By The International Association for Judicial Independence and World Peace published the Mount Scopus International Standards for Judicial Independence between 2007 and 2012. These were based on the Minimum Standards for the Independence of the Judiciary adopted in New Delhi in 1982 and the 1983 Montreal Universal Declaration on the Independence of the Judiciary. Other influences they cite for standards are the 1985 United Nations Basic Principles of the Independence of the Judiciary, the Burgh House Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary in International Law, the Tokyo Law Asia Principles, the Council of Europe Declarations on the Independence of the Judiciary (in particular the Committee of Ministers` recommendation to member states on independence, B. Effectiveness and Role of Judges), the 2002 Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct and the American Bar Association`s review of its ethical standards for judges. [22] In the first case, the tribunal must seek to remain independent of parties who may seek to undermine its independence through various means, such as corruption or intimidation. In this situation, the government is a friend of the independence of the judiciary: it can be expected to defend the independence of the court against the efforts of the parties. It has been argued that the development of judicial independence implies a cycle of national law with implications for international law and international law for national law. [9] This will be done in three phases: the first phase is characterized by the national development of the concept of judicial independence, the second by the international dissemination of these concepts and their implementation in international law, and the third by the transposition of these new international principles of judicial independence into national law. [9] This ambiguity in the meaning of the term judicial independence has added to pre-existing controversies and confusion as to its correct definition, leading some scholars to question whether the term serves a useful analytical purpose. In general, there are two sources of disagreement. The first is conceptual, in the form of a lack of clarity about the kind of independence that courts and judges can possess.
The second is normative, in the form of disagreements about the type of judicial independence desirable. The independence of the judiciary in Singapore is protected by the Constitution of Singapore, laws such as the State Courts Act and the Supreme Court of Justice Act, as well as common law. In order to preserve the independence of the judiciary, Singapore law provides that special procedures must be followed before the conduct of Supreme Court judges can be reviewed by Parliament, and that their indictment for misconduct cannot be curtailed. Under the law, state bailiffs, as well as the Registrar, Deputy Registrar and Deputy Registrars of the Supreme Court, enjoy immunity from civil actions and cannot hear and decide cases of personal interest to them. The common law provides similar protections and handicaps to Supreme Court justices. Canada enjoys a degree of judicial independence, enshrined in its Constitution, which provides Supreme Court justices with various guarantees of independence under sections 96 to 100 of the Constitution Act, 1867. These include the right to employment (although the constitution has since been amended to introduce mandatory retirement at age 75) and the right to a salary set by the Canadian Parliament (as opposed to the executive branch). In 1982, section 11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms extended some degree of judicial independence to lower courts specializing in criminal (but not civil) law, although in Valente v. The Queen noted that these rights are limited. However, they involve ownership, financial security, and some administrative control.
In addition, the independence of the judiciary is guaranteed by the 2005 Constitutional Reform Act. [35] In order to promote the independence of the judiciary, the selection process is designed to minimize political interference. The process focuses on senior members of the judiciary, not politicians. Part 2 of the Courts, Tribunals and Enforcement Act 2007 aims to increase diversity in the justice system. [ref. needed] The independence of the judiciary is generally seen as a means to an end rather than an end in itself. Most would probably agree that the ultimate goal can be described as a fair and impartial resolution of disputes in accordance with the law. However, if that is indeed the objective, then the quest for judicial independence is the subject of several objections. (11) The term of office of judges, their independence, security, adequate remuneration, conditions of employment, pensions and retirement age shall be adequately protected by law.
Impeachment is a powerful check the legislature has over the judicial and executive branches of government. In the case of judicial independence, removal provides some assurance that judges who act unlawfully can be removed from office. Third, judges cannot be punished with a pay cut. This certainty allows judges to decide each case strictly on the basis of the legal issues they face, no matter how unpopular their decisions are. While UK domestic law had previously influenced the international development of judicial independence, the UK`s Constitutional Reform Act 2005[16] marked a change, with international law now having an impact on UK law. The Constitutional Reform Act radically reformed government control over the administration of justice in England and Wales; It is important to note that he abolished the office of Lord Chancellor, one of the oldest constitutional offices in the country, charged with a combination of legislative, executive and judicial functions. [17] The Lord Chancellor was Speaker of the House of Lords; as a member of the Executive and a member of the Supreme Cabinet; and as head of the judiciary. Historically, the appellate function has had a connection with the executive branch because of the types of cases that are typically heard – impeachment and hearing crimes against peers. [18] The Constitutional Reform Act established new dividing lines between the Lord Chancellor and the judiciary by transferring all judicial functions to the judiciary and entrusting the Lord Chancellor only with administrative and executive matters. In addition, the Constitutional Reform Act replaced the Lord Chancellor with the Lord Chief Justice as Head of the Judiciary, separated the Judicial Appeal Commission of the House of Lords from the Legislative Parliament, reformed it as the Supreme Court and established a Judicial Appointments Commission. [17] The creation of the Supreme Court was important because it eventually separated the Supreme Court of Appeal from the House of Lords. [19] Independent judges protect our freedoms, but it is also important to protect the people from an overly powerful court.
Independently, judges could throw people in jail or change laws on a whim. In Hong Kong, the independence of the judiciary has been a tradition since the territory became a British Crown colony in 1842. Following the transfer of sovereignty from Hong Kong to the People`s Republic of China in 1997 under the Sino-British Joint Declaration, an international treaty registered with the United Nations, the independence of the judiciary, as well as the maintenance of English common law, were enshrined in the territory`s constitutional document, the Basic Law. [30] [31] In the Middle Ages, under the Norman monarchy of the Kingdom of England, the king and his Curia Regis had judicial power.