What lessons can be learned from international experience in judicial education? What are the essential elements in planning successful judicial training programmes? This article by the Centre for Judicial Studies, Australia, analyses case studies in Australia, Mongolia, Pakistan, the Philippines and the UK.
Judicial education is important for developing judicial competence, and improving the quality of justice and the performance of courts. The institutionalisation of judicial education is very recent. It has seen an explosive growth through the World Bank, UNDP, and many bilateral donors’ support of legal and judicial reform projects. Judicial training is seen as a crucial component of promoting sustainable development through helping create a secure investment environment, consolidating judicial independence, and improving access to justice.
There are two juristic frameworks within which training programmes operate. The civil (continental) framework is structured around a careerist approach to judicial appointment. Judges are appointed from the ranks of law graduates for the term of their careers. This approach to training is structured, comprehensive and quality assured but expensive and may be rigid. The common law framework is based on selection of judges from the ranks of experienced lawyers who remain in office without promotion until retirement. It is accessible, practical and court-focussed but provides a less comprehensive framework of structured training. Educational issues and challenges of practice are universal and can be observed in both frameworks despite their differences. Issues include:
- The support and leadership of the Ministry of Justice affects the success and sustainability of programmes.
- Balancing the need to have adequate and sustainable resourcing from government with preserving judicial independence.
- Integrating judicial training with broader sector-wide law and justice development.
- Collaborating with educators to develop technically sound curricula. The development of judicial training currlcula is generally uneven and unsystematic.
- Despite the global explosion of programmes there is little or no monitoring and evaluation of their effectiveness and contribution to judicial performance
Judicial learning is complex. Judges, as both adults and professionals, exhibit learning characteristics and practices that are distinctive, significant, and have direct implications for educators. A distinctive model of judicial education is needed. This should be based on the foundations of adult learning and professional development, but reflect the distinctive characteristics of judges as learners. Programmes should be court-owned and judge-led. They should provide a range of conferences, seminars, workshops and published resources that are practical, address the needs of judges for competency, and improve judicial performance. Specific recommendations include:
- establishing a governance structure for the judicial training body, chaired by the Chief Justice, and including representatives of the judiciary, educational experts, and community interests;
- involving members of the judiciary in the planning, establishment, management, and evaluation of the judicial training programme;
- using a programme cycle of needs assessment, curriculum design, delivery, and evaluation stages to plan methodically and systematically;
- using matrix planning defined by content and level of application to assess and formulate the provision of education services to meet diagnosed training needs;
- developing a Training of Trainers programme for judges; and
- designing and implementing effective systems for monitoring and evaluation based on a range of indicators measuring efficiency, effort and results.
