Continuing judicial education: the Australian experience[1]

The Honourable Justice J Allsop AO[2]

In this paper, the author begins by providing an overview of the Australian judicial system before comparing the processes for the appointment and removal of judicial officers in a common law, adversarial system such as Australia with the processes in civil law systems in which judging is preceded by specialised training. He then articulates the broad purpose of continuing judicial education within the constitutional requirements for the appointment and removal of judicial officers and gives a brief history of judicial education in Australia. The author outlines the various judicial education bodies and the educational opportunities available to judicial officers in Australia, and explains the national standard for judicial education. Finally, the author examines the education programs offered by the various judicial education bodies and how they are developed with a view to ensuring that sessions are both educationally sound and stimulating for judicial officers.


Judicial education is now an accepted part of judicial life in many countries. It is an enhancement of the … qualities necessary to the preservation of judicial independence … Judicial independence requires that the judicial branch is accountable for its competency and that proposition is now accepted as beyond debate.[3]

As with the need for continuing education in other professions, the need for continuing judicial education is now widely accepted in Australia. Judicial education bodies have provided programs for Australian judicial officers since the late 1980s. Unlike other professional education however, the purpose of continuing judicial education extends beyond the need to improve professional competence and performance. The ultimate purpose of judicial education is to improve the quality of justice within the paradigm of reconciling the “divergent and to some extent inconsistent requirements of public accountability, judicial independence, and efficiency in the administration of justice”.[4] Unless these requirements are balanced by excellent judicial performance, which is fostered by dedicated judicial education, public confidence in the justice system may be diminished. The preservation of public confidence in the impartial and independent administration of justice is a core element of the justice system and public confidence must be continually earned and replenished.[5]

The Australian judicial system

The Australian system of government has devolved from a mixture of the Westminster system and the political structure of the United States. In 1901, Australia became a federation or Commonwealth of six States, formerly British colonies. Today, power is divided between the Commonwealth, the six States and two self-governing mainland Territories. The Australian court system operates at the Commonwealth, State and Territory level. Within these jurisdictions, the judicial system is one of three branches of government comprising the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. There is a separation of the judicial branch from the other branches of government to provide a structural mechanism for supervision of the lawfulness of the exercise of power by the executive and the constitutionality of legislation by Parliament. This ensures that no branch of government exercises unfettered power or abrogates power to itself. Judicial independence is an inherent requirement of this system and is a central value of the rule of law. The safety, stability and economic prosperity of all Australians depends upon the maintenance of the rule of law by the judicial branch of government.[6] Within this system, the duty of a judge is “to administer justice according to the law, without fear or favour, and without regard to the wishes or policy of the executive government”.[7] Judicial officers, through judicial review of executive and legislative action, are often required to declare the limits of the powers of the other branches of government in order to give practical expression to the rule of law.[8] An essential attribute of judicial independence is judicial skill and knowledge.

Appointment and removal of judicial officers

Australia is a common law system in which judicial officers are appointed by the executive branch of government. A successful and lengthy legal career, usually as a barrister or solicitor or, sometimes, as a legal academic, is almost always a precondition for judicial appointment. Most judges are appointed aged above 50, some below the age of 50. It is very rare for anyone below 40 years of age to be appointed. Judicial appointments are based on merit.[9] The Australian system moves experienced legal professionals within an adversarial system to a judicial position. It is expected that the new judge has that stock of knowledge built up in his or her career so that he or she can commence work immediately. The place of judicial education at this point is to assist in the transition from advocate to impartial adjudicator.

This process is different from the civil law systems in countries such as France and Germany where judging is a career choice preceded by specialised training. In France for example, specialised judicial training is administered by the Ecole Nationale de la Magistrature (ENM) at Bordeaux for judicial candidates who have finished four years of law school.[10] In Germany, legal trainees may be ready for a judicial career around the age of 28 years after specialised academic and practical training. The paramount aim of German legal training is to produce qualified judicial officers, rather than counsel.[11] In civil law countries, there is a formalised structure of promotion for career judges and opportunities for promotion are of high interest.[12] Promotion to higher judicial office in Germany and France is based on the same principle of merit used for initial appointments. A German judge seeking promotion will be reviewed by higher judges on his or her aptitude, qualifications and professional ability and these are of great importance in the promotion process.[13] In Australia, there are no performance measures for a judicial officer for the purposes of promotion. Assessment of judicial performance comes through the perception of peers, the appeal process and by public scrutiny through the media and, where it exists, through a public complaints process as exists with the Judicial Commission of NSW.

In Australia there has been public discussion about whether the appointment of judges should rest solely with the executive.[14] Some have urged independent advisory bodies to recommend appointments.

Judicial appointments to Commonwealth courts

In 2008, the federal Attorney-General introduced new processes for appointing judges and magistrates to federal courts, including:

  • broad consultation to identify suitable persons

  • notification of appointment criteria

  • notices in the media seeking expressions of interest and nominations

  • the appointment of advisory panels to assess expressions of interest and nominations and to develop a shortlist of suitable candidates.

In 2009, a Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee of the national legislature inquired into Australia’s judicial system and the role of federal judges. The inquiry examined:

  • procedures for the appointment and method of termination of judges

  • the term of appointment, including the desirability of a compulsory retirement age

  • the merit of full-time, part-time or other arrangements.

The Committee recommended limited reform to the judicial selection and appointment process, including the adoption of a protocol for appointments to the High Court, greater transparency by publicising the number of nominations and applications received for each federal vacancy, and the wide advertising of vacancies.[15] The Federal Government announced in October 2010 that it would adopt each recommendation in part, but would preserve the appointment of judicial officers by the executive government.[16]

Judicial appointments in NSW

Vacancies for positions as a District Court judge, magistrate or specialist tribunal member are advertised in the media and a selection panel comprising the head of jurisdiction or authority, a retired judicial officer, a prominent community member and a leading member of the profession is convened to assess candidates. The selection panel makes recommendations to the Attorney General who advises the Governor about judicial appointments. The Governor, with the advice of the Executive Council, formally appoints a judicial officer under s 47 of the Constitution Act 1902 (NSW).

Removal of judicial officers for proved misbehaviour or incapacity

A judicial officer in Australia holds office during good behaviour. Since the Act of Settlement 1701 (UK), a judge enjoys security of tenure as a necessary protection against the undue influence of other branches of government and can only be removed from office following an address from both Houses of Parliament for proven misbehaviour or incapacity. Federally, this is reflected in s 72(ii) of the Australian Constitution 1901 whereby Parliament can only remove a judge on the ground of “proved misbehaviour or incapacity”. In NSW, s 53(2) of the Constitution Act 1902 provides that:

The holder of a judicial office can be removed from the office by the Governor, on an address from both Houses of Parliament in the same session, seeking removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.

In NSW, a judicial officer can only be removed following the tabling in both Houses of Parliament of a report by the Conduct Division of the Judicial Commission of NSW. The Conduct Division is constituted when a complaint made to the Judicial Commission about a judicial officer’s behaviour or ability is not summarily dismissed and is referred to the Conduct Division in accordance with s 21(1) of the Judicial Officers Act 1986. In December 2009, the federal Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee recommended the establishment of a federal judicial commission modelled on the Judicial Commission of NSW.[17]

Continuing judicial education

Purposes and aims of education in the context of the judicial method

Given that the grounds for removal of a judicial officer are for proved misbehaviour or incapacity, the necessary aims of judicial education must be to promote the highest standards of behaviour befitting judicial office and to foster judicial capacity. Because a successful legal career is a precondition for judicial appointment, judicial education is directed at already experienced legal professionals. The need is better expressed not as a need for judicial training, but rather for judicial education, which focuses on induction, orientation and transition to the Bench, and then on a continuous renewal of professional education and a sharpening of judicial skills. It is beyond doubt that the judicial function requires professional skills of a very high order.[18] A judicial officer is expected to gain competence in judicial skills, and judicial technique ranging from:

  • investigating facts and circumstances and applying correct legal principles to these

  • resolving evidentiary and procedural issues

  • determining the rights and liabilities of the parties

  • exercising fairness and where necessary, substantive equality, to parties

  • exercising impartiality in adjudication in an adversarial system

  • crafting comprehensible jury directions in criminal cases

  • providing oral or written reasons for decisions,

  • being subject to public and appellate scrutiny.

It is also necessary for judicial officers to have appropriate knowledge in the subject matters of the disputes to be heard. Appellate court judges are required to formulate, elucidate and elaborate general principles of law and where relevant, policy, and identify possible error and correct possible injustice.[19]

The overarching purposes of judicial education are to facilitate just and efficient dispute resolution, and to preserve judicial independence and accountability. Judicial education provides a mechanism to achieve this by equipping judges to serve their courts, which in turn, serve the community. Both the individual accountability of judicial officers and the institutional accountability of courts enhance the quality of the administration of justice.[20] To preserve judicial independence, it is essential that the continuing education of judicial officers is in the hands of those who will safeguard that independence.[21] In Australia, judicial education is generally judge-driven and judge-led. By providing an effective program of judicial education, judicial independence and accountability are not opposed, but work towards the same end.[22]

History of continuing judicial education in Australia

Formal judicial education commenced in common law countries in 1963 when the American National Judicial College was established and then Chief Justice Warren Burger called for judges nationally to participate in continuing judicial education.[23]

Australia followed the North American lead some 20 years later with the formation by judges of the Australian Institute of Judicial Administration (AIJA) in 1975.[24] In his 1983 Boyer lectures broadcast on ABC radio, then Federal Court Justice Michael Kirby called for formalised judicial education to assist newly appointed judicial officers in their transition to the Bench. It took another decade before any permanent funding and infrastructure was dedicated to judicial education with the formation of the Judicial Commission of NSW in 1986 and the AIJA Secretariat in 1987. Arguably, judicial education was slow to take off in Australia because, as judicial officers were appointed late in their professional careers, they were already seen as experienced lawyers who specialised in court work. Calls to impose any formal mechanism were also initially perceived by the judiciary as a threat to their independence. In 1986, legislation was enacted in NSW to establish the Judicial Commission of NSW as both a judicial complaints and judicial education body run by the executive government. The legislation was enacted in response to a perceived crisis in public confidence in the justice system in the wake of criminal charges against a High Court judge, the conviction of a former Chief Magistrate, and allegations of inconsistent sentencing in the District Court.[25] Judicial pressure on the government led to substantial amendments to the legislation and the Judicial Commission was ultimately established as an independent statutory corporation with its staff wholly independent of the Public Service. The vitally important features of the Judicial Commission are that it is independent from the executive and it deals with both complaints about judicial officers and the education of judicial officers.

During the next decade, Australian judges at the most senior level began to publicly acknowledge the need for formalised judicial education resulting in the disappearance of any debate about the Commission’s justification or controversy about its establishment.[26] In 1991, Victoria enacted legislation to establish a Judicial Studies Board, but this body did not eventuate due to lack of funding. The Judicial College of Victoria began operating in November 2002 to provide judicial education, professional development, publications and resources for judicial officers. It is funded by the State government as is the Judicial Commission of NSW. No other Australian State has a similar dedicated organisation.

At the national level, the Judicial Conference of Australia was formed in 1993. Its governing council is drawn from judges and magistrates from all Australian jurisdictions. The Judicial Conference organises annual colloquiums and produces resources and publications in relation to the “public interest in maintaining a strong and independent judiciary within a democratic society that adheres to the rule of law”.[27] The National Judicial College of Australia (NJCA) was established in May 2002 following an inquiry and recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission.[28] This organisation is controlled by a governing council, the majority of whose members are judicial officers and is funded by contributions from the Commonwealth and some State and Territory governments. The College provides professional development for Commonwealth judicial officers and other participating States and Territories and plans and coordinates judicial education at the national level for federal and State judicial officers. The AIJA continues to provide research, educational resources and publications in relation to court administration and the judicial system. The AIJA has developed courses in relation to gender awareness, cultural awareness, court technology and case management. It is funded by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General and by subscription income from its membership.

Along with formal judicial education bodies, most courts in each federal and State jurisdictions, with the exception of NSW, have had for many years their own education committee, and many courts run annual conferences and professional development seminars.

Interaction of Australian judicial education bodies and the National Standard for judicial education

Because Australia’s justice system operates at both the federal and State levels, and there are different court structures at each State, Territory and Commonwealth level, formalised judicial education has developed incrementally in federal and State jurisdictions over the past two decades. Until the formation of the NJCA in 2002, there had been no attempt to plan and coordinate judicial education at a national level unlike the position in Britain, Canada, America and New Zealand.[29]

This is not to say that there has been no cooperation between the State and national bodies. In 1994, the first national Judicial Orientation Program was jointly conducted by the AIJA and the Judicial Commission of NSW. This continues to be held annually (sometimes twice a year) and is now a joint presentation of the NJCA, the Judicial Commission of NSW and the AIJA.

The diffuse structure of judicial education in Australasia became the focus of a review undertaken by the NJCA in 2009. Mr George Thomson of the National Judicial Institute of Canada conducted a wide review into the NJCA’s work and he recommended a more collegiate approach to judicial education by the various State and national bodies, referred to above, together with the New Zealand Institute of Judicial Studies. The Australian Council of Chief Justices has endorsed this approach. To achieve this objective, Mr Thomson recommended that curriculum development be made a priority and the various bodies agree as to which organisation would develop particular modules of education. The intention would then be for the organisations to share the programs they have developed with other organisations and trainers would be encouraged to assist in the delivery of these programs to all jurisdictions. The aim of this approach is to encourage maximum return from limited funding and resources.[30]

The Thomson review also led to two faculty development workshops being held in Australia in 2010. The focus of the workshops was to develop course design skills for judicial officers with the aim to establish a group of judicial officers with ongoing responsibility for course design. Judicial officers participating in the workshops were involved in designing a portion of a module using sound adult education design principles. The modules, once completed, may then be used in future by the participating judicial education bodies as part of their curriculum. Some of the topics included: oral decisions, decision-making, assessing witness credibility and reliability, solution-focussed judging, and leadership. It is expected that the groups will carry on with the development of their respective modules.

National and State judicial education bodies in Australia have different mandates but are now increasingly cooperating with joint programming and the regular exchange of information and ideas with each other and overseas education providers.

In October 2009, a meeting of Australian and New Zealand judicial education bodies agreed to contribute to an electronic clearinghouse/judicial library of past programs and other relevant materials which would be accessible by all judicial education bodies and by all judicial officers.[31]

The national standard

The NJCA initiated a process in 2004 to prepare and promote a national standard or benchmark for the amount of time and funding that should be available for each member of the Australian judiciary for professional development. This led to the development of the standard which has been endorsed by the Council of Chief Justices of Australia, Chief Judges, Chief Magistrates, the Judicial Conference of Australia, the Association of Australian Magistrates, the AIJA and judicial education bodies.[32] The standard was reviewed in late 2010, and following this review, the standard continues to be:

Each judicial officer should be able to spend at least five days each calendar year participating in professional development activities relating to the judicial officer’s responsibilities.

This standard need not be met in each year but can be met on the basis of professional development activities engaged in over a period of three years.

This standard can be met, in part, by self-directed professional development.

Judicial officers should be released from court duties to enable them to meet this standard. However, judicial officers should commit some private time to meet the standard.

The Judicial Commission of NSW

As noted above, the oldest judicial education body in Australia is the Judicial Commission of NSW. This had its origins in controversial circumstances with the State government’s announcement in 1986 to establish a body to examine complaints against judicial officers. Today, the Commission remains the only organisation in Australia to formally examine complaints against judicial officers. Any controversy about the Commission quickly disappeared with the wide acceptance of the Commission’s education program by the NSW judiciary.

The Commission’s major functions under the Judicial Officers Act 1986 are to:

  • assist the courts of NSW to achieve consistency in imposing sentences

  • organise and supervise an appropriate scheme for the continuing education and training of judicial officers,

  • examine complaints against judicial officers.

How the Judicial Commission designs and delivers judicial education

The Judicial Commission works closely with the education committees of each court in NSW to promote judge-led judicial education. This is in keeping with the Commission’s obligation to consult, and takes into account the benefit of participant involvement at various stages, including program design. These committees regularly meet to discuss the proposed judicial education programs for their particular court. The Judicial Commission’s professional staff attend education committee meetings and provide educational input and support. Additionally, a Standing Advisory Committee on Judicial Education (SAC) was established with a representative from each of the court committees. The SAC provides general guidelines and informs each jurisdiction of the activities in the various courts.

As well as working with the court education committees, the Judicial Commission consults widely, and shares information and ideas, with other Australian and international education providers. For example, the Commission actively participated in the October 2009 International Organization for Judicial Training (IOJT) conference. This conference attracted over 200 delegates from 48 countries. There were almost 60 speakers in plenary and smaller group discussion sessions. As most of the Australasian judicial education bodies were represented at the conference, it was an excellent opportunity to share approaches to the design and delivery of judicial education and build a network of judicial and other leaders in the field.

Program design

The Judicial Commission recognises that effective judicial education has to be based on sound adult education design principles and focus on experiential and interactive learning, that is, learning based on experience and enhancing judicial skills. The Commission has been influenced by the work of David Kolb and the National Judicial Institute of Canada.[33]

The content of these interactive sessions includes:

  • communication skills

  • courtroom management skills

  • efficiency skills

  • judgment writing skills,

  • social and cultural awareness training.

The Commission continues to provide some traditional “black letter” style law sessions and material to update judicial officers on current legal developments and emerging trends.

Although not universally agreed in Australia, the Judicial Commission’s view is that examining complaints about judicial officers allows the Commission to monitor patterns in the nature and scope of complaints that may be addressed in specific judicial education sessions. Information gathered from complaints is used to develop specific education sessions on topics such as effective courtroom communication, domestic violence, sexual assault issues and cultural awareness training.

To achieve its statutory objectives, the Commission provides, or assists the courts in the provision of, conferences, seminars, field trips, interactive educational sessions, an Aboriginal cultural awareness program, a 360 degree feedback program for judicial officers, a voluntary mutual observation program for magistrates, publications, computer training and online and printed resources to promote a consistent approach to sentencing and to meet the specific research requirements of individual courts.

Conferences, seminars, field trips, skills-based sessions

The Commission offers an extensive conference and seminar program for judicial officers, ranging from induction courses for new appointees to specialist conferences on specific aspects of law, procedure and judicial skills and techniques. The conferences and seminars organised by the Commission also frequently cover matters of wider community interest, including social concerns.

The scheme of education presently covers 39 different programs for the five courts of NSW, which include pre-Bench training for newly appointed magistrates and computer training sessions.

Some educational sessions are held during court time; many others are conducted after court hours and on weekends in judicial officers’ own time. Approximately 1550 days of continuing judicial education were attended by judges and magistrates between July 2009 and June 2010. Attendance by judicial officers at the Commission’s programs is voluntary.

The Judicial Commission, along with other judicial education bodies in Australia, has conducted successful judgment writing and oral decisions workshops for judicial officers in recent years. These interactive workshops help participants develop and refine their ability to write and deliver clear, concise, well-structured judgments.

The Commission has also offered judicial officers the opportunity to participate in field trips, visits to gaols and correctional centres, and weekend visits to Aboriginal communities with the aim of increasing awareness among judicial officers about contemporary Aboriginal society, customs and traditions, and their effect on Aboriginal people in the justice system. Other Australian judicial education providers run similar programs.

Published material

The Commission’s conference program is supplemented by an active publishing program. The Judicial Commission provides to each NSW judicial officer a full range of publications on appointment, including:

  • a bench book relating to their court’s practice and procedure (Local Court Bench Book or Criminal Trial Courts Bench Book)

  • Sentencing Bench Book

  • Equality before the Law Bench Book

  • Civil Trials Bench Book

  • Sexual Assault Handbook

  • Judicial Officers’ Bulletin

  • The Judicial Review

  • Sentencing Trends and Issues papers

  • education monographs

  • research monographs

  • conference paper database.

All of the bench books and some of the monographs and journals are also available online on the Commission’s intranet for judges (see JIRS below) and on the Judicial Commission’s website. These are produced or updated and distributed periodically.


The Judicial Information Research System (JIRS) is an online decision support system available for all NSW judicial officers. It contains information on all aspects of sentencing law, including case law, legislation and sentencing statistics. It is designed to provide judicial officers with timely information to assist in decision-making and is updated regularly. JIRS is the most effective and direct way to communicate information about the latest legal developments. The system operates as an intranet.

Effective presentation

The Judicial Commission has designed a checklist to assist presenters in designing their presentations to make them educationally sound and more likely to be interesting and useful to the audience. It is provided to presenters in a number of the State’s courts and has been a useful resource.

Evaluation of education sessions

All educational sessions conducted by the Judicial Commission are evaluated for their effectiveness in order to:

  • ensure that the sessions provide useful assistance and benefits to judicial officers in the performance of their professional duties,

  • provide feedback to presenters to ensure their sessions meet the needs of judicial officers.

All judicial officers are encouraged to provide feedback based on specified learning objectives for each educational activity by completing evaluation forms. The evaluation forms seek feedback on:

  • the extent to which the learning objectives were met

  • the program’s usefulness and relevance

  • the appropriateness of the content of sessions and materials

  • the mode of program delivery,

  • any improvements which may be made for future programs.

The evaluation form also asks for suggestions for themes or topics for future activities relevant to judicial officers. Comments made by participants are confidential, although feedback based on participants’ comments may be made available to the presenters, but not the verbatim comments.

An evaluation report is prepared for the confidential review of each court’s Education Committee, and is based on a summary of the formal evaluation instrument completed by the participants and further observations provided from presenters and the Judicial Commission’s Education Director.

The future of judicial education in Australia

The aims of judicial education will continue to be the promotion of the highest standards of behaviour befitting judicial office and to foster judicial capacity and skills. The purposes of judicial education will continue to be the development of judicial skills, the preservation of judicial independence and to provide individual and institutional accountability. Australian judicial education providers are now slowly but surely working towards a more collegiate and national approach to the design and delivery of education programs which will meet the diverse needs of judicial officers.

[1] Paper presented at the International Forum on Judicial Training, National Judges College of China, 8–10 June 2011, Beijing. Previously published in [2013] Leg Ed Digest 38; (2013) 21(3) Legal Education Digest 18 and (2012) 10 TJR 439.

The author wishes to thank Ms Kate Lumley, Publishing Manager, Judicial Commission of NSW, and Ms Ruth Windeler, former Education Director, Judicial Commission of NSW, for their assistance in the preparation of this paper.

[2] Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Australia.

[3] R Nicholson, “Judicial independence and accountability: can they co-exist?” (1993) 67 ALJ 404 at 425.

[4] Lord Hailsham, “Democracy and judicial independence” (1979) 28 University of New Brunswick Law Journal 7 at 8.

[5] J Spigelman, “President’s foreword”, Judicial Commission of NSW, Annual Report 2009–10, 2010, p 6. See M Gleeson, “A core value” (2007) 8(3) TJR 329.

[6] W Martin, “Future directions in judicial education” (2011) 10(3) TJR 277.

[7] M Gleeson, “Performing the role of the judge” (1998) 10(8) JOB 57.

[8] Gleeson, “A core value”, above n 5, p 341.

[9] J Spigelman AC, “Judicial appointments and judicial independence” (2008) 17(3) JJA 139.

[10] See B McKillop, “The judiciary in France — reconstructing lost independence”, in H Cunningham (ed), A fragile bastion: judicial independence in the nineties and beyond, Education Monograph 1, Judicial Commission of NSW, Sydney, 1997, p 113.

[11] S Nehlep, “A glance at the far side: a comparative analysis of the role and powers of judges in German and English criminal trials” (2005) 7(2) TJR 181 at 182.

[12] ibid at 188.

[13] ibid.

[14] The parameters of this debate are noted in R Sackville, “The judicial appointments process in Australia: towards independence and accountability” (2007) 16 JJA 125. For a critique of the traditional appointments process, see R McColl, “Women in the law” (2006 Winter) Bar News 38.

[15] Australia, Parliament, Senate, Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, Australia’s Judicial System and the Role of Judges, Report, 7 December 2009, pp 14, 25, Recommendations 3 and 4.

[16] The government’s response was tabled in the Federal Parliament on 25 October 2010.

[17] Australia’s Judicial System and the Role of Judges, above n 15, p 95, Recommendation 10.

[18] A Mason, “The appointment and removal of judges” in Cunningham (ed), above, n 10, p 1 at p 5.

[19] ibid p 6; M Gleeson, “The role of a judge in a representative democracy” (2008) 9(1) TJR 19 at 23; “The judicial method: essentials and inessentials” (2010) 9(4) TJR 377 at 384; R French, “The judiciary in an age of global interdependence”, paper presented at the International Association for Court Administration Conference, 15 March 2011, Bogor, Indonesia, at, accessed 24 May 2021.

[20] Martin, above n 6, p 279.

[21] M Gleeson, “The future of judicial education” (1999) 11(1) JOB 1 at 2.

[22] M Gleeson, “Judicial accountability” (1995) 2(2) TJR 117.

[23] L Armytage, Educating judges: towards a new model of continuing judicial learning, Kluwer Law International, The Hague, 1996, p 13.

[24] Now the Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration.

[25] A Riches, “Continuing judicial education in NSW” (1988) 6(2) The Journal of Professional Legal Education 150; K Lumley “From controversy to credibility: 20 years of the Judicial Commission of New South Wales” (2007) 19(9) JOB 73 at 74.

[26] See for example, Gleeson, above n 21; Mason, above n 18; J Spigelman, “Dealing with judicial misconduct” (2003) 6(3) TJR 241 at 248.

[27] See Judicial Conference of Australia website at, accessed 24 May 2021. [Note: The Judicial Conference of Australia changed its name to the Australian Judicial Officers Association in 2020, see, accessed 3 June 2021.]

[28] Australian Law Reform Commission, Managing justice: a review of the federal civil justice system, ALRC Report 89, 2000, pp 201–203, Recommendation 8.

[29] Martin, above, n 6; S Kenny, “Judicial education in Australia”, paper presented at the First Australasian Judicial Educators Forum, 11–14 February 2003, Philippine Judicial Academy, Manila. The United States has the National Judicial College, founded in 1963, and the Federal Judicial Center, founded in 1967, as the education and research agency for the federal courts. Since 1979, the United Kingdom has had the Judicial Studies Board (JSB), which in April 2011 was subsumed into the Judicial College. The Judicial College is directly responsible for the development and delivery of judicial education in the Crown, county and higher courts in England and Wales and to tribunal judges and members who come under the leadership of the Senior President of Tribunals. Canada has the National Judicial Institute, founded in 1988, which is both the primary provider of education programs and has overall responsibility for the coordination of judicial education in Canada. New Zealand has the New Zealand Institute of Judicial Studies, established in July 1998, as the professional development arm of the New Zealand judiciary which provides education programs and resources.

[30] Martin, above n 6, p 283.

[31] ibid; NJCA, Annual Report 2009–10, 2010, p 13.

[32] NJCA (prepared by Dr C Roper AM), A national standard for professional development for Australian judicial officers, 28 April 2006, at, accessed 24 May 2021.

[33] See for example D Kolb, Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1984; T Dawson, “Lessons learned for experiential, skills-based judicial education” (2008) 20(6) JOB 47.