ABSTRACT
This chapter shows why the demands for judicial accountability have arisen, and discusses the difficulties associated with the concept of accountability when applied to the judiciary. It describes the judiciary's role in policy-making, self-management, corruption, bias, ineffectiveness and impeded access to justice. Policy intervention by the judiciary has been the leading cause of demands that the judiciary should somehow be held accountable. So far, political accountability as a means of underpinning the rule of law has envisaged the electorate holding to account those in government responsible for the proper functioning of the judiciary. It is rarely thought appropriate to hold judges politically accountable by making them run for office in a system of direct elections. Judicial transparency rests on information about three types of activity: adjudicative (transcripts, pre- and post-trial documents, trial exhibits, recordings, settlements, opinions and dockets); administrative (including court budgets, personnel, contracts and organizational matters); and personal (including salaries, personal finances and disciplinary matters).
