Studying judges: the role of the Chief Justice, and other institutional actors
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl.1713Keywords:
head of jurisdiction, chief justices, attorney-general, socio-legal research, judicial organisations, Jefe de jurisdicción, presidente del Tribunal Supremo, organizaciones judiciales, fiscal general, investigación sociojurídicaAbstract
The empirical study of judicial officers and the functioning of courts intersects with a number of judicial institutional values. Researchers will often, but not always, have legal qualifications, and most researchers of judicial officers will share a commitment to maintaining the institutional values of the Court but also have their own commitments to academic integrity and independence to maintain. In this article, we argue that the role of the Chief Justice, with its unique institutional leadership in relation to protecting and promoting judicial values, plays a number of different roles in relation to the study of judges more generally. We identify the roles of gatekeeper, provider of research, responder to research, and commissioner of research. We also identify other institutional actors that share institutional responsibility for these roles in some instances, including the the Attorney-General’s Department, the Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration (AIJA) and the Australian Judicial Officers Association (AJAO). Ultimately, we argue that the status, responsibility to the court, relational position, and access to information makes it inevitable and desirable that the Chief Justice perform this role, but that researchers should engage sensitively with the Chief Justice so as to protect values that might arise in tension.
El estudio empírico de los funcionarios judiciales y del funcionamiento de los tribunales se cruza con una serie de valores institucionales judiciales. Los investigadores a menudo, pero no siempre, tendrán cualificaciones jurídicas, y la mayoría de los investigadores de los funcionarios judiciales compartirán el compromiso de mantener los valores institucionales del Tribunal, pero también tendrán que mantener sus propios compromisos con la integridad académica y la independencia. En este artículo, sostenemos que el papel del presidente del Tribunal Supremo, con su liderazgo institucional único en relación con la protección y promoción de los valores judiciales, desempeña una serie de funciones diferentes en relación con el estudio de los jueces en general. Identificamos las funciones de guardián, proveedor de investigación, respuesta a la investigación y comisionado de investigación. También identificamos otros actores institucionales que comparten la responsabilidad institucional de estas funciones en algunos casos, como el Departamento del Fiscal General, el Instituto de Australasia de Administración Judicial (AIJA) y la Asociación Australiana de Funcionarios Judiciales (AJAO). En última instancia, sostenemos que el estatus, la responsabilidad ante el tribunal, la posición relacional y el acceso a la información hacen que sea inevitable y deseable que el presidente del Tribunal Supremo desempeñe esta función, pero que los investigadores deben tratar con sensibilidad con el presidente del Tribunal Supremo para proteger los valores que puedan entrar en tensión.
Downloads
Metrics
Downloads:
13(S1)_Appleby_Roberts_OSLS 160
XML_13(S1)_Appleby_Roberts_OSLS 11
References
Allsop, J., 2018. Statement by Chief Justice Allsop [On file with authors]. Canberra, Federal Court of Australia.
Allsop, J., 2019. Courts as (Living) Institutions and Workplaces. Australian Law Journal 93(5), 375–383.
Appleby, G., and Roberts, H., 2021. The Chief Justice under relational and institutional pressure. In: G. Appleby and A. Lynch, eds., The judge, the judiciary and the court: Individual, Collegial and Institutional Judicial Dynamics in Australia [online]. Cambridge University Press, 50–80. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108859332.005
Appleby, G., et al., 2017. Temporary Judicial Officers in Australia: A Report Commissioned by the Judicial Conference of Australia. Canberra: Australian Judicial Officers Association.
Appleby, G., et al., 2018. Contemporary Challenges Facing the Australian Judiciary: An Empirical Interruption. Melbourne University Law Review, 42(2), 299–369.
Australian Capital Territory Government Justice and Safety Directorate, 2023. Expressions of Interest for Appointment as a Resident Judge of the Supreme Court of the ACT [online]. Canberra: ACT Government. Available at: https://www.justice.act.gov.au/latest-news/expressions-of-interest-for-appointment-as-a-resident-judge-of-the-supreme-court-of-the-act
Australian Government Productivity Commission, 2022. Report on Government Services. Canberra: Australian Government Productivity Commission.
Australian Law Reform Commission, 2021. Without Fear of Favour: Judicial Impartiality and the Law of Bias. Canberra: Australian Law Reform Commission, 138.
Ayres, P., 2003. Owen Dixon. Melbourne: Miegunyah Press.
Barwick, G., 1977. The State of the Australian Judicature. Australian Law Journal, 51(7), 480–500.
Bathurst, T., 2020. Foreword. In: Supreme Court of New South Wales, 2020 Annual Review. Sydney: Supreme Court of New South Wales, 3.
Bennett, J.M., 2001. Sir James Dowling: Second Chief Justice of New South Wales, 1837–1844. Sydney: Federation Press.
Bennett, J.M., 2016. Sir Frederick Darley: Sixth Chief Justice of New South Wales 1886–1910. Sydney: Federation Press.
Bowskill, H., 2022. Chief Justice’s Overview 2021–22. Annual Report 2021–22, 6–15. Brisbane: Supreme Court of Queensland.
Brennan, G., 1997. The State of the Judicature Address. Melbourne: 30th Australian Legal Convention.
Cahill O’Callaghan, R., and Roberts, H., 2021. Hidden depths: diversity, difference and the High Court of Australia. International Journal of Law in Context [online], 17(4), 494-511. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744552321000471
Cane, P., and Kritzer, H.M., eds., 2010. Oxford Handbook of Empirical Legal Research [online]. Oxford University Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199542475.001.0001
Cornes, R., 2013. A Point of Stability in the Life of the Nation: The Office of Chief Justice of New Zealand – Supreme Court Judge, Judicial Branch Leader, and Constitutional Guardian and Statesperson. New Zealand Law Review, 4, 54–81.
Danelski, D., 1961. The Influence of the Chief Justice in the Decisional Process. In: W.F. Murphy and C.H. Pritchett, eds., Courts, Judges and Politics: An Introduction to the Judicial Process. New York: Random House, 568–577.
Delaney, E.F., 2016. Searching for Constitutional Meaning in Institutional Design: The Debate over Judicial Appointments in the United Kingdom. International Journal of Constitutional Law [online], 14(3), 752–768. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/mow044
Devlin, R., and Dodek, A., 2016. Regulating Judges: Challenges, Controversies and Choices. In: R. Devlin and A. Dodek, eds., Regulating Judges: Beyond Independence and Accountability [online]. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781786430793.00007
Doyle, J., 2009. Learning Leadership Qualities. Conference Paper. Sydney: International Organisation for Judicial Training. 27 October.
Ewing, K.D., 2000. A Theory of Democratic Adjudication: Towards a Representative, Accountable and Independent Judiciary. Alta Law Review [online], 38(3), 708–733. Available at: https://doi.org/10.29173/alr1430
Ferguson, A., 2019. Keynote Address: Making Wellness Core Business. [Keynote address at the Wellness for Law Forum, Melbourne]. Supreme Court of Victoria.
Ferguson, A., and Hall, M., 2023. Foreword: Chief Justice and CEO. Annual Report 2021–22, 10–11. Supreme Court of Victoria.
French, R., 2017. The Changing Face of Judicial Leadership: A Western Australian Perspective. Australian Law Journal, 91(4), 322–331.
Heydon, D., 2018. Judgment times: courts in the crosshairs. The Australian [online], 29 September. Available at: https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/inquirer/judgment-times-courts-in-the-crosshairs/news-story/b46a19cc3941f5c004afe619772c1cbf
Hunter, C., Nixon, J. and Blandy, S., 2008. Researching the Judiciary: Exploring the Invisible in Judicial Decision Making. Journal of Law and Society [online], 35(s1), 76–90. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6478.2008.00426.x
Hunter, R., and Rackley, E., 2018. Judicial Leadership on the UK Supreme Court. Legal Studies [online], 38(2), 191–220. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/lst.2017.19
Johnston, J., 2019. A History of Public Information Officers in Australian Courts: 25 Years Assisting Public Perceptions and Understanding of the Administration of Justice (1993–2018). Melbourne: The Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration.
Kiefel, S., 2022. Yesterday, today and tomorrow – a trend towards equality? [Speech]. Brisbane: Australian Women Lawyers Conference, 6 August.
Mulcahy, L., and Tsalapatanis, A., 2023. Handmaidens, partners or go-betweens: Reflections on the push and pull of the judicial and justice policy audience. Oñati Socio-Legal Series [online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl.1707
Opeskin, B., 2013. The State of the Judicature: a Statistical Profile of Australian Courts and Judges. Sydney Law Review [online], 35(3), 489–517. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2494785
Opeskin, B., 2020. AIJA Judicial Gender Statistics: Number and Percentage of Women Judges and Magistrates at 30 June 2022. Sydney: Australasian Institute for Judicial Administration.
Opeskin, B., 2021. Dismantling the Diversity Deficit. In: G. Appleby and A. Lynch, eds., The Judge, the Judiciary and the Court: Individual, Collegial and Institutional Judicial Dynamics in Australia [online]. Cambridge University Press, 83–115. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108859332.007
Opeskin, B., and Appleby, G., 2020. Responsible Jurimetrics: A Reply to Silbert’s Critique of the Victorian Court of Appeal. Australian Law Journal, 94(12), 923–935.
Ostberg, C.L., Wetstein, M.E., and Ducat, C.R., 2004. Leaders, Followers and Outsiders: Task and Social Leadership on the Canadian Supreme Court in the Early ’Nineties. Polity [online], 36(3), 505–528. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1086/POLv36n3ms3235388
Paterson, A., 2013. Final Judgment: The Last Law Lords and the Supreme Court. Oxford: Hart.
Patrick, A., 2018. In the Federal Court, speed of justice depends on the judge. Australian Financial Review [online], 25 October, updated 26 October. Available at: https://www.afr.com/companies/professional-services/in-the-federal-court-speed-of-justice-depends-on-the-judge-20181014-h16mk9
Roach Anleu, S., and Mack, K., 2014. Judicial Performance and experiences of judicial work: findings from socio-legal research. Oñati Socio-Legal Series [online], 4(5), 1015–1040. Available at: https://opo.iisj.net/index.php/osls/article/view/300
Roach Anleu, S., and Mack, K., 2017. Performing Judicial Authority in the Lower Courts [online]. London: Palgrave. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-52159-0
Roberts, H., 2012a. “Swearing Mary”: the significance of the speeches made at Mary Gaudron’s swearing-in as a justice of the High Court of Australia. Sydney Law Review [online], 34(3), 493–510. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2165044
Roberts, H., 2012b. Women judges, “maiden speeches,” and the High Court of Australia. In: B. Baines, D. Barak-Erez and T. Kahana, eds., Feminist Constitutionalism: Global Perspectives [online]. Cambridge University Press, 113–131. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511980442.010
Roberts, H., 2014. Telling a history of Australian women judges through courts’ ceremonial archives. Australian Feminist Law Journal, 40(1), 147–162.
Schrever, C., Hulbert, C., and Sourdin, T., 2019. The Psychological Impact of Judicial Work: Australia’s First Empirical Research Measuring Judicial Stress and Wellbeing. Journal of Judicial Administration, 28(3), 141–168.
Thornton, M. and Roberts, H., 2017. Women judges, private lives: (in)visibilities in fact and fiction. University of New South Wales Law Journal [online], 40(2), 761–777. Available at: https://doi.org/10.53637/HQHO5336
Warren, M., 2011. How We Lead [Speech]. Melbourne: Leadership Victoria Oration. 31 August.
Warren, M., 2016. The Aspiration of Excellent [Speech]. Singapore: Judiciary of the Future – International Conference on Court Excellent, 28–29 January.
Wheeler, R., 1988. Empirical Research and the Politics of Judicial Administration: Creating the Federal Judicial Center. Law and Contemporary Problems [online], 51(3), 31–53. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/1191818
Williams, D., 1994. Who Speaks for the Courts? In: Australian Institute for Judicial Administration, ed., Courts in a representative democracy: a collection of the papers from a national conference, Courts in a representative democracy, 183.
Williams, D., 2002. The Role of the Attorney-General. Public Law Review, 13(4), 252–262.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Gabrielle Appleby, Heather Roberts
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
OSLS strictly respects intellectual property rights and it is our policy that the author retains copyright, and articles are made available under a Creative Commons licence. The Creative Commons Non-Commercial Attribution No-Derivatives licence is our default licence, further details available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 If this is not acceptable to you, please contact us.
The non-exclusive permission you grant to us includes the rights to disseminate the bibliographic details of the article, including the abstract supplied by you, and to authorise others, including bibliographic databases, indexing and contents alerting services, to copy and communicate these details.
For information on how to share and store your own article at each stage of production from submission to final publication, please read our Self-Archiving and Sharing policy.
The Copyright Notice showing the author and co-authors, and the Creative Commons license will be displayed on the article, and you must agree to this as part of the submission process. Please ensure that all co-authors are properly attributed and that they understand and accept these terms.
