Abstract
The establishment of the Judicial Studies Board in 1979 was considered by the judges at the time to be a radical, and questionable, development which posed a threat to judicial independence. In the intervening period the provision of training for judges has become an accepted feature of the judicial process and in recent years the demand for training from the judges has increased significantly. To meet this growing demand the Judicial Studies Board has expanded the variety and quantity of training provided. One result of this expansion has been the growth of pressure for the introduction of performance appraisal both as a training tool and as a general method of monitoring and improving standards in the daily work of the judiciary. The response of the judiciary to these proposals has mirrored its reaction to the proposal for training at the time the Judicial Studies Board was set up. Senior judges have opposed the use of monitoring on the grounds that it would undermine judicial independence. This paper examines the relationship between judicial independence and the use of training and performance appraisal in the judiciary. To do so it analyses the principle of judicial independence, in particular distinguishing between external and internal interference in judicial functions. To date, the judges have viewed the threat to judicial independence from training and performance appraisal as one posed by external interference. However, when examined more closely this claim is difficult to maintain either in relation to the constitutional role of the judges or their individual decision-making. More plausible, though less often proposed, is the argument that training and performance appraisal may undermine the independence of individual judges through a process of internal interference from other judges. The introduction of processes to improve and monitor standards of performance can be seen as part of wider structural and cultural changes within the judiciary. The creation of a career judiciary brought about as a result of its expansion in size has led to a process of formalisation which is designed to encourage greater consistency, standardisation and collective decision-making. One effect of this development is likely to be the erosion of a culture of individualism which has been a dominant characteristic of the judiciary. These changes may, in the long term, affect the principle of judicial independence more than any outside interference.
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.