A Comparative Analysis of Judicial Performance Evaluation Programmes

Abstract

This article examines judicial performance evaluation in the United States, Nova Scotia, England, and Australia. There are three distinct categories of judicial performance evaluation: traditional forms of accountability, including the principle of 'open justice' and appellate review; analysis of judicial attributes; and court and administrative performance measurement. The first two categories relate to individual judges, the latter to the management and administration of a court in an aggregate sense. It is argued that the traditional approaches to judicial accountability are flawed measures by which to evaluate the performance of individual judges. The analysis of judicial attributes, including legal ability, temperament, communication and other generic skills, as conducted in the United States, Nova Scotia and planned in Australia, offers a viable method for Commonwealth judges to engage in judicial self-improvement as part of judicial method. The application of the criteria to Commonwealth legal systems is discussed. Alternative models, such as that of the English District Court Judges' Association are discussed. It is argued that judges have an ethical duty to embrace self-improvement strategies to supplement traditional approaches to judicial accountability.