Sharyn Anleu & Kathy Mack in 20(1) Journal of Judicial Administration (2010) 3-17, drawing on the Australian Survey of Social Attitudes [AuSSA] -
a very large proportion of Australians regard the work of courts as important to their community, a view which is shared by the judiciary. A desire to undertake work of value to the community was an important factor for many in the judiciary to undertake that role, and most are satisfied with the importance to society of their work.
However, experience with the courts is very limited among the Australian public, and the lack of direct knowledge may contribute to low levels of confidence, especially if the primary source of information is media reports. It is important to recognise that general questions about confidence tend to produce overall negative responses. Specific questions generate a more complex picture: Australians are almost equally split regarding their confidence in the criminal courts to deal with matters fairly – 52% express a great deal or quite a lot of confidence while 48% express not very much or no confidence. Over two-thirds of respondents express confidence in criminal courts to have regard for defendants' rights compared with less than half who think courts have regard for victims’ rights. Four-fifths (78%) express not very much or no confidence in the criminal courts to deal with matters quickly, and there is widespread agreement among the AuSSA respondents.
Public confidence in the courts (or lack thereof) may be derived, in part, from an assessment about whether the courts and judicial personnel are performing their roles appropriately and whether they possess the relevant skills for judging. One important judicial role is sentencing persons convicted of crime. A large majority of Australians agree that people who break the law should be given stiffer sentences and a clear majority believe that judges should reflect the (presumably more punitive) views of the public when sentencing. Australian attitudes are ambivalent about whether "courts should emphasize solving social problems more than punishing offenders". Nearly four in 10 Australians agree the court should emphasise solving social problems more than punishing offenders, while one-third disagree. Other research finds that public views are more nuanced about the role of sentencing work and that informed publics share judicial views regarding appropriate sentences.
Moving away from areas where there is a high degree of media attention, such as sentencing, other areas of similarity between the attitudes of the judiciary and the public emerge, particularly in relation to the important skills and qualities for judicial office. In general, similar proportions of the judiciary and the Australian public regard general life experience, diligence/hard work and compassion as essential or very important for the judiciary, while higher proportions of the public regard legal knowledge as essential, compared with the judiciary.
The most striking difference is with impartiality, regarded as essential by over 90% of the judiciary contrasting with two-thirds of the Australian public. These findings may suggest that some, though not most, Australians may have a somewhat different understanding of a core attribute of the judiciary and judicial decision-making compared with judicial views. Nonetheless, well over half of the AuSSA and the judicial respondents agree that legal knowledge and impartiality are integral to judicial work.
The findings about impartiality and sentencing may be linked: when imposing sentence, the law requires judges and magistrates to give impartial consideration to a much wider range of factors than simply punishment, which may result in sentences which appear lenient to the large proportions of Australians who indicate they want stiffer sentences. The legal view which emphasises the paramount importance of impartial application of law to judicial decision-making may be an aspect of the judicial role which some members of the public either do not fully appreciate or do not accept.
While responses to concrete, specific questions about judicial work demonstrate more congruence between the general public and the judiciary, especially in relation to the necessary skills for judicial work, there are still significant areas where public and judicial attitudes differ, which can be factors in reducing public confidence in the courts.
