Judicial Independence And Judicial Accountability In Australia

Juries are an essential component of Queensland’s criminal justice system. However, the current jury system in criminal law cases does not effectively meet the needs of society. This thesis is established by first examining the role that juries play in the criminal justice system and the various interests of those affected by juries. This is followed by a consideration of arguments for and against juries and reforms that may be made to the jury system. Overall, it will be seen that there are substantial reasons to reform the current system.

The adversarial nature of Australia’s court system deal with facts and legal implications. Here lies the establishment of such principles that make the law

The Oxford Learner’s Dictionary defines fairness to be ‘the quality of treating people equally or in a way that is reasonable’ and justice as ‘the quality of being fair or reasonable’ (Oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com, 2014). Investigation of the characteristics of the Australian Legal System (ALS) including its adoption, structure and operational rules, reveal that for the most part the system is based on these two attributes. This inference is further evidenced by the legally binding operational framework assigned to the financial services industry and reflected in the codes of practice that also guide it.

The independence of the judiciary from the executive and legislative is said to kept by things like their fixed salaries and sub judice rule. Their salaries ‘are paid from the Consolidated Fund’ and aren’t fixed or changeable by Parliament or the government which keeps the judiciary free from political pressure in terms of finance. The sub judice rule is where the MPs in the House of Commons are unable to comment on current or pending cases. This keeps the judiciary free from political interference and prevents prejudice against judicial decisions. This rule is followed by

Judicial Independence is fundamental to democracy, it serves as a guarantor of the rule of law and separation of power . However, nothing is perfect. There is some defect regarding to the judicial independence and solution must be made to curb the weakness.

It is widely recognised that Australia’s System of decision making in the court is in need of significant reform, if the nation’s present and future need for fair justice is to be met.

Appointing judges is more feasible that electing them. Judges should make decisions based on rule of law not based on the political party that they might be affiliated with. I understand that judges are appointed by executives in the government that have political ties. However, most of these executives will research the candidates based on their background and records. Elected judges must keep people happy in order to be re-elected. They will therefore often do what the majority of people in their jurisdiction would think is best to keep them happy. Unfortunately, sometimes being a good judge means making decisions that don’t make people happy. Judges should be selected with the intention of being objective and non-partisan, not elected to

Principles such as procedural fairness, judicial precedent and the separation of powers are fundamental to Australia’s legal system.

The assessment observes that changes in judicial selection processes, involving introduction of term limits and retirement for judges, are necessary to reflect modern socioeconomic and political contexts and to enhance quality and efficiency in judicial service. The absence of term limits influences entrenchment of the interests of judges, private and corporate donors, and political parties in the judicial system, hence threatening impartiality and efficiency in the judicial system. By enforcing term limits for judges, the judicial system can evolve with time and match the society’s changing needs and interests effectively. This would facilitate congruence between the broader society’s interests and prevailing judicial service models and

An independent judiciary is necessary for a free society and a constituent democracy. It ensures the rule of law and realization of human rights and also prosperity and stability of the society. The independence of the judiciary is normally assures through the Constitution but it may also be assured through legislations, conventions and other suitable norms and practices. Following the constitution of United States, almost all constitutions lay down at least the foundation if not the entire edifices of an independent judiciary. The constitutions or the foundational laws on judiciary are however, only the starting point in the process of securing judicial independence. Ultimately the independence of the

The above mentioned aspects of the judiciary are effective in upholding the law. Independent judiciary armed with such powers is important for sustaining rule of law. In reality, there are certain aspects of our judiciary which interferes with sustainability of rule of law. The judiciary is a separate body and their accountability is limited, the judges might start to act above the law and there are not many effective checks on the judiciary. The idea of establishing National Judicial Council to check the activities of the judiciary has been discussed for a long time but no progress has been made yet.4

Judicial independence is the concept that the judiciary should be separate of the legislative and executive branches of government. It can be argued that to a moderate extent the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 and Courts and Crime Act 2013 do enforce and protect judicial independence. Evidence is provided within sections s.3 and s.7 of CRA 2005 along with the reforms introduced by the Act. Other acts such as the Act of Settlement 1701 also safeguards independence.

Instances of such bias and corruption have often surfaced in the process appointment of judges of High Court and Supreme Court. That is the reason that today there is a nationwide outcry today for the right to the information into the system of judicial appointment. The system of appointment of judges has always been an area of controversy and confusion. Several attempts have been made to arrive at position which will strike the right balance between separation of power and right to information which have yet proven to be unsuccessful. The only hope of having a balanced system via NJAC Act was struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional and void whilst reviving the old system of electing Chief Justices of High Court and Supreme Court

To keep the judiciary independent, legal and institutional measures are build into the system to guarantee that judges are free from personal and collective impacts. Security of tenure for example is such a measure, as it ensures that judges can exercise their judicial function without fear or favor. Furthermore judges are paid an adequate salary in order to restrain them from

In Pakistan, the system of selecting judges is on a merit based assessment by a Commission consisting of various members from different branches which allows judges to act in an impartial manner. I believe that when judges know that they do not owe anything to a specific political party or to any campaign supporters they are likely to act in a more impartial way, thus strengthening the independence of the judiciary. Thus, in my opinion I find that the best way to ensure the safety and independence of the judiciary is for a state to adopt a selection method which involves a detailed assessment of a candidate’s qualifications by a body of people (Commission) consisting of members of the executive, judicial, and legislative branches along with qualified legal professionals of the community, who may then forward their recommended candidates to the selecting authority. Such a system is incorporated in the constitution of Pakistan, as described earlier. In contrast, states that incorporate a process of merit-based selection by way of nominating a commission do not completely adhere to this process. Rather, they require the judges to go through retention elections in order for them to retain their seats. To me a process does not seem to adhere to a merit-based selection if once a judge is selected he has to go through an election to remain for a further tenure. The example of judges selected on merit in Indiana fits into this context. Similarly, in an article published in the