Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||Diligence as a Criterion for Judicial Performance Evaluation||Contributor(s):||Colbran, Stephen (author)||Publication Date:||2002||Handle Link:||https://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/1529||Abstract:||This article examines aspects of judicial diligence as a measure of judicial performance. Consistent with US and Canadian approaches to judicial performance evaluation, five measures of judicial diligence were proposed to test several hypotheses. The results of a national barristers' survey indicate that appellate judges have significantly higher diligence ratings than trial judges. Female Judges scored significantly lower diligence ratings than male judges. The survey indicates that judicial diligence deteriorates with judicial age or experience. Also, experienced barristers did not rate judicial diligence differently from inexperienced barristers. A national survey of judicial officers revealed that the proposed measures of judicial diligence were all regarded as important. These results are discussed in the context of judicial diligence as a potential measure of judicial performance.||Publication Type:||Journal Article||Source of Publication:||Griffith Law Review, 11(1), p. 198-222||Publisher:||Griffith University, Law School||Place of Publication:||Griffith||ISSN:||1038-3441||Field of Research (FOR):||180121 Legal Practice, Lawyering and the Legal Profession||Peer Reviewed:||Yes||HERDC Category Description:||C1 Refereed Article in a Scholarly Journal||Other Links:||http://www.heinonline.org/HOL/PDF?handle=hein.journals/griffith11&collection=journals&id=202&print=25§ioncount=&ext=.pdf
|Statistics to Oct 2018:||Visitors: 139
|Appears in Collections:||Journal Article|
Files in This Item:
checked on Mar 4, 2019
Items in Research UNE are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.