Judicial independence
One method seen as promoting judicial independence is by granting life tenure or long tenure for judges, as it would ideally free them to decide cases and make rulings according to the rule of law and judicial discretion, even if those decisions are politically unpopular or opposed by powerful interests.
This power can be used, for example, by mandating certain action when the judiciary perceives that a branch of government is refusing to perform a constitutional duty or by declaring laws passed by the legislature unconstitutional.
Under an independent judicial system, the courts and its officers are free from inappropriate intervention in the judiciary's affairs.
Furthermore, it is a pillar of economic growth as multinational businesses and investors have confidence to invest in the economy of a nation who has a strong and stable judiciary that is independent of interference.
[4] Constitutional economics studies issues such as the proper distribution of national wealth including government spending on the judiciary.
It is important to distinguish between two methods of corruption of the judiciary: the state (through budget planning and privileges) being the most dangerous, and private.
State corruption of the judiciary can impede the ability of businesses to optimally facilitate the growth and development of a market economy.
Self-interest, ideological dedication and even corruption may influence the decisions of judges without any checks and balances in place to prevent this abuse of power if the judiciary is completely independent.
Judges are not required to give an entire account of their rationale behind decisions, and are shielded against public scrutiny and protected from legal repercussions.
[14] Other common law countries, including Canada, Australia, and India, also adopted the British model of judicial independence.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has had a significant impact on the conceptual analysis of judicial independence in England and Scotland.
The Constitutional Reform Act dramatically reformed government control over the administration of justice in England and Wales; importantly, it discontinued the position of the Lord Chancellor, one of the country's oldest constitutional offices, who was entrusted with a combination of legislative, executive, and judicial capacities.
Historically, the appellate function had a connection with the executive branch due to the types of cases typically heard – impeachment and the hearing of felony charges against peers.
[28] Writing in 2007 Chief Justice of Australia Murray Gleeson stated that Australians largely took judicial independence for granted and the details were not matters of wide interest.
[31] Issues continue to arise in relation to dealing with judicial misconduct not warranting removal and incapacity of judges.
In 2013 Chief Justice of NSW Tom Bathurst identified the way in which judicial and court performance was measured as one of the most substantial risks to the separation of powers in Australia.
After the 1997 transfer of sovereignty of Hong Kong to the People's Republic of China pursuant to the Sino-British Joint Declaration, an international treaty registered with the United Nations, independence of the judiciary, along with continuation of English common law, has been enshrined in the territory's constitutional document, the Basic Law.
To safeguard judicial independence, Singapore law lays down special procedures to be followed before the conduct of Supreme Court judges may be discussed in Parliament and for their removal from office for misconduct, and provides that their remuneration may not be reduced during their tenure.
Supreme Court justices enjoy security of tenure up to the age of 65 years, after which they cease to hold office.
During the Middle Ages, under the Norman monarchy of the Kingdom of England, the king and his Curia Regis held judicial power.
King William III approved the Act of Settlement 1701, which established tenure for judges unless Parliament removed them.
[38] In order to try to promote the independence of the judiciary, the selection process is designed to minimize political interference.
[citation needed] Until 1 January 2010, the legal profession was self-regulating; with responsibility for implementing and enforcing its own professional standards and disciplining its own members.
John Adams equated it with quamdiu se bene gesserint in a letter to the Boston Gazette published on 11 January 1773,[40] a phrase that first appeared in section 3 of the Act of Settlement 1701 in England.
