Kenny, S C --- "Judicial Education in Australia" [2004] LegEdDig 54; (2004) 13(2) Legal Education Digest 8

Judicial Education in Australia

Justice S C Kenny

[2004] LegEdDig 54; (2004) 13(2) Legal Education Digest 8

Paper prepared for the First Australasian Judicial Educators Forum, 2003

There are numerous judicial education programs conducted in Australia each year. There is no single agency that is charged with responsibility for judicial education. Some programs are open only to members of a particular court or courts. Few are open to all judicial officers in Australia. There are some orientation programs for newly-appointed judges or magistrates, and there are also specific courses conducted as part of judicial continuing education. All judicial education in Australia is voluntary. Judges are not required to complete any induction or continuing education training.

The quality and availability of judicial education programs vary across federal, state and territory courts. Until recently, there has been no attempt in Australia by a national body to plan and co-ordinate judicial education at a national level.

Interest in judicial education has been slow to develop in Australia. Judicial education has not been organised in any well-ordered way. Why? Traditionally, judges in Australia were appointed in the later stages of their professional careers. Newly-appointed judges have not undertaken any special course of judicial studies to equip them for judicial life. Since they were previously practising lawyers, usually with considerable courtroom experience as advocates, it was assumed that they could take up the responsibilities of judicial office without further education. More recently, however, some judicial officers have been appointed at earlier stages in their careers, and from amongst lawyers in government service, legal academics and practitioners in private practice who were not advocates.

Today, whilst some judges may still adhere to what might be referred to as the traditional view of judicial education, many do not. There is evidence that at the highest levels of the judiciary and in government the need for judicial education is recognised. The National Judicial College of Australia was established in 2002 following the recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission and the National Judicial College Working Group. The purpose of the National Judicial College is to plan and co-ordinate judicial education at the national level. The College is to provide professional development. It may also conduct courses for senior court administrators, tribunal members and the like. It is intended that the College complement other judicial education programs and work with state judicial education bodies.

There is further evidence of a recognised need for improved judicial education in the recent creation at the state level of the Judicial College of Victoria. Although the Judicial College of Victoria and the National Judicial College are very recent arrivals in the field of judicial education, judicial education is not a novel idea in Australia. For some time too, there have been a small number of other institutions concerned with judicial education. Chief among them are the Judicial Commission of New South Wales and the Australian Institute of Judicial Administration. Both bodies have a number of functions, including continuing education and orientation programs.

In Australia, commitment to judicial education is likely to increase. At the community level, recent support for judicial education grew out of anxious debate about some apparently ill-advised comments by judges in socially sensitive cases. This perception also affects the nature of education programs that are offered or proposed. First, it is said that Australian society is a relatively diverse one and that, in discharging their responsibilities, judicial officers are likely to encounter situations, attitudes and values outside their personal experience. Secondly, as legislatures strive to keep pace with the complex ethical, social and other issues raised by developments in science and technology, so too must judicial officers. Thirdly, the role of judicial officers in Australia has changed (notably in the area of judicial review of administrative action) and is changing. Finally, the efficiency with which a case is conducted in court may depend upon the skill of the presiding judicial officer.

There is, it seems, a belief in government circles and amongst many judges in Australia that, bearing the above considerations in mind, the capacity of judicial officers to discharge their responsibilities would be enhanced by their participation in education programs that take account of such matters. It is, however, generally agreed that judicial education must be judicially controlled.