Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||The Limits of Judicial Accountability: the Role of Judicial Performance Evaluation||Contributor(s):||Colbran, Stephen (author)||Publication Date:||2003||Handle Link:||https://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/2059||Abstract:||The high standards of judicial performance Australia enjoys have been encouraged by the development of traditional checks and balances designed to promote "open justice" as a form of judicial accountability. The checks and balances include public scrutiny, media surveillance and reporting, appellate review, executive and parliamentary accountability, bar and law society opinion, academic commentary, legal publishing, and the supervisory role of theChief Justice. Justice Thomas suggests, "These checks, balances and pressures have a powerful cumulative effect and are on the whole very effective. This article critiques the concept of "open justice" as a form of judicial accountability and argues for judicial performance evaluation to promote judicial self-improvement.||Publication Type:||Journal Article||Source of Publication:||Legal Ethics, 6(1), p. 55-72||Publisher:||Hart Publishing||Place of Publication:||United Kingdom||ISSN:||1460-728X||Field of Research (FOR):||200403 Discourse and Pragmatics||Peer Reviewed:||Yes||HERDC Category Description:||C1 Refereed Article in a Scholarly Journal||Other Links:||http://www.hartjournals.co.uk/le/
|Statistics to Oct 2018:||Visitors: 43
|Appears in Collections:||Journal Article|
Files in This Item:
checked on Dec 29, 2018
Items in Research UNE are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.