Both courts and scholars often emphasize the role
of judicial independence in constitutional litigation, where the rights of citizens or the powers of governments are at stake.
Another reason for the increasing prison crisis which has resulted in defendants being held in police cells throughout the country has been the government's
erosion of judicial independence.
Sometimes the
foes of judicial independence argue that the voters should determine who their judges should be with the rationale that the judges should reflect the community where they serve.
It started as an experiment, and I used the opportunity to post a number of my main extra-judicial writings over the last twenty years, including my 1993 Kapila Lecture, my talk about the Conjoined Twins Case, and my
History of Judicial Independence in England and Wales, which I wrote 20 years ago for the New South Wales Judicial Commission.
That statement told me that the judges were likely caught somewhat by surprise by the announcement or by the contents of the Green Paper, specifically its identification
of judicial independence as a challenge to reform.
I regard this as a blot on judicial independence which should not be tolerated, and it speaks loudly of the misconception that the governmental authorities, who are responsible in this matter, have of the
meaning of judicial independence.
As a crisis loomed in the early 1990s, in the form of cross-country litigation, CAPCJ commissioned a report on the state
of judicial independence of provincial judges.
Criticism of the scope of judicial power is often perceived by its partisans as, in effect, attacking the independence of the judiciary or even the
ideal of judicial independence.
There is likely correlation between nationalism and
dislike of judicial independence, but I believe the more pertinent question here is related to the post-soviet nature of these states (including history, demographics, etc.) as opposed to the stated political ideals of their ruling parties
The country's main opposition party also decried the removal of Supreme Court Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry, in a high - profile
test of judicial independence in military - dominated Pakistan.»
The organization said that, «Should all outstanding salaries and allowances of judges and judicial workers not immediately paid, SERAP will explore all legal avenues nationally and internationally to compel your government to uphold the cardinal principle
of judicial independence by ensuring a policy of regular and punctual payment of salaries and allowances of judges and judicial workers.»
All codes of judicial conduct espouse the
values of judicial independence, impartiality, integrity, diligence and competence, as evidenced by The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct (2002), which was signed by the chief justices of 29 countries.
Over the next several months, we will publish thoughtful pieces written by lawyers, judges, and others that delve into various
subtopics of judicial independence, including such characteristics as fairness, impartiality, access to justice, and adherence to the rule of law.
In being open to discussion, however, the judiciary will remain steadfast in protecting the essential
elements of judicial independence, as the precursor and guardian of judicial impartiality.
Writing in this week's NLJ, columnist Jon Robins notes that he spoke up for the principle
of judicial independence during the Article 50 Supreme Court case last November, when the Daily Mail attacked the judges as «Enemies of the people».
In 2013, Dan received the President's Award from the Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in recognition of his work, with other Foley Hoag attorneys, defending the principle
of judicial independence while representing a Massachusetts judge accused of bias against law enforcement personnel.
But because of the blurred line between law, policy and morality, the
centrality of judicial independence, and the unique ability of judges to speak to certain moral and political issues, we must not label every obiter comment by a judge as misconduct.
Although the 1803 Pennsylvania removal of Federalist Judge Alexander Addison might be seen as sanctioning the impeachment of a judge for his personal politics, it could just as well be seen as an
affirmation of judicial independence because Addison, even without malicious intent, had tried inappropriately to bar a Republican judge from performing his legitimate judicial duties.
In the final paragraph, EPLAW therefore «urges the Council to use this opportunity to propose an amendment to Article 11 EPC and in any event to critically review the Guidelines for Investigation [the basis on which the suspension happened] so as to avoid any further concern with respect to the principle
of judicial independence at the EPO.»