scholarly journals An Analysis of the Public Protector's Investigatory and Decision-Making Procedural Powers

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 ◽  
pp. 1-28
Author(s):  
Constantine Theophilopoulos ◽  
Charles De Matos Ala
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Judicial Decision ◽  
Judicial Decision Making ◽  
The Public ◽  
Primary Problem

This article critically analyses the Draft Rules to the Public Protector Act 23 of 1994 and examines the efficacy of the Public Protector’s decision-making procedural powers. Several procedural lacunae are identified. In particular the article evaluates the procedural distinction between an investigation and a hearing as defined in the Draft Rules and the Act. It is unclear from a reading of the Draft Rules whether a hearing is simply part of the Public Protector’s investigatory process or whether it functions as a separate quasi-judicial decision-making process in its own right. A significant lacuna is the failure to specify the procedural protections available to an implicated person or a witness in an investigation or a hearing. A primary problem with the Draft Rules is the very broad procedural powers awarded to the Public Protector which are open to procedural abuse. The article suggests a number of amendments to the Draft Rules which should be modelled on the procedural methodology applied in the Special Investigating Units and Special Tribunals Act 74 of 1996. Moreover, the article suggests that the decision-making powers of the Public Protector should be divided between the Public Protector and an independent and temporarily appointed adjudicator.

How Judges Use Weapons of Influence: The Social Psychology of Courts

2013 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-24
Author(s):  
Guy Davidov ◽  
Maayan Davidov
Keyword(s):  
Social Psychology ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Judicial Decision ◽  
Judicial Decision Making ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Face ◽  
Decision Making Processes ◽  
The Government

Research on compliance has shown that people can be induced to comply with various requests by using techniques that capitalise on the human tendencies to act consistently and to reciprocate. Thus far this line of research has been applied to interactions between individuals, not to relations between institutions. We argue, however, that similar techniques are applied by courts vis-à-vis the government, the legislature and the public at large, when courts try to secure legitimacy and acceptance of their decisions. We discuss a number of known influence techniques – including ‘foot in the door’, ‘low-balling’, ‘giving a reputation to uphold’ and ‘door in the face’ – and provide examples from Israeli case law of the use of such techniques by courts. This analysis offers new insights that can further the understanding of judicial decision-making processes.

scholarly journals Internalizing Contestation in Process-Based Judicial Review

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (8) ◽  
pp. 1167-1181
Author(s):  
Laura M. Henderson
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Theoretical Basis ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Constitutional Theory ◽  
Judicial Decision ◽  
Constituent Power ◽  
Judicial Decision Making ◽  
European Stability Mechanism

AbstractThe cases challenging the European Stability Mechanism in Eurozone creditor states show the concern courts have with protecting and promoting democratic contestation. This Article shows how John Hart Ely’s theory of process-based review provides the theoretical basis for understanding how attention to democratic contestation contributes to the legitimacy of courts reviewing legislation against constitutional norms. By focusing on promoting democratic procedures, Ely argues that courts can avoid substantive decisions that are best left to the legislature. Yet, as my discussion of the constitutional theory of constituent and constituted powers shows, no form of constituted power can avoid some exercise of constituent power. In other words, even a process-based approach cannot avoid substantive judgments. The legitimacy of these decisions depends on the availability of avenues for contestation in the judicial decision-making process itself.

The judicial pursuit of the sexual victimization of children

2016 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 123-144
Author(s):  
Josep M Tamarit Sumalla ◽  
Mª Jesús Guardiola Lago ◽  
Albert Padró-Solanet ◽  
Patricia Hernández-Hidalgo
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Judicial Decision ◽  
Sexual Offences ◽  
Judicial Decision Making ◽  
Factors Associated ◽  
English Speaking ◽  
Low Rate

This article analyses the criminal justice system’s treatment of those sexual offences against children of which it is made aware. The findings reported in this article draw on a quantitative study based on data ( n = 97) taken from judicial files from a province of Catalonia, Spain. The study examines prosecution, trial and conviction rates, analysing the possible variables involved to provide a better understanding of the reasons behind the successful prosecution of complaints made. The study points to a low rate of prosecution, similar to other studies carried out in English-speaking countries. This leads us to conclude that differences in legal systems do not give rise to significant differences in dealing with cases. There is no evidence that a legalistic system such as that of Spain acts as a restraining element against the influence of non-legal factors in the judicial decision-making process. However, similarities with other studies are not found with regards to some factors associated with it. The findings provide no confirmation of the hypothesis that the Spanish criminal justice system is particularly reluctant to prosecute cases of intrafamilial victimization.

scholarly journals Book Review: Moseneke D All Rise: A Judicial Memoir (Pickado Africa Johannesburg 2020)

2021 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Hoolo 'Nyane
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Judicial Decision ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Judicial Decision Making ◽  
Chief Justice

The contribution is the review published by former Deputy Chief Justice, Dikhang Moseneke, about his illustrious 15-year term in the Constitutional Court as both the judge and Deputy Chief Justice. The book uniquely provides a rare window into the dynamics of judicial decision-making at the apex court. Often, legal academics only interact with the judiciary through the judgements. Yet, Moseneke gives the reader much more to the judicial decision-making process than just the judgements. The book further traverses one of the most controversial aspects of the Constitutional Court’s jurisprudence, such as same-sex marriages, succession to chieftainship.

scholarly journals Transparency in Predictive Algorithms: A Judicial Perspective

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Md. Abdul Malek
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Black Box ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Judicial Decision ◽  
High Stake ◽  
Judicial Decision Making ◽  
Predictive Algorithm ◽  
Predictive Algorithms ◽  
Good Cause ◽  
Privacy Invasion

<p><i>Although the apparent hyperbole about the promises of AI algorithms has successfully entered upon the judicial precincts; it has also procreated some robust concerns spanning from unfairness, privacy invasion, bias, discrimination, and the lack of legitimacy</i><i> to the lack of transparency</i><i> and explainability</i><i>, </i><i>etc.</i><i> Notably, critics have already denounced </i><i>the current use of the </i><i>predictive algorithm in the judicial decision-making process in many ways, and branded them as ethically, legally, and technically distressing.</i><i> So contextually, whereas there is already an ongoing transparency debate on board, this paper attempts to revisit, extend and contribute to such simmering debate with a particular focus from a judicial perspective. Since there is a good cause to preserve and promote trust and confidence in the judiciary as a whole, a searchlight is beamed on exploring how and why justice algorithms ought to be transparent as to their outcomes, with a sufficient level of explainability, interpretability, intelligibility, and contestability. This paper also ends up delineating the tentative paths to do away with black-box effects, and suggesting the way out for the use of algorithms in the high-stake areas like the judicial settings.</i></p>

scholarly journals Unrepresented litigants in Singapore: A prolegomenon to court typologies

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Helena Whalen-Bridge
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Legal Issues ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Legal Knowledge ◽  
Judicial Decision ◽  
Legal Doctrine ◽  
Judicial Decision Making ◽  
Resolution Process

Unrepresented parties in litigation struggle with legal doctrine and puzzle over procedure. Judges provide some assistance in court, but they must exercise restraint so as not to raise questions of bias or favouritism. How do judges manage these interactions in the decision-making process? This article examines sample cases from one common law jurisdiction, Singapore, to identify the litigant in person (LIP) typologies in court-LIP interactions. There are likely a number of typologies that guide a court’s assessment and response to an LIP, but this article focuses on the typologies most relevant to judicial decision-making on legal issues, legal knowledge and credibility. Because legal knowledge and credibility typologies help courts evaluate LIPs, they assist courts to make decisions regarding unrepresented parties and allow cases to proceed to judgment. However, the typologies are not able to completely address the deficiencies LIPs bring to the dispute resolution process.

Reporting case law: unreported cases, the definition of a ratio and the criteria for reporting decisions

Legal Studies ◽  
1985 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 205-232 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. H. Andrews
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Judicial Decision ◽  
Efficient System ◽  
Judicial Decision Making ◽  
The Public ◽  
Reporting Decisions ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Practical Arguments

An efficient system of law reporting is beneficial in a number of ways. First, accurate reports are necessary if the principle that like cases should be decided alike is to be achieved. Secondly and relatedly, a strict system of precedent, which renders most decisions binding on courts, requires all decisions which have precedential value to be recorded. Thirdly, full reports of what judges say, including dissents, enable subsequent courts to consider the complex of normative and practical arguments which has been articulated in previous decisions. This both adds to the richness of material guiding lawyers and citizens at large and improves the quality of judicial decision-making. Fourthly, reporting courts’ reasons for reaching a decision is important since it exposes judges to scrutiny by fellow judges, practitioners, academics and the public at large. Reporting therefore serves the principle of accountability.

The Study of Judicial Decision-Making as an Aspect of Political Behavior

1958 ◽  
Vol 52 (4) ◽  
pp. 1007-1025 ◽  
Author(s):  
Glendon A. Schubert
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Human Behavior ◽  
Political Behavior ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Natural Sciences ◽  
Frame Of Reference ◽  
Judicial Decision ◽  
Judicial Decision Making ◽  
The Public ◽  
Decision Making Behavior

In a recent essay, Richard Snyder has stated that: “[A] paradox in political science is the lack … of any systematic attention to the analysis of the decision-making behavior of judges.” It is not my purpose to argue either for or against the particular frame of reference for decision-making analysis advocated by Snyder. I do believe, however, that he has correctly identified the approach—the analysis of judicial decision-making as an aspect of political behavior—which is most likely to command the focus of interest and activity of the coming generation of political scientists whose substantive concern is with the study of political problems in the area of our discipline traditionally known as public law.The concept “political behavior” remains sufficiently novel within the public law fraternity to impose something of an obligation to make clear what I have in mind in using the term. I shall borrow from David B. Truman who, in a Brookings Lecture not long ago, defined the “behavioral sciences” as “those bodies of knowledge, in whatever academic department they may be found, that provide or aspire to provide ‘verified principles’ of human behavior through the use of methods of inquiry similar to those of the natural sciences.”

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document