Critique of 'Open Justice' as a Form of Judicial Accountability

Abstract

This article critiques the concept of 'open justice' as a form of judicial accountability. Consideration is given to the traditional forms of judicial accountability including public scrutiny, media surveillance and reporting, appellate review, executive and parliamentary accountability, monitoring by the legal profession including academics, and the role of the Chief Justice. The article concludes that while the concept of 'open justice' is sufficient despite it's flaws, to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice it cannot be regarded as a system of performance evaluation. Alternative strategies such as the analysis of judicial attributes and court and administrative performance measurement are needed to evaluate judicial performance. The purpose of judicial evaluation should focus on judicial self-improvement and targeting of judicial education programmes through bodies such as the National Judicial College.