Diligence as a criterion for judicial performance evaluation

Colbran, Stephen (2002) Diligence as a criterion for judicial performance evaluation. Griffith Law Review, 11(1), pp. 198-222.

View at publisher


This article examines aspects of judicial diligence as a measure of judicial performance. Consistent with US and Canadian approaches to judicial performance evaluation, five measures of judicial diligence were proposed to test several hypotheses. The results of a national barristers' survey indicate that appellate judges have significantly higher diligence ratings than trial judges. Female judges scored significantly lower diligence ratings than male judges. The survey indicates that judicial diligence deteriorates with judicial age or experience. Also, experienced barristers did not rate judicial diligence differently from inexperienced barristers. A national survey of judicial officers revealed that the proposed measures of judicial diligence were all regarded as important. These results are discussed in the context of judicial diligence as a potential measure of judicial performance

Impact and interest:

Citation counts are sourced monthly from Scopus and Web of Science® citation databases.

These databases contain citations from different subsets of available publications and different time periods and thus the citation count from each is usually different. Some works are not in either database and no count is displayed. Scopus includes citations from articles published in 1996 onwards, and Web of Science® generally from 1980 onwards.

Citations counts from the Google Scholar™ indexing service can be viewed at the linked Google Scholar™ search.

ID Code: 18783
Item Type: Journal Article
Refereed: Yes
ISSN: 1038-3441
Deposited On: 16 Mar 2009 01:03
Last Modified: 16 Mar 2009 01:03

Export: EndNote | Dublin Core | BibTeX

Repository Staff Only: item control page