Core Values of Quality Judiciary

As I discuss the core values of the quality judiciary, the place of judicial independence should be discussed firstly. Judicial independence is considered as a characteristic of free societies and a formidable protector of individual liberty. The UN General Assembly Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary invite governments “to respect the Basic Principles and to take them into account within the framework of their national legislation and practice.” Judicial independence is an important factor for every country under the rule of law. It has influence on both the quality of judicial performance and acceptability of decisions. As it was accepted as a general principle in all common law jurisdictions that the judicial power of government should be vested in an authority which is independent of the legislature and the executive. The public are entitled under the rule of law to insist on its observance by the judges and on its protection by the legislature and the executive. In my opinion, judicial independence supports decision-making based on the facts established by the evidence and the legal arguments rather than ‘external direction’ in cases between citizens. Also, when the court should decide disputes between citizens and government, judicial independence reduces the risk of apprehended or actual bias in favour of the government as a litigant. However, I think judicial independence can’t be considered the excellence of the quality judiciary when it is alone. As Sir Ninian Stephen said, the human weaknesses and prejudices of its members, the tardiness of its responses, the excessively high cost of the remedies it offers, any of these may depreciate its worth. But together with the other core elements of the quality judiciary which can eliminate that controversy, the judicial independence can be considered as an effective institution.

Impartiality is also an important element for the quality judiciary when understanding the issues such as administering the law impartially between citizens, and between citizen and state, promoting, within the proper limit of the judicial function, the observance and the attainment of human rights and ensuring that all peoples are able to live securely under the rule of law which are required for the judges. It is noted as the rule of law requires “the equal subjection of all classes to the ordinary law of the land administrated by the ordinary law courts”, it is imperative that the judiciary to be impartial and have the appearance of impartiality. In my opinion, impartiality also comes from the judicial independence, when judicial independence is effective, then impartiality will have positive effects as well. Judges take an oath to do right by all persons, without fear or favour, affection or ill-will. Their capacity to honour that obligation does not rest only upon their individual consciences. Citizens are not required to have blind faith in the personal integrity of judges, and judges are not required to struggle individually to maintain their impartiality. The Constitution, written or unwritten, of a society provides for the means of securing the independence and impartiality of judges. But I think impartiality is not always so effective, judges should be more qualified for applying it more effectively. In general, judicial independence and impartiality together play a major role in providing public confidence in the judiciary and its ability to uphold the rule of law and to administer justice.

Judicial integrity is considered a pre-condition to maintaining trust in the judiciary. In my opinion, it is important to safeguard judicial independence and manage the risks with dysfunctions within the court system and within the body of judges. Regarding the fairness, researchers have identified four main elements as following which are considered as the major parts of the fairness:

• Neutrality: citizens perceive that decisions are made in an unbiased and trustworthy manner;
• Respect: citizens feel that they were treated with dignity and respect;
• Understanding: citizens understand how decisions are made and what is expected of them; and
• Voice: citizens have had an opportunity to be heard.

Transparency is also important in judiciary, as it promotes accountability, combats corruption, and helps to eliminate arbitrariness. In this way, it facilitates greater judicial independence and enhances public confidence. The open operation of judicial systems makes an increased flow of information from the judiciary to society, enabling the public to learn about its performance and rulings. I think a policy of transparency and access to public information also enhances the level of trust and the legitimacy of judges and other operating in the judicial system by providing information that enables society to understand its operation, challenges and limitations. It is noted transparency fundamentally reassures society that justice is served.

In judiciary, diligence means hard work for judges. Diligence is reflected in many aspects of judiciary such as avoiding judgment delay and impatience with counsel and others involved in litigation. In the New Jersey program of the U.S., judicial diligence was being assessed for the following criteria:

• punctuality;
• doing the necessary preparation for the case; and
• rendering decisions promptly.

In my opinion, the noted values are important elements for the quality judiciary in all law systems, including civil and common law. As I discussed all of them, their importance was emphasized. However, values for the quality judiciary which noted in Bangalore Principles and draw upon more than thirty national legislations should also be noted. These values are independence, impartiality, integrity, propriety, equality, competence and diligence. But most of these values are the same, and the rest are so similar with the values which discussed above.

Sources?

1. N. Stephen, Judicial Independence - a Fragile Bastion 13 Melbourne University Law Review 336, 1982.
2. GA Res. 40/32 of 29 November 1985, para 5, UN GAOR, 40th Session, Supp. No. 53, 205.
3. Murray Gleeson. The Right to an Independent Judiciary, 14th Commonwealth Law Conference. London, September 2005.
4. J Crawford and B Opeskin, Australian Courts of Law, 4th ed., Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 2004.
5. A V Dicey, An Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, 10th ed, London: 202 MacMillan 1959.
6. Sir Gerard Brennan, The State of the Judicature, 72 Australian Law Journal 33, 1998.
7. A. Korsgaard and L. Roberson, Procedural Justice in Performance Evaluation: The Role of Instrumental and Non-Instrumental Voice in Performance Appraisal Discussions, 21 Journal of Management, 1995, pp. 657-669.
8. Clifton Johnson. Enhancing Judicial Transparency and Promoting Public Trust, International Scientific Conference “The Development of the Court Administration: directions and model”, Ulaanbaatar, June 2018.
9. Robert Gotterson, The Appointment of Judges, Judicial Conference of Australia, Colloquium, Gold Coast, 744, 1999.
10. Stephen Colbran, Diligence as a Criterion for Judicial Performance Evaluation, Griffith Law Review Vol. 11, No. 1, 2002.
11. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, Judicial Integrity Group, Commentary on the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct 5, September 2007.