Extracts from the Robinson Report
CHAPTER II
THE ADMINISTRATION OF AN INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY
Annex A
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 outcome 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.
2.
that his
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 adequate when the Judiciary was half the size but it now makes too
great 3 demand on the head of the Judiciary whose other 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.
I propose that the Chief Justice be now regarded as 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.