussion PaperAustralian Institute of Judicial Administration 1996 29Google Scholar
Lane, COn Camera Proceedings: A Critical Evaluation of the Inter-Relationship Between the Principle of Open Justice and the Televisation of Court Proceedings in Australia 1999 25 Monash University Law Review54Google Scholar
Gleeson, MThe Rule of Law and the ConstitutionABC Books 2000 120Google Scholar
Lee, Judicious to stay out of politicsThe Sydney Morning Herald 19 1997 17Google Scholar
Report and Record of the Committee of Investigation into the Conduct of the Hon Mr Justice Berger and Resolution of the Canadian Judicial Council 1983 28 McGill Law Journal378
Roach, KJudges and free speech in CanadaLee, HPJudiciaries in Comparative PerspectiveCambridge University Press 2011 175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawson, DarylJudges and the Media 1987 10 University of New South Wales Law Journal17Google Scholar
2000

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×