The importance of the judiciary

In a democracy, constitutional government is ensured by a system of checks and balances. In his 1908 analysis of the notion of constitutional government, Dr Woodrow Wilson identified among the essential elements and institutions of a constitutional system, ‘[a] judiciary with substantial and independent powers, secure against all corrupting or perverting influences; secure, also, against the arbitrary authority of the government itself’. Dr Wilson went on to describe the courts as the ‘balance-wheel’ of a constitutional system. He described the importance of a judicial forum in the preservation of the liberty of the individual and the integrity of the government in the following terms:

Lord Diplock, an eminent English judge, once observed that:

What is required to maintain public confidence in a judicial system will depend to some extent on what members of the public expect of that system and whether they perceive that their expectations of it are generally fulfilled. Lord Diplock identified three essential requirements for the due administration of justice by courts. They were:

For a long time, law-makers have recognised that if the courts of law are to function in the ways expected of them, and also command the confidence of the public they serve, the law must afford to the judges, and to other participants in judicial proceedings, certain protections against conduct which is, or can be, detrimental to the due administration of justice. This chapter is concerned with the legal protections accorded to judicial officers. It deals with aspects of the law of contempt of court and several aspects of the criminal law relating to the administration of justice. The chapter also examines the protections against legal liabilities that are accorded to judges in respect of their actions as judges. Finally, the chapter considers some constitutional constraints on removal of jurisdiction from the courts.

Non-judicial functions

The principal work of those appointed as members of courts is, of course, to adjudicate disputes and other matters that entail the exercise of powers which, for constitutional purposes, are described as being of a judicial character. However, in legal systems patterned after England’s, those appointed to judicial office have been authorised to exercise some powers that are not, strictly speaking, judicial in character. For example, when judges of a particular court assemble to decide what rules they should adopt regarding the practice and procedure of the court, they are acting primarily as legislators who have been delegated legislative powers by the relevant parliament.

Traditionally, the powers accorded to judges have included authority to grant warrants to law enforcement officers, such as officers of police, to search premises and seize material found there that may be relevant to the investigation of criminal activities. But Australia’s High Court has ruled that the function of deciding whether a search or similar warrant should be granted is not, essentially, a judicial function; rather, it is an administrative function. In recent times, the High Court has held that the function of making a control order by a federal court pursuant to federal legislation is a judicial function.

Appointments

The process of appointing judges is an issue of considerable interest in Australia, especially in relation to appointment of judges to the superior courts. The appointment of a new member of the High Court or of the various heads of jurisdictions at both State and federal levels tends to attract publicity of varying magnitude. There is often much speculation about the identity of the likely appointee before the decision is announced and, in the case of High Court appointments, a spectrum of commentary after the announcement about the appointee’s likely impact on the direction of the High Court in constitutional interpretation.

The reason for a special interest in High Court appointments is that judgments of the High Court, particularly in the public law arena, affect the so-called federal balance of the Constitution. The use by the Commonwealth Parliament of the power to make laws in order to achieve Commonwealth objectives over the protestations of the States has caused a number of State governments to chafe at their lack of real input into the appointment of High Court judges. The power of the Commonwealth Parliament to legislate with respect to ‘external affairs’ conferred by s 51(xxix) of the Commonwealth Constitution, and the broad interpretation given to that power in Tasmanian Dams by the High Court, evoked an outpouring of criticism by the advocates of State rights. The development of a jurisprudence of ‘implied rights’ has led to claims by critics of the High Court of a judicial usurpation of legislative powers of the Parliament or a subversion of the amendment process in s 128 of the Constitution. In 1996, in the wake of the decisions of the High Court in Mabo and Wik (which concerned the judicial recognition of some form of indigenous entitlement to land), a number of State Premiers urged a thorough re-vamp of the process of judicial appointment and called for the greater involvement of the States in making such appointments. Calls for reform of the judicial appointment process are generally focused on arguments that society would be better served by a more ‘representative’ judiciary in terms of gender, ethnicity and geographical diversity.

Removal of judges

Historically, judges appointed by the English monarch held office at the pleasure of the Crown (durante bene placito). Thus, it was possible for judges to be dismissed peremptorily and without cause. The struggle between the English Parliament and the Crown, which ultimately led to the subjugation of the latter to the former, also led to the advancement of judicial independence. Judicial independence of the Crown was eventually secured by Article III, s 7 of the Act of Settlement 1701 (Eng), which provided as follows:

At the federal level, judicial independence was given constitutional protection in s 72(ii) of the Commonwealth Constitution. This provides that federal judges (that is, Justices of the High Court and judges of the other courts created by the Commonwealth Parliament) ‘[s]hall not be removed except by the Governor-General in Council, on an address from both Houses of Parliament in the same session, praying for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity’. In the case of South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania, it is simply provided that it would be lawful to remove judges of the Supreme Court upon the address of both Houses of Parliament, although the Supreme Court judges in South Australia and Western Australia are stated by a separate provision to hold and remain in office ‘during good behaviour’. The grounds of ‘proved misbehaviour’ or ‘incapacity’ are expressly specified in New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory.

The standard mode of removal is an address of both Houses of Parliament in New South Wales, South Australia, Victoria and Western Australia, or an address of the Legislative Assembly in Queensland (the only State with a bicameral parliament), the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory. In addition, Victoria, Queensland and the Australian Capital Territory all provide for the convening of ad hoc bodies where an allegation of misbehaviour or incapacity has been made to the designated authority. These bodies are tasked with determining whether on the facts the misbehaviour or incapacity of the judge warrants his or her removal as a step prior to an address in Parliament to remove the judge.

‘All courts’, it has been said, ‘need the confidence of the public’. Members of the public should be confident that the courts can be relied upon to perform their functions independently, impartially and according to law. Without that confidence, judges cannot expect their decisions to be respected.

A number of conditions need to be satisfied if public confidence in the courts is to be sustained. Those appointed to judicial offices should be seen to possess appropriate qualifications. The terms on which judges are appointed must assure them independence of the other branches of government, but at the same time allow for removal of judges from office should they become incapable of performing their judicial duties or should they conduct themselves in ways which render them unfit to remain judges. Judges must also be disqualified from adjudicating cases in which their impartiality is open to question. There must be adequate provision for correction of judicial errors and for punishment of those who attempt to pervert the administration of justice. Hearings before the courts should generally be open to members of the public who care to observe them. There should be minimal legal constraints on the reporting of and comment on court proceedings. Judges should normally be required to give reasons for their decisions. Courts should be required to present periodic accounts to their paymasters in respect of their expenditures of the moneys made available to them from public funds for court purposes. By and large, the Australian court systems satisfy these basic conditions.

The Australian court system

Australia’s legal system is a federal system and one under which power to establish courts is reposed in both the State and the federal Parliaments, and also in the legislatures of the self-governing Territories of the Commonwealth. The courts of the Territories ultimately owe their existence to legislation of the federal Parliament.

While there are distinctions drawn between federal and State courts and between federal and State jurisdictions, the Australian judicial systems are nevertheless integrated, to an extent. This integration has been achieved in several ways: by the establishment of the High Court of Australia as the ultimate court of appeal for Australia; by the use of State courts as repositories of federal jurisdiction; by complementary State legislation, which cross-vests the State jurisdictions of the Supreme Courts; and by constitutional and legislative provisions dealing with the execution of court processes and judgments. There are also institutional arrangements to facilitate the transfer of cases from the court in which proceedings have been initiated to another court when the other court is considered to be the more appropriate forum.

The concept of accountability

In 1995, an English judge, Lord Taylor of Gosforth, observed that the term ‘accountability has become one of the buzzwords of the age’. It is a term often used interchangeably with several other words and phrases, such as ‘being answerable’, ‘responsibility’ and being the ‘subject of scrutiny’. Lord Taylor’s observation was made in the context of general remarks on what some had perceived to be a lack or insufficiency of accountability on the part of members of the judicial branch of government. In recent times, several Australian judges have found occasion to speak or write about the same subject.

One can only speculate on why there have been charges of lack of appropriate judicial accountability. Sometimes the charges may have been generated by widely publicised episodes involving official inquiries into the conduct of individual judges, sometimes by judicial decisions which have re-shaped the law. Critics of such decisions may allege that it was wrong for the judges to have decided as they did, in that they exceeded their limited law-making functions and trespassed into a domain reserved for an elected legislature whose members are accountable to electors. Concerns about judicial accountability may even have been spawned by increased awareness among members of the general public about the operations of the courts. Chief Justice Doyle of the Supreme Court of South Australia seems to have recognised this possibility when he observed:

There is nothing wrong with the notion that judges should be accountable. As Justice McGarvie pointed out, ‘[i]n a good democracy, power is never exercised without accountability for it’. But if judges are to be held accountable, one needs to ask to whom are they accountable, for what and in what ways? There is the further question of what can and should be done when judicial accounting is found to be unsatisfactory.