Login
‘Unfounded attacks’, stress and trauma continue to threaten judiciary
The various threats to judges’ mental and physical health, and subsequently “their capacity to judge well”, are increasingly being understood, according to a new report.
Jerome Doraisamy
Last month, a “first-of-its-kind” research paper commissioned by the Australian Judicial Officers Association (AJOA) was released, underscoring the need for vigilance about risks to judicial independence, by way of a dozen identified “pressure points” for judicial independence.
The paper – prepared by Dr Jessica Kerr of the University of Western Australia and titled Judicial Independence in Australia – assessed the state of judicial independence Down Under and applied an American Bar Association-developed methodology, called the Judicial Independence Monitor.
The independence of Australia’s judiciary, Lawyers Weekly reported in December, is “not a luxury or privilege to dispense with”, as opined by Kerr in the paper’s conclusion.
In the “External Independence” section of the paper, she reflected that overt violence against Australian judges and courts is “not an area of immediate concern”, with most courts nationwide having physical and electronic security arrangements in place, including processes for individual judges to request protection.
“There is growing attention to the potential threat posed by individual so-called ‘sovereign citizens’, which may have increased in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic,” she said.
Australian judges, Kerr continued, do experience considerable work-related stress and trauma, such as that arising from “unfounded attacks” in mainstream and social media. Moreover, those on the bench are impacted by the “growing pressure of ‘crushing’ workloads, particularly in trial courts”.
“The threat this poses to judges’ mental and physical health, and their capacity to judge well, is increasingly understood,” she said.
“As attorneys-general have stepped back from their traditional role as champions of the judiciary, the pressure on heads of jurisdiction to defend and safeguard their judicial colleagues has increased.
“Perceptions of independence and impartiality can be seriously undermined when judges are subject to unrealistic expectations or unjustified abuse.
“They may also, however, be undermined if the judiciary is seen as defensive or unaccountable.”
Striking the right balance, she observed, “becomes still more complex in the face of technological developments like the rise of data analytics, which seek to identify patterns in the decision making of specific judges or courts, and may be weaponised against the judiciary”.
Professional bodies like the Law Council, Kerr noted, will be “essential” moving forward in supporting the work of heads of jurisdiction in response to rapid technological and broader social change.
The report affirmed, AJOA submitted in a statement, the continuing importance of an independent, impartial, and competent judiciary to the health of the Australian system of government.
Speaking about the paper at the time, Justice Steven Moore of the Supreme Court of Victoria – who serves as the president of AJOA – said: “It is essential to our democracy that judges decide matters solely on the basis of the legal and factual merits of the case – that is what judicial independence requires.”
“Judicial independence is not ‘set and forget’; it requires active monitoring and active championing by all sectors of society – the legal profession, state and federal governments, and the public themselves.”
Jerome Doraisamy
Jerome Doraisamy is the editor of Lawyers Weekly and HR Leader. He has worked at Momentum Media as a journalist on Lawyers Weekly since February 2018, and has served as editor since March 2022. In June 2024, he also assumed the editorship of HR Leader. Jerome is also the author of The Wellness Doctrines book series, an admitted solicitor in NSW, and a board director of the Minds Count Foundation.
You can email Jerome at:
