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:
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:
Statistics to Oct 2018: Visitors: 43
Views: 42
Downloads: 0
Appears in Collections:Journal Article

Files in This Item:
4 files
File Description SizeFormat 
Show full item record

Page view(s)

checked on Dec 29, 2018
Google Media

Google ScholarTM




Items in Research UNE are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.