CHAPTER II
THE ADMINISTRATION OF AN INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY
1.
Judicial Leadership
Some
Other
Anticipating some doubters I wrote several paragraphs in the Discussion Papers in support of the proposition that judicial groups should have judicial leaders. In the cutcome the responses contained very little opposition. Two replies were in the negative. thought the suggestion was not applicable to the High Court. views were that the leader should not receive additional pay, existence should not impede direct access to the Chief Justice, that he should be accountable to his group, that he should be removable by it and that there ought to be a judge in charge of a list rather than a
judge as leader.
that his
2.
The majority of respondents were unequivocally in favour of the proposition and scme perhaps hinted that it had been laboured unnecessarily. At the risk of wearying them I return to the argument. To the extent that there are gaps in delegation the leadership burden falls on the Chief Justice alone. That may have been acceptable and
half the size but it now makes too adequate when the Judiciary was
the head of the great a
whose other Judiciary
responsibilities have also grown with the Judiciary. In practice the amount of leadership required cannot be provided by one person however energetic, determined and administratively inclined.
3.
demand
on
the
regarded
as
that I propose
Chief Justice be now
functionally at a remove for administrative purposes from each judicial group although still personally accessible to individual judicial officers. Again for administrative purposes the Chief Justice will (I propose) rely first on the group leaders who will be in the position of chief in their courts. The main advantages of direct local leadership
were described in my Discussion Papers as follows :-
-
19
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.