8. The Judiciary and their Appointment

This chapter provides an introduction to the courts and tribunals judiciary. It discusses the judicial office, judicial appointments, judicial diversity and judicial training. There are different levels of judges within the courts and tribunals, with the senior judiciary comprising the Lord Chief Justice and Heads of Division. The Lord Chief Justice is the Head of the Judiciary. The Head of the Tribunals is the Senior President of the Tribunals. There are also part-time members of the judiciary known either as district judges, recorders, or Deputy High Court Judges depending on which court they sit in. This chapter assesses the similarities and differences between the court judiciary and tribunal judiciary. The quasi- judicial role of magistrates is also considered in this chapter. Discussing them in this chapter allows for their role to be considered and contrasted with that of district judges (magistrates’ courts) who also sit within the magistrates’ court.

Procedural Justice and the Power of the Judge in the Courtroom

In this chapter, the author conducts a critical analysis and comparison of laws and practices that legitimise discretionary power in the courtroom from a selection of global north and south jurisdictions. The specific offence of contempt of court in facie curiae is the central focus, where the use of full judicial autonomy, summary, and arbitrary hearings have survived now well into the 21st century. The research conducted shows that there is a global problem with significant overreach of power by members of the judiciary in nearly all jurisdictions investigated. In some cases, this could be viewed as being extreme enough in its overreach to justify being described as abuse of power. Further evidence is presented showing little by way of accountability being held against those judges who misuse their discretionary powers in the courtroom. Recommendations are that there should be reform or development of practice through both judicial training and proportionate disciplinary action where overreach is proven to have occurred in order to minimise future overreaches of power.

The Impact of the Court of Justice of the European Union on Jordan

Jordan and the EU have developed a strong relationship on several levels. This relationship has been strengthened by the signing of the Association Agreement which forms the legal basis of the relations between the EU and Jordan. Further, the Agreement established a mechanism for cooperation to harmonize legislation between the EU and Jordan. The EU has supported Jordan to enhance the effectiveness and independence of the judiciary, including judicial training and the modernization of Jordan’s court system. This chapter examines the external impact of the CJEU on Jordan judges. The research shows that despite the strong relationship between the EU and Jordan, CJEU decisions have not been cited or influenced Jordanian judges’ decisions.

8. The Judiciary and their Appointment

This chapter provides an introduction to the courts and tribunals judiciary. It discusses the judicial office, judicial appointments, judicial diversity, and judicial training. There are different levels of judges within the courts and tribunals, with the senior judiciary comprising the Lord Chief Justice and Heads of Division. The Lord Chief Justice is the Head of the Judiciary. The Head of the Tribunals is the Senior President of the Tribunals. There are also part-time members of the judiciary known either as district judges, recorders, or Deputy High Court Judges depending on which court they sit in. This chapter assesses the similarities and differences between the court judiciary and tribunal judiciary. The quasi-judicial role of magistrates is also considered in this chapter. Discussing them in this chapter allows for their role to be considered and contrasted with that of district judges (magistrates’ courts) who also sit within the magistrates’ court.

Judicial perspectives on emotion, emotion management, and judicial excellence in the USA

In the USA, state court judges receive little to no specialized judicial training prior to assuming the duties of office. To support quality judicial performance, states must make strategic use of limited resources. Formal state systems of judicial education have emerged over the past half-century as one solution to this challenge, providing sitting judges in most jurisdictions with some level of educational support. Despite these advancements, some scholars and practitioners have criticized judicial education to date, calling for a new wave of reforms. One recent study explored judicial perceptions of the types of knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics important to judicial work in the state courts. Participating judges acknowledged emotion and interpersonal skills as critical components of judicial excellence (Elek et al. 2017). This paper will examine some of the guidance provided by state court judges in this area and consider opportunities for improvement to better meet judicial needs. En EEUU, los jueces de las cortes estatales suelen recibir poca o nula formación especializada antes de asumir sus deberes. Durante el pasado medio siglo, han emergido sistemas formales estatales de educación judicial como solución a aquel problema, y se ha proporcionado cierto nivel de formación a los jueces titulares de la mayoría de las jurisdicciones. A pesar de esos avances, algunos expertos han criticado la formación judicial hasta la fecha, y han reclamado una nueva ola de reformas. Un estudio reciente ha analizado las percepciones de los jueces sobre tipos de conocimiento, aptitudes, habilidades y otras características importantes para el trabajo judicial en las cortes estatales. Los jueces reconocieron la emoción y las aptitudes interpersonales como componentes críticos de la excelencia judicial (Elek et al. 2017). Este artículo examinará algunas directrices dadas por los jueces estatales, y tomará en consideración oportunidades para satisfacer mejor las necesidades judiciales.

Immigration Courts

This chapter draws on extended observations within federal immigration courts and interviews conducted with sitting and retired immigration judges both before and after the 2014 influx of undocumented minors who were apprehended, detained, put into deportation proceedings, and forced to appear in fast track hearings. It examines the specific challenges judges face such as staff shortages, court backlogs, and negative press regarding the judicial training immigration they receive before appointment to the bench. Since 2014, stress on judges has been heightened with the creation of expedited juvenile hearings, the increased numbers of children in removal proceedings, overloaded dockets, a dramatic reduction in the proportion of children with legal representation, and mounting numbers of in absentia deportation orders. Immigration judges share views on what they see as their weak structural position within the U.S. Department of Justice, the power imbalances that favor the government and threaten both fairness and due process protections, the inadequate legal protections for immigrant children, and the heavy toll their work exacts through exposure to horrific persecution stories, heavy caseloads, and intrusive administrative oversight..