Judicial Accountability and Performance Indicators

Abstract

A considerable challenge for judicial administration is to ensure that contemporary expectations of accountability and efficiency remain consistent with the imperatives of judicial independence and the maintenance of the quality of justice. In this respect, the measurement of what a court does is a perfectly legitimate and, indeed, desirable activity. However, statistics on courts’ activities are difficult to compile and interpret, with measurements of cost and delay inherently problematic. Further, the use of performance indicators to determine whether or not a court is providing “value for money” is an approach which fails to recognise that justice, in the sense of fair outcomes arrived at by fair procedures, is, in its essential nature, incapable of measurement. There is no measurable performance indicator for the quality of judicial decision-making. Moreover, performance indicators are, by their nature, partial. Furthermore, they distort the behaviour of the institution being measured. In this respect, the application of performance measurement to courts poses a threat to judicial independence and the rule of law. There is no case for the employment of performance indicators or concepts of “productivity” derived from entirely different spheres of activity, for such purposes as allocating resources or the determination of judicial remuneration.