The Limits of Judicial Accountability: the Role of Judicial Performance Evaluation

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.