Judicial Performance Evaluation: Accountability without compliance

Abstract

This article examines judicial performance evaluation and argues that accountability can be achieved without creating a compliant judiciary, and that the traditional approaches to judicial accountability are flawed measures by which to evaluate the performance of individual judges. Whether performance evaluation methods used in the US and Nova Scotia can be readily transposed into the Australian context is discussed. It is argued that judges have an ethical duty to embrace self-improvement strategies to supplement traditional approaches to judicial accountability, and that court and administrative performance measurement, as used in the Family Court, is an essential tool for self-management and accountability for court resources. Judicial performance evaluation's association with judicial accountability, judicial independence and separation of powers is discussed.