NCJ Number
166948
Date Published
1995
Length
21 pages
Annotation
This essay begins with a review of the concept of accountability and then analyzes judicial independence, followed by an appraisal of the various mechanisms for judicial accountability in Canada.
Abstract
If accountability is defined as the optimum performance with regard to fairness, efficiency, responsiveness, and answerability, judges can be accountable, but not through the usual mechanisms of line accountability and budget accountability. Judicial independence precludes the imposition of line accountability on judges. Budget accountability is not relevant where judges have no part in the budget process, and to involve judges in budgeting may create more problems than it would resolve. The most important accountability mechanism for the promotion of fairness is the self-discipline that judges have learned from their years of experience in law practice prior to becoming judges. The habits learned through self-discipline are supported and encouraged by peer pressure, the need to be respected by fellow judges. Accountability for fairness is also promoted through commentaries on the quality of judicial decisions in the academic press, continuing judicial education, evaluation by lawyers who appear before the judges, and nonpartisan procedures of appointment. Accountability for efficiency could be demonstrated through professional program evaluations of court services, and accountability for responsiveness could be encouraged through court management advisory committees, as well as through regular surveys of litigants and witnesses. Answerability could be promoted through the production of annual reports by Canada's chief judges and chief justices, as well as by the heads of the various judicial organizations across Canada. 2 notes