Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Diligence as a Criterion for Judicial Performance Evaluation

Stephen Colbran

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    Abstract

    This article examines aspects of judicial diligence as a measure of judicial performance. Consistent with US and Canadian approaches to judicial performance evaluation, five measures of judicial diligence were proposed to test several hypotheses. The results of a national barristers' survey indicate that appellate judges have significantly higher diligence ratings than trial judges. Female Judges scored significantly lower diligence ratings than male judges. The survey indicates that judicial diligence deteriorates with judicial age or experience. Also, experienced barristers did not rate judicial diligence differently from inexperienced barristers. A national survey of judicial officers revealed that the proposed measures of judicial diligence were all regarded as important. These results are discussed in the context of judicial diligence as a potential measure of judicial performance.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)198-222
    JournalGriffith Law Review
    Volume11
    Issue number1
    Publication statusPublished - 2002

    Keywords

    • Legal Practice, Lawyering and the Legal Profession

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Diligence as a Criterion for Judicial Performance Evaluation'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this