Independence

Abstract Judicial independence protects judges from improper pressure and inducements to enable them to adjudicate cases impartially, fairly, and according to their legal merits. Although essential, it sometimes has a sloganeering quality and its ambit is overdrawn. Different frameworks for considering judicial independence are available. The division between external and internal independence considers where threats to judicial independence emanate, whether externally (for example, from state actors) or internally (for example, from other judges). Structural independence addresses the institutional measures and those designed to protect individual judges from these threats. Behavioural independence is concerned with the integrity of the individual judge to exhibit independence as well as the social and political supports in a jurisdiction if judges are to be independent. The other side of the coin to judicial independence is judicial accountability, which can often be overlooked. An independent judiciary is not unfettered and judges must account for their exercise of power. Traditional mechanisms of decisional accountability are appeals, the reasons judges give for their decisions, and the principle of open justice, which at base is that legal proceedings take place in public. There is also behavioural accountability, where judges may be called upon to account for their performance and conduct. Public accountability for judicial decisions through the legacy and social media can be in tension with judicial independence.