Abstract
This article criticises the approach of the South African and Australian courts to the exercise of non-judicial functions by judges. These courts take the view that conferral of non-judicial functions on judges is permissible provided that the functions are not 'incompatible' with judicial office. It might seem that only those who elevate form above substance would think otherwise. I, however, argue against this approach, suggesting that the flexible concept of incompatibility is ill-suited to protect the rule of law interests served by the separation of judicial power. I argue that if we attend to the fact that there may be good reasons for rigidly following rules, we will be led to a blanket ban on judges exercising non-judicial functions as a more effective way to protect the constitutional role of the courts as independent and impartial arbiters of disputes.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.